When this was originally changed all citizenship removals were intended to be done by the Vice Delegate. Removals for activity were apparently overlooked. I propose the following change to align removals with the original intent which was to remove the Admin team for the removal process w/ the exception of changing maskings.

1. Citizenship applications will be reviewed by the Vice Delegate.
2. Upon review the applicant may be either conditionally approved or denied by the Vice Delegate.
3. Upon the applicant being conditionally approved the forum administration staff will conduct a security check to ensure the applicant is not using a proxy, is not trying to avoid a forum ban, and is not a citizen using a different nation. In the event that an applicant is found to be using a proxy, attempting to avoid a forum ban, or applying for citizenship on multiple nations their application will be denied and not subject to appeal.
4. In the event that an applicant is denied the reason for denial must be disclosed by the Vice Delegate. The applicant may appeal their denial to the Assembly which may reverse the denial by a 75% majority vote in favor.
5. If a Citizen no longer has a resident nation their citizenship will be immediately removed by the Vice Delegate.
5. Citizenship may be removed by a majority vote of the Cabinet if a nation is found to be a security threat. Citizens removed for being a security threat may appeal to the Assembly which may reverse the removal by a 75% majority vote in favor.
6. Citizenship will be removed by the Vice Delegate if a Citizen no longer has a resident nation or has not logged into logged into the South Pacific forums for more than 30 days and/or made two posts within that period.
7. Citizens may request a leave of absence from the Vice Delegate.
8. If the Vice Delegate position is vacant, the Cabinet may designate a member to perform the above duties.

I don't really see any difference between the Vice Delegate doing it and an administrator doing it, since it's objective and based on a simple algorithm. I think the change is pretty pointless, but also pretty harmless. Makes more work for the Vice Delegate, so maybe the Assembly should ask him if it's a duty he wants.

He's free to post here, as is everyone else. Personally, I'd like to citizens maintain their citizenship indefinitely, if they've maintained their citizenship under that rule for a certain amount of time...Perhaps a year, perhaps longer. Their citizenship can still be removed by the Cabinet, if they feel it necessary.

(06-06-2014, 11:51 PM)God-Emperor Wrote: Personally, I'd like to citizens maintain their citizenship indefinitely, if they've maintained their citizenship under that rule for a certain amount of time...Perhaps a year, perhaps longer.

I strongly oppose this. Just because somebody has been a citizen for a long time doesn't mean we should treat them specially when they go inactive.

30 days is an awfully short time don't ya think? Maybe 90 days?

I mean just for example with summer happening I haven't logged on but maybe every few weeks. Not that I don't want to be here it's that I don't have time. I don't think we should force people out for wanting to enjoy RL

(06-07-2014, 12:28 AM)Drugged Monkeys Wrote: 30 days is an awfully short time don't ya think? Maybe 90 days?

I don't think 30 days is short. 30 days is pretty long. There's a lot of opportunity in there to log on and post twice. 90 days is way too long. What is the point of having citizenship, if you're not active for 1/4 of the year?

(06-07-2014, 12:28 AM)Drugged Monkeys Wrote: I mean just for example with summer happening I haven't logged on but maybe every few weeks. Not that I don't want to be here it's that I don't have time. I don't think we should force people out for wanting to enjoy RL

We have to maintain a balance between ensuring citizenship isn't gamed, and making sure people aren't "forced out." If you're going to be away for a while, without any real chance to participate, I don't think it's a lot to ask of you to reapply for citizenship if you're gone for 30 days straight without posting. It's not a punishment.

I fully support the 30 day limit, although there should be a place where people can ask for "authorised absence" where they may be gone longer than 30 days, due to certain RL factors (maybe they will be gone 32 days for some back packing thing in the wilderness for example).

(06-07-2014, 06:14 AM)Sir Pitt Wrote: I fully support the 30 day limit, although there should be a place where people can ask for "authorised absence" where they may be gone longer than 30 days, due to certain RL factors (maybe they will be gone 32 days for some back packing thing in the wilderness for example).

I don't know if we have a space for that exactly, but requesting a leave of absence is in the law somewhere.

What's the CTE day on NS? I think that could be a good compromise date for the removal of citizenship.

CTE is either 28 or 60 days if on Vacation Mode

EDIT: I also think it's a good idea to PM people who're at risk of having their cit removed to return to the community, like how NS warns you if CTE is impending

(06-07-2014, 10:05 AM)Awe Wrote: EDIT: I also think it's a good idea to PM people who're at risk of having their cit removed to return to the community, like how NS warns you if CTE is impending

During the last round of activity checks, we stopped doing this because it defeats the purpose of having activity requirements in the first place.