Users browsing this thread:

***sandaoguo*** · 03-25-2015, 01:17 PM

As the previous Legal Question was withdrawn, but this remains a contentious legal issue, I am submitting this new Legal Question.

Question: Is citizenship lost due to the activity requirements set out in Article 1, Section 2.8, immediately when the requirements are not met, or only when an activity check is conducted and it is noticed that the requirements are not met?

----

I submit the following argument on behalf of myself as a member of the Administration Team.

Argument: Citizenship is not removed until an activity check is conducted, and failure to meet activity requirements is noticed, and citizenship masking is removed from the account.

The wording of the law makes it clear that the action of removing citizenship masking is a necessary component to the removal of citizenship:

Quote:8. Citizenship will be removed if a nation has not logged into the South Pacific forums for more than 30 days and made two posts within that period.

The law does not say that "citizenship is immediately lost" when a nation lapses in activity, but that it will be removed. The past year of practice has been that citizenship masking is removed when an activity check is conducted and the Administration Team notices that the citizen has been inactive. It is impossible for the Administration Team to be immediately aware whenever a person has not logged in for 30 days and posted twice. This information is noticed when a regular activity check is conducted.

As such, a person could very will be inactive for more than 30 days, but come back before an activity check is conducted and thus not have their citizenship removed. This is indeed how current procedures work. The Administration Team has regularly allowed citizenship to remain intact if we had simply failed to conduct an activity check in time.

The alternative is simply unworkable, and so it is unreasonable to consider it the legal standard. If citizenship is immediately removed the moment a citizen lapses in their activity requirements, this brings forth many difficult and sometimes unanswerable questions:

Say somebody is inactive for 35 days. Under this interpretation, they immediately lost their citizenship, regardless of whether or not anybody has noticed. However, they come back before the Administration Team noticed they were gone, and so their masking was never changed. They go on to vote in the Assembly, casting a tie-breaking vote that results in the passage of a new law. Is this law struck null and void, because that person was supposed to lose their citizenship immediately?
How long can a person continue to act as a citizen before somebody notices that they were supposed to have lost citizenship a while ago? Are all of their actions between then and now suddenly null and void?
When does the "30-day" activity window start and end, if citizenship is removed immediately, without the need for an activity check to be the deciding factor?

It is simply not reasonable to expect the Administration Team to notice immediately when a citizen lapses in their activity requirements. This is why activity checks are done. Our region has a history of being lenient with activity requirements. All past and present practices show that people have consistently been allowed to lapse in their activity requirements without losing citizenship, as long as they come back and meet those requirements before an activity check is conducted.

Not only is this part of our culture, it is simply the best way to manage activity requirements with the tools we have. It makes no sense to argue that the law was written in a way that the Administration Team is required to be aware immediately when activity requirements aren't met, and immediately de-mask a citizen in that moment. This is not humanly possible, and we lack the tools to make it possible.

Therefore, I believe that the Court can only reach one reasonable conclusion: Citizenship remains intact until such a time that an activity check is conducted, a lapse in activity requirements is noticed, and the citizenship masking is officially removed.

Edit: Additionally, I would like to submit this court opinion from The North Pacific that dealt with a nearly identical issue, in hopes that it may be of use to the Court: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/...&t=7230575

(This post was last modified: 03-25-2015, 01:39 PM by Tsunamy.)

TAC Saxton · 03-25-2015, 01:25 PM

I would like to submit a short amicus brief on the matter.

These "monthly checks" are not mentioned in The Charter or The Code of Laws. As such, there is no legal grounds for "monthly checks" as absolute in matters of citizenship.

I am a Super Villain

03-25-2015, 02:45 PM

I submit an amicus brief on behalf of myself.

The Charter clearly states that "citizenship will be removed. . ." What the Charter does not mention is citizenship masking. I believe that there is a difference between citizenship and the masking involved within, as the admins can give Citizen masking to anyone they like who has joined the forums, but choose to give it to those who meet the citizenship requirements.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

***sandaoguo*** · 03-25-2015, 02:53 PM

^ That is really a distinction without difference. If somebody comes back after inactivity, and they were never demasked, you will *never* know that they were inactive.

Masking the primary means of knowing if somebody is a citizen. Our forum permissions are not based on any other means.

It should also be pointed out, Henn, that masking is the *only* way we record citizenship. We do not have a maintained list separately from the list of who is masked.

(This post was last modified: 03-25-2015, 03:03 PM by Tsunamy.)

Hopolis · 03-25-2015, 05:05 PM

As we've had quite a few questions in a short space of time, I thought it would be worthwhile posting just to acknowledge that the question has been seen.

**Farengeto** · 03-29-2015, 01:17 PM

The Court has chosen to hear this legal question. All interested parties will have 72 hours to submit any further amicus briefs.

~~Wolf~~ · 03-30-2015, 03:59 PM

I guess the real question here is, does simply giving someone the "citizen" mask actually make them a legal citizen, or is there more to it than that?

***sandaoguo*** · 03-30-2015, 04:09 PM

That isn't really the question. There are legal prerequisites to gaining citizenship, and one is not a citizen until those prerequisites are met and the masking is given. (After all, you cannot vote in the Assembly until you're masked.) The admins (and perhaps soon the Vice Delegate) cannot give out masking when the prerequisites are not met.

Similarly to the fact that you cannot exercise citizenship until the masking has been given, you can exercise them until you meet the prerequisites for losing citizenship and your masking is removed.

03-30-2015, 04:36 PM

Previous Amicus Brief:

If the Court will entertain an Amicus Brief, . .

Citizenship is not determined by the administrator who does the checks. The checks are for removing the citizenship mask. Citizenship itself is determined by how many posts were made and how long they have logged into the forums. The Charter does not give the admins the power to remove citizenship whenever they do the check, as this would mean they could sidestep it for months, and be able to influence the elections is a large part of Citizens who log on only for elections to vote for the admins do not have their citizenship removed on time. The EC must also be able to check the citizenship of nations involved, as this would determine whether or not those "Citizens" were really citizens. I believe it falls within ensuring "fair elections" and being able to certify the vote.

My thoughts on the matter. Thanks for your time, and good luck to drafting a response.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

~~Wolf~~ · 03-30-2015, 05:04 PM

(03-30-2015, 04:09 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: That isn't really the question. There are legal prerequisites to gaining citizenship, and one is not a citizen until those prerequisites are met and the masking is given. (After all, you cannot vote in the Assembly until you're masked.) The admins (and perhaps soon the Vice Delegate) cannot give out masking when the prerequisites are not met.

Similarly to the fact that you cannot exercise citizenship until the masking has been given, you can exercise them until you meet the prerequisites for losing citizenship and your masking is removed.

So, basically, once your citizenship is approved, you're a citizen, regardless of when you're masked, with your citizenship starting the day you are accepted, not the day you are masked. Similarly, once you've met the prerequisites that disqualify you from having citizenship, you are no longer a citizen, again, regardless of when your mask is updated.

I agree with that. To use a recent example, BGP's citizenship was backdated to the date they would have been accepted, not to the date they were remasked.