[Passed] Self-Checkout Act

Pallaith:

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.

Click to expand...

Comfed:

My mistake again, I saw clause 20 without seeing it as immediately following clause 19. Apologies. >.>

Anyway, I don't have any further concerns beyond what I already said.

Click to expand...

Pallaith:

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.

Click to expand...

Comfed:

I second the motion to vote. (There’s a motion, right? )

Click to expand...

Pallaith:

Well I’m happy I could clear that up, admittedly I was a bit surprised by the question sorry about that.

I believe it is time for a vote.

@Skaraborg

Click to expand...

Skaraborg:

Motion recognised. The bill will now be at formal debate for 5 days, after which a vote will be scheduled.

Click to expand...

Pallaith:

Mr. Speaker, I would request a truncated formal debate period at this time. Would it be possible to schedule a vote for tomorrow evening?

Click to expand...

Skaraborg:

Why the rush?

Although I see no reason not to shorten the period, I find it good to have a bit of time at least for last minte inputs. I have therefore decided to shorten the formal debate so that it ends in 24 hours from that this post is sent out. A vote will then be scheduled promptly .

Click to expand...

Pallaith:

It’s your call in the end, but I have already taken this to the formal debate stage and pulled back for changes only for the engagement with this bill to reduce further and further as time has gone on. In the nearly 24 hours since I asked for the shortening of debate, nothing has come of it. This was already 24 hours after you first moved this to formal debate, during which nothing occurred. Considering you have now put an extra 24 hours on top of that, I’d hardly say this is rushing since we’re only saving two days.

I don’t know what to say, arbitrarily waiting more time doesn’t seem productive or useful to me. It’s possible someone will show up who missed the last month+ of discussion on this topic but those edge cases should hardly concern us.

Click to expand...