Doing an activity check is easy. It's hard to miss people, since we're given exact times of last activity. This election just kind I creeped up on admins, so an activity check didn't get done at all.

@Hileville: In that same vein, Hileville, admins for the past year at least have always erred on being liberal with activity requirements. Drugged Monkeys was somebody who was frequently on the chopping block, but always ended up posting before admins officially announced the activity check results. We've always extended this kind of deference, ever since this current admin team was in place.

That isn't the way the law is written.

The law is written vaguely. That's the way it's been interpreted. In fact, when the Administration Team attempted to automate the process, we were hit back with fierce opposition and told that we had to be liberal in how we enforced activity requirements.

I was here for that discussion, GR. The issue wasn't that you were going to automate removing citizenship it was that you were going to automate the deletion of peoples accounts.

Not sure this couldn't have been combined with the other discussions, but I do think doing a citizenship pre-elections makes sense.

With these checks, I assume you also make sure the citizen has a nation in the region, which is also a requirement? Not sure if this is the reason people are in doubt this time, I hope it isn't.

Citizenship checks include checking that the citizen (a) has a nation in the region (b) has logged in at least once during the 30 days prior to the check being conducted © posted at least twice during that time. Yes, it would include revision of all the requirements.

(03-24-2015, 04:34 PM)Hileville Wrote: I was here for that discussion, GR. The issue wasn't that you were going to automate removing citizenship it was that you were going to automate the deletion of peoples accounts.

And the consensus was that activity requirements should be liberal. I'm fully aware of what the debate was about, and I'm intimately aware of how the Admin Team changed our practices in response.

The fact is, we do not remove citizenship any and every time there's a 30-day lapse in activity. If we see that lapse, but have not announced a culling, and the person in question comes back before we do, we do not remove their citizenship. We got the message loud and clear to be liberal with those requirements.

@Aram: This could be merged with other ideas, but I don't necessarily think any further reform is necessary. If other people want to suggest ways to merge things, that's all good with me. My main goal is here to make it explicit that the EC has no admin authority and no authority over citizenship, and to put into law that an activity check must occur prior to the election.

Fair enough.

No, fully against far too conservative for my liking.

(03-24-2015, 04:46 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: @Aram: This could be merged with other ideas, but I don't necessarily think any further reform is necessary. If other people want to suggest ways to merge things, that's all good with me. My main goal is here to make it explicit that the EC has no admin authority and no authority over citizenship, and to put into law that an activity check must occur prior to the election.

There's a difference between deciding who is a proper citizen and who's vote counts.

Am I the only one that sees this?