I don't think the rulung mentions anywhere the VD is the one running the activity checks, just that they are the person responsible for the removal of citizenship. I could be wrong and will leave it to the Court to hear their response though.

Reply

I just want to ask for a clarification. Is this ruling saying that the VD is solely responsible for activity checks?

As per the ruling the majority opinion states "Vice-Delegate or other authorised persons remove that citizenship", so we're not saying that the Vice-Delegate is solely responsible for activity checks. However, for something as important as a check upon which the removal of citizenship takes place the Charter and Code of Laws seem to be vague on who is actually empowered to undertake the activity checks and action the outcome. For example, contrast this with the following part of Article 2:

6. If a Citizen no longer has a resident nation their citizenship will be immediately removed by the Vice Delegate.

I would support, and this is just my personal view, a similar redrafting of Paragraph 8 of the same Article to encompass who undertakes the activity checks, when the criteria take effect and who is empowered to do so would provide needed clarity.

Reply

So if their citizenship isn't immediately removed by the Vice Delegate, uh, what then?

There seems to be no consequence for those who are in violation of the law. They can no longer have a nation in TSP and still be considered a citizen so long as the Vice Delegate hasn't yet removed them.

This ruling seems to rise more questions than it answers.

Reply

We need to have an understanding where citizenship is automatically removed whether or not the masking is changed. Linking citizenship to masking is silly, time consuming and asking for more trouble.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I think not linking citizenship to masking is even more time consuming and more trouble. It would mean that whoever runs checks would need to constantly be on the lookout for when someone lost citizenship, and then check what votes or actions have been affected, and amend the errors in them.

This situation is being made more problematic than it is. We have always handled citizenship through maskings, tsu, and you know that, and it has worked fine. I fail to see why this is suddenly a problem.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

Linking citizenship to masking is silly, time consuming and asking for more trouble.

See, that's what I've said, Tsu, but apparently the outgoing Court disagrees with the both of us.

Reply

Linking citizenship to masking is silly, time consuming and asking for more trouble.

See, that's what I've said, Tsu, but apparently the outgoing Court disagrees with the both of us.

*Awe and Hopolis

Just clarifying that since I am minority opinion in both citizenship questions.

Reply

Well...Awe and Hopolis didn't just issue personal opinions. The Court issued a ruling. You being in the minority doesn't mean it's any less of a Court decision.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

*Wolf patpats Farengeto*

Outgoing Court, Far. You're the only Justice staying on for the next Court.

Reply