Vacate Proxy Notice Act

It's been asked a few times, and personally always annoyed me: why do admins need to post multiple threads informing everyone someone is using a proxy in the year of our Lord 2025? Proxying is a disqualifying condition for citizenship, is reported by admin during the admin check, and is hardly the boogeyman it was back in the heyday of TNP. My proposed change is simple: eliminate the redundant posting requirement. The warnings are spammy and immaterial to the general population, and the fact proxying occurs is already made clear to the officials who need to act on this information. This is a vestige of classic TNP that serves no meaningful purpose and creates extra work for admin and more clutter for the rest of us to ignore. Time for it to go.

Vacate Proxy Notice Act:

1. Chapter 1 of the Legal Code is amended as follows:

Section 1.10: Proxying:

23. "Proxying" is defined as use of a proxy server to render a forum user anonymous or any practice which allows a member multiple accounts.
24. Forum administrators will inform the Government and Court of Proxying they observe.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think this is a common sense change that reduces a burdensome and unnecessary requirement on admin.

Support.

Makes sense.

Not sure how I feel about this one. It's not just at citizenship application time that proxying is checked for that court notice. It's at any point. If I turned on a VPN seven years after getting citizenship, and an admin randomly checked my recent IPs and found it, that would trigger an alert.

Sil Dorsett:

Not sure how I feel about this one. It's not just at citizenship application time that proxying is checked for that court notice. It's at any point. If I turned on a VPN seven years after getting citizenship, and an admin randomly checked my recent IPs and found it, that would trigger an alert.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that. But what significance does that have exactly? I understand the concern with proxies is the ability to vote on multiple accounts. If someone was a citizen for years and uses a VPN one day, they still need another account to vote more than once, and how did they get that additional account given the citizenship check process already guarded against proxies?

I would also note that there’s nothing stopping admin from noticing this, making a note or even informing officials without this mandate. For instance, the law already contemplates this sort of thing in Chapter 6:

20. The Speaker may request an evaluation by forum administration on any existing citizen at any time, and forum administration may evaluate any existing citizen at any time and inform the Speaker of its findings.
21. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who are confirmed to be using a second forum account or evading a judicially-imposed penalty.

Obviously proxying isn’t an automatic disqualifier at this stage, but I can see how it might be relevant in an effort to determine if these conditions exist.

Considering that the public announcement of proxying really doesn’t accomplish anything (seeing as we don’t actually attempt to criminally charge any of them) and is arguably detrimental to security (in so far as competent bad actors will avoid it anyways or be informed that they didn’t) I would support this.

Support