That's not specifically what is being talked about, Tsu. Kris here is saying the Admin team will no longer do masking checks and Glen is also saying Admin is not under any obligation to do so either.

I understand real life constraints and unrealistic demands, but flat out refusing the enforce selective laws is more or less a small Admin mutiny.

Is the argument being had that the Admin team will never enforce the activity law, or simply that they will not check anymore? And, if that is the case, why did Glen include into his proposed law that "the day preceding the start of the pre-voting period, the Administration Team must perform a citizenship check"?

Isn't he basically saying he's proposing a law that he, personally, will not enforce?

I think there was mention of the Vice-Delegate running citizenship masking in the Citizenship Law Amendment thread. Though, it was said in a rather frustrated tone so I can't vouch for the seriousness of it.

Well I view it this way - there is currently a Charter requirement that: 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. That word "will" is a non-negotiable requirement, it is not a "may", like many other clauses and is pretty specific. 

Who is responsible for undertaking this then becomes the question? You can argue there are two parts to it - the checking and the removal parts. Only admins can do the latter (removal), I think this much is clear. Theoretically, anyone can do the former (checking), however it is also possible to make this information private, and make it something only admins can view. You would then have to say that this is part of an admins job to undertake these checks.

My thoughts are that if the admins don't want to do their job, they are opening up themselves to a recall. Based on the way the charter is currently written anyway, it is pretty clear that these checks have to happen, and as the administrators are the only ones that can fully check this, and they have made it clear they are not planning on undertaking these checks, a recall has some merit.

Feel free to point out I'm wrong. Please.

The Charter does not say that the Administration Team itself has the responsibility to do any of this. It's not "our job." It's something we've volunteered to do. If we no longer wish to do it, there are others that can.

(03-28-2015, 09:21 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: If we no longer wish to do it, there are others that can.

You're absolutely right, there are others that can do it, but in order for them to do it, they will need either Admin or Moderation powers.

So let me get this straight. Admins won't do it anymore because people are complaining they don't do it correctly. Yeah. That isn't the issue. The issue is you HAVEN'T done it in some time. As there are several people that should have been removed several times.

I'm sorry people aren't happy that you haven't been doing something. But let's be real.

The larger issue, Hileville, is that we're generally over people telling us what our job is and how it is done, with no consideration as to what's feasible for us. Like being told we need to be removing citizenship the moment somebody lapses in their activity requirements. When we try to tell you that something is an issue, you don't listen.

We routinely get shit on. This is an area where we aren't even the ones legally mandated to do something. So we're thinking about letting the Assembly reap what they sow: pass whatever regulations you want; your elected officials can enforce them.

I don't think too many are actually asking you to removing citizenship the moment somebody lapses in their activity requirements.

Rather people are asking you to do it, like, you know, at all.

The selective and infrequent enforcement of the law by the Admin team is, after all, what go us into the giant fiasco regarding the MoFA elections.

If the Admin team needs more help, they can just ask. Instead, you guys seem to just be complaining that it's impossible and nothing can be done about it, an excuse I don't find to be reasonable.

(03-28-2015, 09:58 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: So we're thinking about letting the Assembly reap what they sow: pass whatever regulations you want; your elected officials can enforce them.

Again, how are the elected officials expected to do so when they are withheld the powers to enforce the law by the Admin team?

You can't both complain that Admin get's stuck with all this work (*sob*) and, at the same time, not allow the people who want to enforce the law to do so by denying them the ability to enforce it.

And, once more, Glen, if you don't want to be stuck doing it, why did you propose a law where Admin is stuck doing it? That does not make sense.

I don't think anyone expects someone to immediately remove cit from someone who's out - that's rather difficult to do. They just want to have an indication as to who all is a citizen on a fairly regular basis. There are tools to do that, and some regions have committees to check out citizens, which is especially important right before elections.

Speaking of which, some regions have their legislatures as a subset of their citizenship base, which makes it very easy to check on acitivty levels and stuff for the legislature. But, since TSP basically has it such that all citizens are in the legislature, this makes regular citizenship checks all the more important.

As far as the Assembly reaping what they sow... yes. I say we look at who has been pushing the most for these contradictory laws and do something about it.

(03-28-2015, 10:04 PM)Wolf Wrote: I don't think too many are actually asking you to removing citizenship the moment somebody lapses in their activity requirements.

Rather people are asking you to do it, like, you know, at all.

The selective and infrequent enforcement of the law by the Admin team is, after all, what go us into the giant fiasco regarding the MoFA elections.

If the Admin team needs more help, they can just ask. Instead, you guys seem to just be complaining that it's impossible and nothing can be done about it, an excuse I don't find to be reasonable.

(03-28-2015, 09:58 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: So we're thinking about letting the Assembly reap what they sow: pass whatever regulations you want; your elected officials can enforce them.

And, again, how are the elected officials expected to do so when they are withheld the powers to enforce the law by the Admin team?

You can't both complain that Admin get's stuck with all this work (*sob*) and, at the same time, not allow the people who want to enforce the law to do so by denying them the ability to enforce it.

Agreed, Wolf. I think we should designate someone to do it and, if that requires them to have admin powers, I'd be fine with that too.

The problem is that we don't actually have a mechanism to enforce the law. Instead it's defaulted to the admins to put in regulations and what not. If we give this power to an elected official, we have the ability to regulate what they do and recall them if necessary.