[Passed] Self-Checkout Act
- Thread starter Pallaith
- Start date
Only Pallaith can do that.
I’m particularly interested in the takes from our admins, this draft was inspired by their feedback and I’d like to know if I am on the right track here. @Former English Colony @Siwale @Great Bights Mum and heck @Dreadton
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
True, true, I don't do the IP checks anymore.
Nonetheless, to summarize a conversation from Discord, I shared that back in the day there was a time when we required RA members (now citizens) to disclose their WA nation if they had one, and allowed those who frequently switched WAs to submit a list of WA nations to a Registrar appointed by the Speaker. I shared also that with advances in NS API technology, a spreadsheet tracking such nations would now be easier to implement. I admitted that having a single person be the Registrar but not be an expert programmer did not work well in the past.
Personally I am not advocating for that, as I am unable to create such a spreadsheet, only to provide a copy of the old one's code for inspiration. But I did wish to share it as a possibility.
I will however say that the situation with frequently bypassing admin checks by RA vote is indeed burdensome and the difficulty of IP checks a real problem. The latest proposal, to have the VD re-check anyone failed by the admin check and possibly admit those who have WA nations is not a solution that raises great alarm for me. I do wonder if it will be challenged under the bill of rights at some point.
I also want to ask how implementation of the NPA exception would work?
Why are you alarmed by the current proposed solution? As we did with the previous iteration of this change, requiring the WA to be in TNP eliminates the concern about swapping it around and not knowing where it is, and makes mischief less likely because would-be troublemakers have to shackle themselves to TNP and lose their WA as an option in other places they may want to be part of.
I continue to disagree with this belief by some that such a requirement is a violation of the BoR. We are not requiring citizens to be members of the WA, we are requiring WA for people who would otherwise be rejected for citizenship. It is an alternative, not the main requirement.
Regarding the NPA implementation, that depends on the NPA. If the NPA continues to require a successful admin check for admitting soldiers then this exemption cannot ever be utilized. However, it is in place should NPA policy accommodate it. That’s the same as our current situation, by the way.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
I said it doesn't raise great alarm.
Oh. Whoops.
Is it a BoR violation for some citizens to be rejected by the VD and the admins and for some to be passed? If it’s not then how can you say this is?
They have no choice as to whether they pass or fail those checks but they can choose whether to counteract that failure in the case of the admin check by having WA in TNP. The choice is taking additional action or not doing so and suffering the same fate they would have suffered anyway.
Those checks are irrelevant to article 3 of the Bill of Rights which is the clause I am concerned with. They have nothing to do with maintaining a WA nation.
If they fail the check and are automatically denied citizenship their denial has nothing to do with maintaining a WA nation in TNP. However, if they fail the check and are rejected unless they maintain a WA nation in TNP, then effectively they are compelled to maintain one for participation in the RA to be open to them.
My point is that some people are being treated differently than others but with good reason - it’s a necessity of the process and even if some fail when others pass, everyone who fails is treated the same and goes through the same process. They aren’t being denied because they don’t have WA here - they’re being denied because they failed the admin check. What’s actually happening is they are being reconsidered by the VD, who may or may not pass them despite failing the admin check - and the VD isn’t explicitly looking for WA. They could fail that check even if they have WA here. It’s purely a binary question for the Speaker when processing applications, and it’s only there if someone failed the admin check. The key aspect of this is still the admin check, not their WA status.
Notwithstanding the "key aspect" of this bill, the fact is that people without a residential internet connection who wish to gain citizenship are required to hold WA status in order to do so. The fact that they can also be rejected for other, unrelated reasons is irrelevant to that fact. Someone who fails the admin check under this bill (and, in fact, under the current law, which is equally unconstitutional) cannot gain citizenship if they do not have a WA nation.
- Pronouns
- she/her
- TNP Nation
- Former English Colony
- Discord
- Erastide
I'm a bit confused, do you still expect admin responses in the cit thread to look the same? Like would it be admin denial --> interview request from Speaker? Or simply a statement if the internet access is questionable?
The revisions are acceptable to me. Thanks for taking my suggestion to heart.
@Comfed I know you like to bang the drum on the constitutionality of having a WA requirement. I will be more than happy to hear some practical alternative method for preventing puppet-flooding. And it is not only about Delegate elections - our entire beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights could be dismantled by a rigged RA. Then where would we be?
(This is where someone chimes in with, "Bring back the Codex!")
@Comfed I know you like to bang the drum on the constitutionality of having a WA requirement. I will be more than happy to hear some practical alternative method for preventing puppet-flooding. And it is not only about Delegate elections - our entire beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights could be dismantled by a rigged RA. Then where would we be?
(This is where someone chimes in with, "Bring back the Codex!")
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if the Constitution and BoR explicitly (or implicitly) states that such a requirement violates it (my admittedly amateurish reading of it would suggest yes), then that's that. Sadly it wasn't meant to contemplate a weird situation like the one we're in.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
The text is
With creative minds on both sides of the question I'm sure it's possible to read the proposed process as falling on either side of the line, but that would suggest this law would be an unfavorable court away from being ruled unconstitutional.
This clause of the bill of rights has also sometimes been seen as at odds with other practices otherwise seen as common sense, including requiring WA membership to vote on how the Delegate should cast their WA vote and requiring WA membership to vote in Delegate elections, specifically, when we had an elected Cabinet doing most of the governing. The clause remains.
With creative minds on both sides of the question I'm sure it's possible to read the proposed process as falling on either side of the line, but that would suggest this law would be an unfavorable court away from being ruled unconstitutional.
This clause of the bill of rights has also sometimes been seen as at odds with other practices otherwise seen as common sense, including requiring WA membership to vote on how the Delegate should cast their WA vote and requiring WA membership to vote in Delegate elections, specifically, when we had an elected Cabinet doing most of the governing. The clause remains.
The admin check would continue the way it is now. The difference is in what happens after that check is performed. The beauty of this change is that the admins don’t have to change their process at all, we’re just changing our response to your checks. And to be fair, the rest of the bill may involve you getting asked to take a look at people now and then beyond what you do now, but that’s unrelated to your question.
Following the revision I did to the bill there’s no longer an interview process, just want to be sure you take note of that.
It is unconstitutional for the same reason that this bill is unconstitutional. Currently, no one who fails the admin check can hold citizenship without constantly maintaining a WA nation in the region.
I think the security objections to this bill are overstated, especially the concerns regarding puppet flooding. Arguably, the WA requirement offers more security against puppet-flooding than the residential IP requirement simply because the latter does not offer us much security at all. As that requirement is unconstitutional, that is a non-starter. I would like to see broader discretion residing with the Vice Delegate to deny citizenship, and I would prefer that votes on rejections by the Vice Delegate be based on some sort of appeal or RA-initiated system rather than an automatic vote.
I’m not seeing any proof for your argument.
Sounds like you favor the status quo (aside from the bit with the WA requirement). A version of this bill that works mostly the same as my new version, but essentially creates a second type of VD check that is triggered by the applicant and has the same time frame as the current system. I frankly have twisted the VD’s role in this process as much as I care to do so, and disagree with creating what is essentially two versions of the VD check. It feels like you’re trying to have it both ways, by insisting on the VD over the Speaker for this other type of check, since the VD can look at this just as well as the usual stuff and because it’s all security related, but then try to have this stuff still be treated differently with a different set of rules. I’m afraid we may have reached the point where we have to agree to disagree. I will look forward to your vote against this bill.
I do not think I will vote against this bill. It is still an improvement over the current system, and the violation of the Bill of Rights in this bill is also in the current law. I just do not think that when the Vice Delegate performs a security check on those who have failed the admin check that it needs to have a vote if the Speaker performing the same function does not.
I have made a slight tweak, and am curious if that makes a difference to anyone. Previously I had the VD re-check anyone who ailed the admin check if the VD had already passed them, and then the Speaker would reject anyone that was passed by the VD if they didn't have WA in TNP. Now I have frontloaded the WA aspect by making it a condition of the VD's recheck. So now he VD won't automatically have to recheck everyone who fails the admin check. The Speaker is instructed now to reject anyone who fails the admin check and is not subject to the VD's recheck (which will be anyone who does not have WA in the region). The end result is the same, just without a scenario where the VD is doing second checks that are ultimately rendered meaningless. I don't think that was a big deal either way, and I'm not sure I'm sold on the wording since I feel the second version was a it cleaner, but it's there if people agree that's a better approach. With that I don't anticipate this bill needing any other changes, so I hope to get it to vote soon.
Well feel free to weigh in on the latest version during formal debate. I will not be requesting an expedited formal debate period at this time.
I motion for a vote.
@Bobberino
I motion for a vote.
@Bobberino
What this current version will do if made into law is effectively render the admin check meaningless for WA nations, and therefore essentially allow any WA nation to become a citizen. It is in fact much more drastic than the original version of the bill. But if that's what we as a region are fine with and what admin is fine with, then I don't see that I should oppose it.
I will say however that I don't particularly see the point of the VD's re-evaluation. Is it to get the VD to interview the applicant (which as we established before is not usually a step in the VD check)? If not, then what is the VD supposed to discover in the re-evaluation that they don't know already?
I will say however that I don't particularly see the point of the VD's re-evaluation. Is it to get the VD to interview the applicant (which as we established before is not usually a step in the VD check)? If not, then what is the VD supposed to discover in the re-evaluation that they don't know already?
Last edited:
I share Gorundu’s concerns, especially because this bill would make it hypothetically possible for someone to skate by on the classic excuse of “oh look at this nice game that my brother happened to recommend”. At least under the current law that cannot happen:
Last edited:
I didn’t even want the VD to be involved with this process, so it’s kind of funny Comfed over there shares your concerns - I was responding in no small part to his criticism with this change! The idea of re-evaluation is to cover scenarios where the VD passes someone and then admin goes on to fail them. Normally once your check is done, it’s done. Perhaps the VD would have reconsidered the conclusion of their check if they had known the admins would fail the applicant. Hence, a mandatory re-evaluation, though it’s only for WA nations (non-WAs would be a straight fail, no different from now). You claiming that it’s an instant override of the admin check for WA nations tells me that you don’t actually plan to change your practice at all as the VD when doing checks. It’s not really so much a concern to me that most of the time the VD will simply pass the applicant - I believe that most instances of failing the admin check come from harmless sign-ups anyway. But it’s not a guarantee that will happen - we could get a hardline VD who fails anyone who fails the admin check and reverses many of their initial passes.
How the VD takes the admin check fail into account is their business, and they can use whatever methods they prefer. The interview thing is not in the law anymore, but if they think that’s a good method they’re welcome to use it. They may decide the admin check fail is irrelevant - depends on the VD.
Again…we’re exploring this option because of critiques like yours that felt the VD was the most appropriate officer. If the VD accepts the brother excuse at face value that’s on them. I don’t believe these rare hypotheticals should preclude innocent applicants from becoming citizens. And I certainly don’t want an actual instance of relatives both being here suffering because of the bad actors. Our current law is in my view more restrictive than it needs to be in this regard.
@Bobberino let’s hold off on scheduling that vote just yet.
I will say that proxying is a crime (in TNP) so if anything that should certainly be an automatic fail.
How can any excuse for an IP match be offered that is reasonable to actually validate beyond taking the applicant at their word? If two people claim to be related and want to be citizens, it's unreasonable to expect them to prove that claim and it's unreasonable to expect the Vice Delegate to verify it. When the only credible evidence says that they are the same person, there is no reason to take them at their word and grant their citizenship.
I thought you read my bill? Confirmed proxies are automatically denied under the language of this very bill.
I will not advance a bill that would preclude us from granting Kronos and Maddie citizenship. There are times where the law forces you to disregard common sense and I would rather the law be set up so that our officials have the discretion to grant obvious and permissible exceptions rather than have their hands tied. I fully expect most instances of this type will result in rejection, as they probably should. I’m trying to learn from the mistake we made last year.
@Kastonvia @Chipoli I withdrew my motion pending resolution of the latest commentary on the bill.
My mistake.
So Kronos and Maddie are, what, one example out of everyone who has applied for citizenship? We basically just took them at their word too. I don't understand how there can be any more trust behind people with matching IPs who claim to be related other than "trust me bro".
One idea I would suggest that I think would be a reasonable compromise is that people who fail on the basis of an IP match could be granted a waiver at the discretion of the Vice Delegate subject to RA confirmation. That would allow what you call "obvious and permissible" exemptions to go through while still preserving some scrutiny. I do not imagine these would be as rubber-stamp like in nature as the current appeals system is because there's usually no credible evidence that these people are actually being deceptive which would not be true for people who are rejected on the basis of an IP match.
That’s unnecessarily complicated. If the VD isn’t doing a good job with checks there are ways to handle them. But the scrutiny is there - the VD cannot pass any applicant that fails the admin check without pointedly considering their situation. I don’t believe the VD is going to wave through the people in this scenario you’re so scared of, but which, again, I have almost never seen. And this is an area where the WA requirement is also very useful - if NS can tell two people in the same area are two different people, seems silly for us to get hung up over the ip thing.
It's not so much up to the VD as to how they want to perform the re-evaluation as it is up to the RA. Since it is still mandatory for the RA to vote on any VD rejections, the standard that the RA expects from the VD regarding rejections will be the standard that the VD adopts. Which brings me to the question of - what does the RA want the standard to look like for applicants who fail the admin check?
I think leaving the process ambiguous as it is in the current version of the bill is not going to do anyone favours - not the applicants, not the RA, and not the VD. The RA needs to decide what kind of applicants it's comfortable with letting in. Does it want to reject anyone with the slightest bit of suspicious behaviour? Does it want to reject people who fail to respond to an interview request? Does it want to leave the current strict criteria for VD rejections in place? If the former two, then perhaps there is a need to reconsider the current mandatory RA vote on VD rejections to avoid restarting the RA bureaucracy that this bill is trying to eliminate. If the latter, then I don't see what good a VD re-evaluation would do.
Whatever path the RA desires, what we don't want is for the RA to end up voting on citizenship applicants all the time, because that's what the bill is ultimately trying to fix. That's why I came to the conclusion that if the bill passes as is, it would lead to pretty much all WA nations being able to bypass the admin check - it's the only scenario where the RA doesn't end up still voting on a bunch of citizenship applicants.
Last edited:
You and I are familiar with how the VD does checks and know how rare it is to fail them. You have also seen how often the RA rubber stamps citizen appeals. I think the RA’s position on this matter is already clear, and the VD’s standards for failing applicants are also clear and restrictive. Avoiding constant citizen applicant votes is a goal yes, but not one I’m worried about. I don’t see the VD failing many more people under this system. The main goal is to have a mechanism to carefully consider applicants who need that consideration if the admin check is no longer one that guarantees rejection, a safety valve we can employ. In a way it reverses the current system - right now we have a safety valve that can let back in innocent rejected people but that isn’t always used. Now we have the safety valve to stop some people from getting in if we really need to use it. If the VD rubber stamps these things now, it will only be people with WA, because that gives us a default level of security as to them duplicating their account.
I see the RA passing this bill as commitment to a course of erring on the side of trusting and expanding access to most applicants, and requiring greater thought and care in denying citizenship to people. I think it is easier to encourage an applicant to join the WA than it is to explain an appeals process and have them wait for it to run its course. I think they’ve already been clear on how they want these checks to be done. And I believe that we elect officials to make judgment calls for daily operations and that the RA shouldn’t have to be involved in most of those cases, but has plenty of tools at its disposal to weigh in, including the mandatory vote on VD check fails. My repeated efforts on this subject show me that the RA doesn’t have a one size fits all approach, and that the specifics of carving out exceptions or defining processes for officials to use their judgment aren’t what matter. We have, in fact, tended to shy away from explicitly telling officials how to use their judgment and what means to use and I think that’s a good instinct we should continue to follow. I think you’re asking more of them than you need to, and officials should be prepared to use their own judgment and common sense, and accept the consequences if they stray too far past what the RA is willing to abide. They can always let you know if they don’t like what you did, but they aren’t psychics who can identify exactly what they won’t like in the future, and it’s a bit unfair to expect them to lay that out for you in a bill. You will never get an instruction booklet on how to exercise your judgment from the RA.
Really dude? The admins, obviously. And if it wasn’t sufficiently clear look at the preceding clause, where the Speaker can ask admin to check on citizens. Only the admins would be able to make this determination, and if they advise the Speaker that that’s what’s happening, clause 20 allows the Speaker to remove citizenship from the people involved.