Users browsing this thread:

Escade · 04-09-2015, 09:26 PM

SB, I already stated I don't think Hileville is corrupt so you should probably tone it down and not put words in my mouth.

I already know Hileville isn't corrupt and have stated that publicly and also would never vote for him for Court Justice if I thought he couldn't be impartial but his actions were not conducive to a healthy and fair election because of the order of operations. Being emotional and being pressured sometimes to make mistakes are characteristics that I share with Hileville and like most people that I know in this region or have talked to extensively at some point, and in Hile's case quite a lot, sometimes leads to unideal decisions.

Please chill a bit.

Aram, yes that question was for you. It seems like we need some sort of attention to citizenship but are divided on what it should be. Maybe we can narrow down options and run another non-binding poll, this time for citizens only? We should probably wait a month or so and kind of also let the local council ask on the RMB and maybe do a drive to get some of the people on the RMB who seem to want to know more about the forums feel comfortable joining.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

Hileville · 04-09-2015, 10:36 PM

Looking through the poll and trying to eliminate those that are non-citizens I believe the current consensus is; No 2 tiered citizenship system. With monthly checks being the way citizenship is removed. The activity requirement is just too close to really determine the favorite.

southern bellz · 04-10-2015, 08:17 AM

Escade, you asked me a bunch of loaded questions saying you are annoyed and outraged about something implying heavily that Hile's actions are not above board.

If you don't want my response, don't ask me a series of questions.

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

Aramanchovia · 04-10-2015, 11:41 AM

By my count, the voting totals were as follows:

1) Should we introduce a 2 tiered system? This would be as follows:

Tier 1: Citizens - Can vote in Assembly.
Tier 2: Electors - All rights of Citizens plus can vote in Elections. Some sort of activity requirement would govern this.

1A) Yes - 8
1B) No - 19

2) What is the preferred activity requirement for Citizenship?
2A) WA Nation in TSP - 1
2B) 2 or 3 posts per month on the forums (TBC exact details) - 12
2C) 15+ posts in a 4 month period (I would break that down monthly and say 4-5 posts per month) (Exact details TBC) - 4
2D) No requirement besides resident nation - 9
2E) No requirement besides resident nation AND cannot vote in elections for first 3 months - 1

3) What is the preferred method for citizenship removals?
3A) Roll Call - 3
3B) Immediate Loss - 6
3C) Monthly Checks - 18

There were only two votes cast by non-citizens, Andrew and Belschaft. These votes were not included in the totals. Three or four people voted both in the poll and topic, but I only counted these votes once.

I did go through the most recent citizen list and noticed two citizens listed did not have a nation in TSP (Casil and Bakunian). Neither voted. I could not find a nation in TSP for Hobbes, but I know he has a few puppets and I probably just missed it (Hobbes didn't vote in any case).

Hope that helps.

Sopo · 04-10-2015, 01:11 PM

So we prefer the status quo. We just need to make sure the status quo works.

[Image: VjpdZ2V.png?1]

Escade · 04-10-2015, 01:22 PM

Well monthly checks to determine citizenship got a huge percentage of votes and would make life easier for the VD or appointed checker so we can perhaps at least move forward on that?

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

Hileville · 04-10-2015, 01:41 PM

Section 2 - Acceptance and Removal
1. Citizenship applications will be reviewed by the Citizenship Council.
2. Applicants may not use a proxy, may not attempt to avoid a forum ban, may no apply for Citizenship with multiple nations. In the event that an applicant is found to be in violation of any of the above by the Forum Administration or the Citizenship Council their application will be denied.
3. The Citizenship Council will decide whether to admit or deny the application. In the event that an applicant is denied the reason for denial must be disclosed by the Citizenship Council. The applicant may appeal their denial to the Assembly which may reverse the denial by a 75% majority vote in favor.
4. If a Citizen no longer has a resident nation their citizenship will be removed by the Citizenship Council during the next monthly check.
5. The Cabinet may remove Citizenship from a nation who is found to be a Security Threat, preferably upon the recommendation of the Committee for State Security. Citizens removed for being a Security Threat may appeal their removal to the Assembly which may reverse the removal by a 75% majority vote in favor.
6. The CSS may, on behalf of the Citizenship Council, undertake an investigation into nations who have been denied citizenship or declared a security risk and report their finding to the Assembly.
7. Citizens will be removed for not accumulating 2 posts per month. The Citizenship Council will perform an activity check on the 1st of each month and determine who did not meet the activity requirement in the previous calendar month. Citizens may be awarded a Leave of Absence from the Citizenship Council in which case this requirement will be lifted for the duration of the leave.

Section 3 - Citizenship Council

1. The Citizenship Council will be comprised of 3 members.
2. 1 member will be appointed by the Delegate, 1 member from the Committee for State Security will be appointed by said Committee, and 1 will be a member of the Forum Administration Staff appointed by said Administration Staff. All members must be approved by a 75% majority vote of the Assembly in favor.
3. Members of the Citizenship Council serve for a one year period unless they resign, are recalled, and/or they no longer hold Citizenship. Each year members of the Council may be changed following the appointment process as outlined.
4. The Citizenship Council is responsible for maintaining a list of all Citizens.

Changed 3 posts back to 2 as well as added language for monthly checks for post requirement in 2.7.

(This post was last modified: 04-10-2015, 02:35 PM by Bears Armed.)

***sandaoguo*** · 04-10-2015, 01:53 PM

This latest version reverts back to subjecting all members of the citizenship council to an election. This seems to have gotten lost in a discussion on activity requirements.

It is a big mistake to subject the Admin Team to yet more politicization through regular exposure to what amounts to an election. I do not think this region needs to have a political fight over the admins every year. I'm not sure why this provision was included yet again.

***Kris Kringle*** · 04-10-2015, 01:53 PM

1. Why do you have the security threat appeals section in blue? It is already part of the Charter.

2. I am not sure if we should mandate a specific date for citizenship checks, for two reasons: (a) people who might just want to keep citizenship, but not be active, would know to post just before the date of the check and then disappear again, (b) I think the Council should have the flexibility to not conduct a check exactly on the first, if necessary. Just to be clear, I am not saying the Council should be able to conduct a check on the first on one month and then on the last of the next one, without any consistency whatsoever, but some more flexible language should be included.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Hileville · 04-10-2015, 02:34 PM

(04-10-2015, 01:53 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: This latest version reverts back to subjecting all members of the citizenship council to an election. This seems to have gotten lost in a discussion on activity requirements.

It is a big mistake to subject the Admin Team to yet more politicization through regular exposure to what amounts to an election. I do not think this region needs to have a political fight over the admins every year. I'm not sure why this provision was included yet again.

It wasn't forgotten. Every member of the Citizenship Council should be approved by the Assembly. I don't understand why you are so much against this. I don't like the idea of people not approved by the Assembly having powers over Citizenship.

(04-10-2015, 01:53 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: 1. Why do you have the security threat appeals section in blue? It is already part of the Charter.

2. I am not sure if we should mandate a specific date for citizenship checks, for two reasons: (a) people who might just want to keep citizenship, but not be active, would know to post just before the date of the check and then disappear again, (b) I think the Council should have the flexibility to not conduct a check exactly on the first, if necessary. Just to be clear, I am not saying the Council should be able to conduct a check on the first on one month and then on the last of the next one, without any consistency whatsoever, but some more flexible language should be included.

1. That was added back from a previous version of the bill where it was omitted. I guess I really didn't need to have it in blue.

2. Do you have suggestions as to how to make that more flexible? If we aren't using a rolling 30 day calendar then I would suggest we use the actual calendar to determine when a period starts and ends. Maybe change it to the 1st week of the month?