[AMENDMENT] Citizenship Act

[Ladona]

Thanks for the feedback, and apologies for the delay in getting back to you.

What are your thoughts on the following?

@Magisterium

SECTION IV: CITIZENSHIP AUDIT

…4.1. The Office shall use the Thread to track and document the following: a Citizenship shall be invalid 12 hours afteridentify invalid citizenship.

…4.2. The person or persons conducting an audit of invalid citizenships shall be known as the Auditor.

…4.3. The Auditor must perform due diligence activities to ensure the information they’re using to invalidate a citizenship is correct.

…4.4 The Auditor must provide public notice on the Forums before action can be taken against someone’s citizenship.
…4.4.1. The notice must allow the citizen 48 hours to return to compliance. This period shall be referred to as the notice period.
…4.4.2. The notice must identify why the citizenship has been identified as invalid.

…4.5. An Auditor can identify a Citizenship as invalid due to:
…4.1.1.4.5.1. Failure to maintain residency with their recorded Resident nation,; or
…4.1.2.4.5.2. Failure to maintain WA membership in their recorded WA nation.; or
…4.1.3.4.5.3. Failure to comply with the process detailed in Section 3.6. within the aforementioned 12-hour timeframe.
…4.5.4. Exceptions to this may be established by additional law.

…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 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 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.

…4.6. A Citizen may appeal the legality of any action against their citizenship under this section of Act to the Conclave. This appeal must be made within the notice period.

…4.7. Citizenship is automatically revoked once the notification period expires, unless
…4.7.1. The Citizen has returned to compliance, and provided notice to the Citizenship Office in the Thread; or
…4.7.2. The Citizen has appealed to the Conclave and the Conclave has issued an Order to protect that Citizen’s Citizenship.

…4.8. Any Resident may reapply for Citizenship upon removal.

…4.4.4.9 Any ResidentCitizen may renounce their Citizenship by notifying the Office in the Thread.

I hear you that Conclave challenges shouldn’t automatically protect Citizenship. I would like to retain mention of the Conclave challenge being an option within the body of the Act though as this possibility isn’t immediately obvious. I’ve removed the automatic protection and have instead specified that the Conclave needs to issue an order to protect Citizenship for Citizenship to be protected.

Understanding that being a Citizenship Officer can be difficult, I am also strongly of the belief that these audits are only as difficult as the Auditor choses to make them, especially since the process to identify a Nation that is non-compliant can be largely automated. What I originally wrote are the same standards which I would expect myself to follow if I were in the Citizenship Office, so I can’t see where they would be particularly burdensome during an audit; since the only two people to respond in this topic have said they are though, I will keep that in mind.

I think the due diligence clause is important to keep as I couldn’t see where in the Citizenship Act or in the EPSA Act it was required that the Overseeing Officer was required to keep records of deployments on the forums; only that those records be kept for the Citizenship Office to review for enforcement of the clause. As a result, the single source of truth for deployment information is the Overseeing Officer. Maintaining an off-site Google Doc and then sending the link to an Auditor during an audit would be compliant, for example.

Because the Overseeing Officer is the single source of truth, and because each Overseeing Officer may have their own way of maintaining records, I think that it’s important to either include the due diligence clause, or to update Section III of the Citizenship Act or to update the relevant section of the EPSA Act (likely Section III) to specify a single source of truth beyond the Overseeing Officer; though I am now concerned that this too would be an additional burden on the Overseeing Officer.