Citizenship Law Amendment |
It's worse because a number of people probably won't see the roll call. Plus how bad does activity need to be in a region if a roll call is needed to keep the citizenship base accountable?
1.) It puts less stress on the admins
2.) It's more efficient 3.) One would only need to reapply if they miss Roll Call. 4.) Region-wide Telegrams and RMB advertisement would mostly solve the issue you pointed out.
I don't get what there is to explain besides I think having to post in a thread every month saying "here" sounds incredibly unfun, and should hardly be a prerequisite to voting. I don't think we should make it easier for the government to enforce activity checks. I think we should eliminate them completely.
I don't get the concept where people constantly have to be earning citizenship. I have yet to see an argument for why it's a benefit to have these aggressive activity checks besides vague "security" reasons that has been used to justify far too many bad policies at this point. I think we should completely get rid of activity requirements. If anything we should make it something like 5 posts a year, make it a yearly thing. Cut back on the administrative part and reduce the mundane burden of doing a monthly roll call.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
I don't see anything positive when I see 30-50+ coming to TSP for a 3-day period every 4 months, and then never doing anything else in between. In fact, I see a lot of negative effects, because most of these people don't have to deal with the consequences. So I think it's absolutely right that citizenship must be earned, that you should have to show that you're actually a regular participant of what we do here on these forums.
(03-26-2015, 09:38 PM)Todd McCloud Wrote: It's worse because a number of people probably won't see the roll call. Plus how bad does activity need to be in a region if a roll call is needed to keep the citizenship base accountable? Completely circular. "We should do nothing about activity, because if we do something it'd signal that we need to do something." Of course, we need to do something - we had players like yourself post in a thread titled "the 2 post a month" thread - thinking as though you're entitled to citizenship out of sheer charisma alone. Article 1: Citizenship and Regulations of Citizenship Wrote:Section 1 - Eligibility I'm sorry, Unibot, I can't find the part that says only certain people are entitled to citizenship or a listing of acceptable merits, virtues, or attributes beyond the sections quoted above. Can you please show me?
(03-27-2015, 12:32 PM)Unibot Wrote:(03-26-2015, 09:38 PM)Todd McCloud Wrote: It's worse because a number of people probably won't see the roll call. Plus how bad does activity need to be in a region if a roll call is needed to keep the citizenship base accountable? Except this policy hasn't encouraged activity. If anything it's taken the time away from our elected officials to maintain lists instead of time that could of been spent governing and implementing policies that could actually improve activity. It's bureaucratic red tape that we just don't need. It has directly caused a situation where people are arguing the legitimacy of election results. And it's wasted even more time about debating this drama. And for what ? To ease the fear of the paranoid who believe that TSP would be run by less active accounts who vote occasionally as members of part of some greater conspiracy. The age of fear has to end. This idea that unless you're active monthly, you're not interested in the region and therefore must be some sort of threat runs against the principles of open government that this coalition is founded on. We've operated without this law before and were just fine.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
Perhaps when the number of people who regularly participate on these forums begins to match the number of people who vote in our elections -- especially the number of recognizable Gameplay figures who have nothing to do with TSP outside of election time -- the "age of fear" (whatever) will "end."
So let me get this straight SB. Instead of regulating citizenship, you somehow came to the conclusion that we should do practically nothing? I wish I could understand how and why you think this could possibly be a better solution.
|
Users browsing this thread: |
4 Guest(s) |