Quote:Section 2 - Acceptance and Removal

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. Citizenship applications submitted during election periods will not be processed. In the event that a citizenship application has been submitted prior to the election but not yet processed, the current Vice Delegate may process the application during the election period.
5. 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.
6. If a Citizen no longer has a resident nation their citizenship will be immediately removed by the Vice Delegate.
7. 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.
8. Citizenship will be removed lost if a nation has not logged into the South Pacific forums for more than 30 days and made two posts within that rolling period.
9. Citizens may request a leave of absence from the Vice Delegate.
10. If the Vice Delegate position is vacant, the Cabinet may designate a member to perform the above duties.

This will solidify what a majority of people I have spoken to believes to already be the case by changing the word removed to lost and specifying that the 30 day period is rolling.

This is unworkable. Admins cannot watch every citizen all day every day to see if they're meeting the requirements.

What happens when it's missed and they come back before its noticed, but then somebody points out the lapse?

The fact is, we have been lenient on activity requirements for well over a year. That's the consensus of the region. Regardless of whether you think we should be lenient, there is no feasible way for the admins to track immediately the moment somebody lapses in their activity requirements. I don't know any region that operates that way. We have activity checks for a logistical reason.

TNP.

Checking citizenship 3 times a year in front of an election is not excessive

(03-25-2015, 05:14 PM)Hileville Wrote: TNP.

I was talking to Asta and was shown a court opinion where the court was quite unequivocal in disagreeing with your position.

(03-25-2015, 05:22 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote:

(03-25-2015, 05:14 PM)Hileville Wrote: TNP.

I was talking to Asta and was shown a court opinion where the court was quite unequivocal in disagreeing with your position.

What at all does that have to do with this amendment? You asked for a region that runs citizenship checks constantly. That is the practice in TNP.

(03-25-2015, 05:19 PM)QuietDad Wrote: Checking citizenship 3 times a year in front of an election is not excessive

Except that is not what Hileville is proposing. He is proposing that citizenship is AUTOMATICALLY and IMMEDIATELY lost, which is not feasible with the tools we have available to us. That is why we have activity checks, and thus why people may fix their inactivity before a check is performed and still maintain their citizenship.

(03-25-2015, 05:23 PM)Hileville Wrote:

(03-25-2015, 05:22 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote:

(03-25-2015, 05:14 PM)Hileville Wrote: TNP.

I was talking to Asta and was shown a court opinion where the court was quite unequivocal in disagreeing with your position.

What at all does that have to do with this amendment?

I said I know of no other region that does what you're proposing. You pointed to TNP. The court case I was shown by Asta says that TNP does not do things this way at all, and in fact does things the way Kris and I have been saying TSP does.

(03-25-2015, 05:24 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote:

(03-25-2015, 05:23 PM)Hileville Wrote:

(03-25-2015, 05:22 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote:

(03-25-2015, 05:14 PM)Hileville Wrote: TNP.

I was talking to Asta and was shown a court opinion where the court was quite unequivocal in disagreeing with your position.

What at all does that have to do with this amendment?

I said I know of no other region that does what you're proposing. You pointed to TNP. The court case I was shown by Asta says that TNP does not do things this way at all, and in fact does things the way Kris and I have been saying TSP does.

The TNP law and this proposed amendment are different in wording. The wording used here would immediately remove citizenship. TNP performs citizenship checks daily. They do this with a magical google spreadsheet that helps automate checking for activity and a nation in the region.

I know exactly what the TNP Court ruled.

Yes, and I'm telling you that TNP *does not* do things the way you're proposing here *for an obvious reason*. What you're trying to introduce is pure chaos.

The way we have done things in TSP for as long as I've been here is just fine. It affords flexibility to both admin's and citizens. Be pissed all you want that admins dropped the ball this one time. But there's no way we'll be able to conform to this proposal. We are not robots.