[AMENDMENT] Citizenship Act

[Zukchiva]

Please name one example of someone accidentally resigning WA or moving regions and not noticing right away.

I’m unsure where you’re getting this from.

AMOM’s 12 hour-from-accident as it stands is a far more reasonable system than immediate removal, and it nullifies the inconvenience-against-TEPer-argument. Which is why I did not mention inconvenience at all in my “The reason is because…” paragraph.

This makes no sense to me. You don’t like a provision of the law so instead of changing that provision, you want to break the system in a different part of the law (or rather, keep it broken) so that said provision can’t be enforced.

It also sounds to me that you are admitting this is an unintentional loophole that is being abused – but that you’re just in favor of that abuse because, again, you wish the law was different even though you’re doing nothing to change it.

I don’t really understand your point here.

You’re right: I like the current system because of what it enables (non-EPSA R/Ders being able to keep Citizenship). Therefore, I’m against changing the system (fixing the loophole) unless/until another system is put into place to enable non-EPSA R/Ders to keep Citizenship and thus makes closing the loop hole have no effect of the ability of non-EPSA R/Ders to stay non-EPSA R/Ders while keeping Citizenship.

The current system works to enfranchise non-EPSA R/Ders. That’s what I care about. So I see no need to personally change the system as it relates to non-EPSA R/Ders, nor am I obligated in any way to support this amendment on the premise that I can propose my own amendment later.

[Mangegneithe]

@Zukchiva

The current system works to enfranchise non-EPSA R/Ders.

No it doesn’t. It happens to. It’s not designed to and therefore it’s not well-designed for that purpose.

[Cretox]

@Mangegneithe

This is a tricky situation because IC law can’t mandate that admin do anything, so we kinda have to rely on an unofficial agreement. We can mandate that CitiOffice asks though.

Or word it in such a way that applicants need the evaluation to pass without technically requiring that admin provide it.

[Mangegneithe]

I like that

[Cretox]

On further reflection, “A Citizenship may be invalidated by the Office 12 hours after” wouldn’t even require that the office invalidate citizenships at all.

[A_mean_old_man]

Per this & discussion on Discord:

SECTION IV: CITIZENSHIP AUDIT

…4.1. The Office shall use the Thread to track and document the following: a Citizenship shall be invalid 48 12 hours after they are publicly notified in the Thread by the Office to either (as listed alphabetically):
…4.1.1. No longer Failure to maintain residency with their recorded Resident nation at the time of notification..
…4.1.2. No longer Failure to maintain WA membership in their recorded WA nation at the time of notification.
…4.1.3. Failure to comply with the process detailed in Section 3.6. within the aforementioned 12-hour timeframe.

…4.2. If the Citizen returns their recorded Resident nation to the region or their WA membership to their recorded WA nation and issues a notification of such return within the Thread before the 48 12 hour period established in Section 4.1 expires, their Citizenship shall remain valid.
…4.2.1 The Citizen may also keep their Citizenship valid if they successfully change their recorded Resident nation or recorded WA nation to another nation with valid citizenship or WA membership within the same 48 12 hour period, following Section 3 procedures.

…4.3. Exceptions to Section 4.1 and its subsections may be established by additional law. Any Citizen may reapply for Citizenship upon removal.

…4.4. Any Resident may renounce their Citizenship by notifying the Office in the Thread.

[A_mean_old_man]

@Zukchiva

WA is not always a good indicator of that, and individuals who are non-EPSA R/Ders have the potential to contribute to TEP more than 99% of its other Citizens. Aster, for example, is a person whose contributions to TEP already probably outnumber 50% of current Citizens by just being a Magister and Exec staff - yet this amendment would remove their right to vote (by making it impossible for ghem to keep citizenship without moving their wa here or joining epsa) even though they contribute more to TEP than a lot of “traditional” WA cits.

This 99% comment strikes me as an odd take that I’ll have more to say about when I have more time to write. What I’ll say for now is that the overwhelming majority of current Citizens have local WA status, the majority of external WAs are static, and that Aster is no longer a Magister and seems to have a very irritating habit of pointlessly dropping their positions during a tantrum when they disagree with something.

@Zukchiva

You’re right: I like the current system because of what it enables (non-EPSA R/Ders being able to keep Citizenship). Therefore, I’m against changing the system (fixing the loophole) unless/until another system is put into place to enable non-EPSA R/Ders to keep Citizenship and thus makes closing the loop hole have no effect of the ability of non-EPSA R/Ders to stay non-EPSA R/Ders while keeping Citizenship.

Not keen on WA status being hidden from us. Not budging on my position. Nothing preventing people from documenting their WA changes in the thread as requested and as required by the current system already. I have been eliminating and will continue to eliminate anyone who fails to do this. We need to know where your WA is; we need to confirm it via telegram; we need to know you aren’t juggling multiple citizenships. And you should respect the system that you signed up to be a part of by updating my Thread. The law already demands it.

Your objections are making this amendment out to be something that it is not.

[Bachtendekuppen]

This still leaves a window of 12 consecutive hours where we don’t have any transparency of where the WA of a Citizen is, or do I read that wrongly?

[Bachtendekuppen]

@Zukchiva

I do not subscribe to the idea that one must have their WA or EPSA here to prove some form of loyalty or prioritization to TEP - WA is not always a good indicator of that, and individuals who are non-EPSA R/Ders have the potential to contribute to TEP more than 99% of its other Citizens

Why would TEP Citizens have less potential to contribute to TEP? If you are a Citizen, you’re already involved by definition, how would they have less potential as a group? And how do you figure that “non-EPSA R/D’ers” have somehow more “potential to contribute” than, apparently by contrast, EPSA R’D’ers?

[Cretox]

If there’s a compelling situation in the future where someone heavily contributes to the region but can’t maintain WA/EPSA, we could pass an amendment that allows for an exception to be made with some very high bar. If there is such a compelling situation.

[theclockworkvixen]

I think this amendment already reads that the Prae can grant exceptions in specific circumstances (i.e. Delegate of another region), at least that’s what I remember…

Although I can’t see it anywhere upon review…

[A_mean_old_man]

You’re thinking of the amendment to Section 3 currently at vote.

[theclockworkvixen]

Ah. Thanks for the clarification <3

[Zukchiva]

No it doesn’t. It happens to . It’s not designed to and therefore it’s not well-designed for that purpose.

Valid distinction.

@A_mean_old_man: This 99% comment strikes me as an odd take that I’ll have more to say about when I have more time to write. What I’ll say for now is that the overwhelming majority of current Citizens have local WA status, the majority of external WAs are static, and that Aster is no longer a Magister and seems to have a very irritating habit of pointlessly dropping their positions during a tantrum when they disagree with something.

@Bachtendekuppen: Why would TEP Citizens have less potential to contribute to TEP? If you are a Citizen, you’re already involved by definition, how would they have less potential as a group? And how do you figure that “non-EPSA R/D’ers” have somehow more “potential to contribute” than, apparently by contrast, EPSA R’D’ers?

Reading over that statement again… yeah it’s odd on the basis that the claim is quite false in magnitude, I retract it. Apologies on that. I think I was rushing to write it and didn’t give it a proper reread, hence a kinda dumb statement.

My main point I was mostly trying to make there was that non-EPSA R/Ders have potential to contribute to TEP as much as an EPSA soldier or WA in TEP does, so removing the only way they can keep Citizenship in our current system without giving up non-R/D EPSA is not really something I’m interested in. Though I understand most of the arguments in favor of this proposal are treating this effect of the amendment as a necessary side effect rather than the intention.

Which on that note:
@A_mean_old_man

Not keen on WA status being hidden from us. Not budging on my position. Nothing preventing people from documenting their WA changes in the thread as requested and as required by the current system already. I have been eliminating and will continue to eliminate anyone who fails to do this. We need to know where your WA is; we need to confirm it via telegram; we need to know you aren’t juggling multiple citizenships. And you should respect the system that you signed up to be a part of by updating my Thread. The law already demands it.

That’s fair and we’ll have to agree to disagree re: the system, and in any case I’m sure this will pass fine considering the prior amendment did so it’s w/e.

Your objections are making this amendment out to be something that it is not.

I fully acknowledge that a) this amendment isn’t meant to go after non-EPSA R/Ders but instead to improve Prae QoL alongside improving our security and b) the original law did not intend for non-EPS R/Ders to be able to use the loophole as-is.

However, they do use it in such a manner and this amendment stops that. I’m not saying it’s your intention to do this for the purpose of stopping non-EPSA R/Ders from being Citizens, but your intention doesn’t change what the legal effect of the amendment will be.

[A_mean_old_man]

In carefully reviewing the thread, I’m seeing no new concerns or feedback since this revision and move to vote on this rewritten version of the amendment (Provost / Deputy, please see post referenced by this reply).

[A_mean_old_man]

Please note this will also include the proposed changes to Sections 5 and 6, which the veto / subsequent discussion did not object to.

[theclockworkvixen]

I second the motion, will open in a few minutes