I speak as a citizen with the right to debate (and therefore, if not propose legislation, to start a debate for potential legislation), on this matter. 
Another thing, I know about the TSP and Osiris statements and wish to state while they arenât the sole reason for me asking for such a discussion, they do play a small part. I ainât gonna lie. But I think weâre fine as we are, but we could become even better. I was gonna hold back until the Magisterium calmed down, but then again, why not have more discussion? We may get potential candidates interested that way if weâre activeâŚ
Residentâs rights. I think we should have them. There are no rights given to residents under the Concordat, and just to be made sure, I asked the Conclave: Advisory Question on Article F of the Concordat - The East Pacific - Tapatalk
(My opinion on this would be opposing to it, but if thereâs a precedent and itâs been asked numerous times before, then my opinion would be wrong.)
Iâve mentioned this as my main point, but the thing was that in the past of the East Pacific, citizenship used to be much easier to get. You were never denied and all you had to do was ratify the Concordat on our forums. Iâm unsure if the forums were as confusing back then like so many claims they are now, but itâs definitely easier to copy and paste a sentence, rather fill out an application when you donât know what BBC code is.
So theoretically (if they had the age limit of 13 back then), the only requirements were you were 13 or older, made an account, and followed directions to ratify the Concordat. At that point, almost all the people who cared about TEP at that time could become a citizen easily, if they chose to do so. So residentsâ rights were no issue back then, due to the relative ease of getting citizenship back then.
Nowadays, however, itâs a different story. Our forums are accused of being confusing, our citizenship application (while not exhaustive in the slightest), is a bit harder than copying and pasting a sentence. Another big thing though is our requirement for a private IP address. While I understand itâs for security purposes, the fact is that some people simply cannot pay to have Wi-Fi, and mainly play NS through school, work, or in the library. We also nowadays, deny citizenship to individuals to who we are suspicious about, or who are a part of blacklisted organizations (one former example would be the Black Hawks).
Also, we have an age requirement due to law.
So while most cases are security threats, the fact is that many innocent residents canât get citizenship because either theyâre too young, or their IP address is not private. Theyâre also piled on with the people who donât care about citizenship and the threats to our security. Theyâre guaranteed no rights. There has been at least one example of a TEPer who lied about their age to access our forums, and while I wonât reveal their name, it goes to show what some people are willing to do. Lying about our age on the internet may seem like no big deal, like pirating anime (shifty eyes), but itâs still legitimately breaking US law, and mayhaps the laws of other countries as well.
Just because some people are under 13 or have no private IP address doesnât mean that they donât care about the game/nor always spammers or hackers.
Obviously, Iâm not asking to give citizenship to everyone again, because thatâs plain stupid. But I donât see why we should deny residents some basic rights. While Delegates in the past and present have not abused this feature, there is no telling what can happen in the future. The future is full of surprises, and we should be ready for them.
Iâm aware this is could be a pain to legislate, but I feel itâs necessary for our region.
Here are some basic rights I think residents should have:
- Residents cannot be banned if they have not broken the regional law of the East Pacific (as applies to residents*).
- If residents have broken regional law, then they shall be ejected or banned at the discretion of the Delegate with notice of the ban at the time right before or after the action, with the reason for such a ban being given. If there is a specific process for banning, then the Delegate must follow that process before banning/ejecting residents (EX: Endorsement Cap Act states you must give 3 days notice before ejection).
- If residents feel that the ban/ejection is false, then they shall have the right to appeal to the Conclave (with the exceptions of bans done due to trolling, spamming, or flamming on the RMB or forums, in which case, they cannot appeal. Alternatively, they also cannot appeal if they have already been put on trial prior to banning.)
- If for whatever reason, the resident is unable to attend the trial on the forums due to age restrictions, then the resident shall choose a representative Citizen who will keep in contact with the resident and relay/represent the residentâs case to the court.
- Residents have the right to appeal the denial of their citizenship application to the Viceory and the Conclave, and shall be able to defend themselves in such circumstances.
- If a resident is banned, then they cannot apply for citizenship.
- Residents shall have the right to free speech, exactly the same as Citizens.
I am aware there is a form of precedent on banning, but I believe the precedent can be changed if needed. Plus, in this case, the Delegate can still ban nations who are a significant threat. The rights are also a basic proposal and obviously subject to change! So here are two specific questions I want to place here, for all citizens and Magisters who want to discuss this, so as to help streamline discussions.
â Begin quote from ____
- Why should or should not residents have rights?
- What rights do you think residents should have if you are FOR them having some rights?
â End quote
*Note: Not all regional law mentions citizens, which is what I meant. Iâll have to check on this though. So that part may change in the future. 
Fidel 