Discussion/Proposal: Major Overhaul to Citizenship System

The Magisterium
37

I keep reading weird things. So maybe I can try to break it down a little by going over some processes. Some thoughts. Some opinions. Some examples.

These are the effected laws: Concordat Article E & F, Citizenship Act, Regional Message Board Regulation Act, Delegate Elections Act, The Regional Officers Act, and Criminal Code will all need to be updated.

Right now we have Citizens and Residents. What my proposal is – is to have a unified Citizenry. What does this mean to me? This means we will no longer have Citizens and Residents but only Citizens. This will grant everyone in the region equal rights. Does equal rights mean everyone can vote? No. (Just like IRL in America. You register to vote or you don’t register to vote. Your overall rights are the same) That doesn’t make sense from a security standpoint. Neither would holding them on the RMB or within Polls. Logistically that’s not going to work.

So how will a citizen get the right to vote? 1) They must have a WA nation (doesn’t need to be in the TEP), 2) They must have a nation in TEP, 3) They must formally ratify the Concordat (this will also serve as a government application (Zuk’s awesome idea) and naturally voter registration, 3) They must verify their nation(s) In-Game. Once they do all of that then they can vote on Delegate Elections, Referendums, Join the Magisterium, Go beyond a Executive Staffer and etc.

What if they don’t want to join the forum? What if they don’t want to go though that process but still want to be involved? Maybe they just want to RP? That’s 100% okay. It’s not our goal to force everyone to become a forum user. It’s to encourage activity overall in the community. RMB? Great. Discord? Great. Forum? Great.

But what will it cost them? They can’t vote. They can’t become a RO, Minister, Deputy, Magister, or any position of regional power. If they don’t join the forum they could miss out on a appeal/trial – unless as mentioned recently by Paki that the Conclave could hold trial for them in a password protected Conclave region and with dispatches for evidence presentation. This is a great idea actually. I like it. It’s different but still fair.

Does this mean spammers/trolls/flamer and rule breakers get a trial? Are they doing it in the bounds of the law? Meaning are they trying to commit treason when the nation name is PoopyPooPoo123416547 and they’re posting 5 pages of song lyrics. Hmm. That’s a no. So? Ban. GHR. Record. NEXT! That’s business as usual. Yes? Appeal? Trial? Whatever. Sounds like another “that’s business as usual” line. Since I just mentioned the Conclave indirectly I wanted to mention that under this new system it will change the way we proscribe people. How? It should be where the Vizier’s vote and then they send it over to the Conclave for approval. Checks and balances.

Is security a concern? Always. We want to have a safe and fun community. In this case? Not particularly a concern. Any system is going to have vulnerable parts. The truth of the matter is that WA nations are more reliable for regional security than an IP check. You can have your home internet and you can have your cellular internet and suddenly you are two different people at once. 10 or more years ago you couldn’t even get citizenship with a wireless IP. That ended as times changed. You can’t deny anyone based on that due to some people don’t have access to home internet. As times change so did the region.

Now to the biggest thing people keep asking me: Why?

My literal reason is: I’m a citizen with an idea that I think would work better for the region. But even after saying that.

The question once again comes to me: Why? So now I must make up some.

  1. I’m a huge supporter of Resident Rights. Just because I don’t have all the time in the world to post on the RMB like in my heyday doesn’t mean I haven’t forgotten my roots. Sure we made some strides in giving more protections and rights. But that’s just not good enough for me. We can do better. It’s been a on and off again serious discussion for literally 3 years.

  2. I worry about the workload on people like Sammy and VW. Citizenship Commission is a burner. It burns people. They just happen to be forum staff and can do the current security checks. I’m simply in a unique position where I’ve seen it time and time again. So with this proposal it relies on NationStates rules of 1 WA Nation per User and their security checks. This will literally save them time by cutting out a step and an additional website. Keeps them on Forum and NS.

38

1… How/where do they ratify the Concordat, naturally voter registration, and verify their nations?

2… I’d be interested in a separate thread for the potential new way to hold trials.

3… So for spammers and stuff, we will be changing the RMBRA so that punishment can be appealed by anyone but no trials for anyone? I like that. Or am I misinterpreting it again?

4… Would we have a thing where people lose their voting status if they’re designated WA nation resigns? How would that work? Would there be a system for notification.

Apart from those four points, which are very little compared to my rants in FNR, I am emphatically in support of this new system. It is a step up for security and for the system in general. And aside from that…

IT MAKES EURI A CITIZEN HAHAHAHAH

39

— Begin quote from ____

1… How/where do they ratify the Concordat, naturally voter registration, and verify their nations?

2… I’d be interested in a separate thread for the potential new way to hold trials.

3… So for spammers and stuff, we will be changing the RMBRA so that punishment can be appealed by anyone but no trials for anyone? I like that. Or am I misinterpreting it again?

4… Would we have a thing where people lose their voting status if they’re designated WA nation resigns? How would that work? Would there be a system for notification.

Apart from those four points, which are very little compared to my rants in FNR, I am emphatically in support of this new system. It is a step up for security and for the system in general. And aside from that…

IT MAKES EURI A CITIZEN HAHAHAHAH

— End quote

I’ve been trying to stay out of this thread because I have made my opinions abundantly clear, I think, on discord, but this cannot be allowed to stand. It’s one thing to add some summary offenses for some things, but “no trials for anyone” should not ever be considered.

40

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

1… How/where do they ratify the Concordat, naturally voter registration, and verify their nations?

2… I’d be interested in a separate thread for the potential new way to hold trials.

3… So for spammers and stuff, we will be changing the RMBRA so that punishment can be appealed by anyone but no trials for anyone? I like that. Or am I misinterpreting it again?

4… Would we have a thing where people lose their voting status if they’re designated WA nation resigns? How would that work? Would there be a system for notification.

Apart from those four points, which are very little compared to my rants in FNR, I am emphatically in support of this new system. It is a step up for security and for the system in general. And aside from that…

IT MAKES EURI A CITIZEN HAHAHAHAH

— End quote

I’ve been trying to stay out of this thread because I have made my opinions abundantly clear, I think, on discord, but this cannot be allowed to stand. It’s one thing to add some summary offenses for some things, but “no trials for anyone” should not ever be considered.

— End quote

“No trials for anyone” for RMB offenses, not for all offenses, which is just adding Summary Offenses.

41

— Begin quote from ____

1… How/where do they ratify the Concordat, naturally voter registration, and verify their nations?

2… I’d be interested in a separate thread for the potential new way to hold trials.

3… So for spammers and stuff, we will be changing the RMBRA so that punishment can be appealed by anyone but no trials for anyone? I like that. Or am I misinterpreting it again?

4… Would we have a thing where people lose their voting status if they’re designated WA nation resigns? How would that work? Would there be a system for notification.

Apart from those four points, which are very little compared to my rants in FNR, I am emphatically in support of this new system. It is a step up for security and for the system in general. And aside from that…

IT MAKES EURI A CITIZEN HAHAHAHAH

— End quote

Let me start with if they do not signup for the forum. They don’t need to do anything special. Our region. Our laws. If you are in our region you still need to follow the laws.

But if they are looking to signup because they want to do government, vote or forum rp (this one will not need a voter registration but simply a forum account) then we would have a thread that is near identical to our current citizenship thread.

The biggest difference is a formal ratification or even an oath of loyalty to uphold the Concordat, it doubles as a government application, but outside of that? It’s virtually the same. Verification will be the same process as it currently is. You need to send a TG from that nation (or nations if you’re WA is outside TEP)

That is something that can be a branched off discussion? You don’t need my permission. ;p

But I have seen one idea about for non-forum citizens to have a trial in a separate region/dispatch system. I mean where the trial happens doesn’t exactly matter. The Conclave is still government and forum-based first and foremost. So they would still do their Closed Chambers just as they always have.

A 100% spammer should be dealt with as we currently do. Banject. Banject. Banject. No one in their right mind should think otherwise.

A suggestion was that we could not have automatic trials but to have an appeal process first. I would totally entertain the idea. But if someone really breaks the rules. But a trial might be fun. As with anything it’s open to suggestion.

Absolutely. We currently do it. We will continue to do it. We call it a Citizenship Audit now. In the future it could possible be called a Voter Registration Audit. It’s just like question #1. Virtually exactly the same as the current process.

Some of these changes will simply assume, name change, and slightly modify the current system. That’s what happens with major reforms that in certain cases will simply be absorbing the current.

Euri shall be assimilated.

42

I admit that I did had to get used to the idea, but I’ve grown to like it, or at least part of it. I also acknowledge that it might bring more activity to the Conclave. However, it is hard to predict how much more activity.

Just one thing I wanted to add to this reply:

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

Sometimes I feel new people don’t get engaged enough from waiting — even a few days — they’re used to signing up to a website and being set free. I keep getting the idea of “same-day approvals” stuck in my mind.

— End quote

I disagree. I think that a majority of the users coming to TEP is bored with NS (and TEP) within a few days anyway.

— End quote

I have just looked through my list of accepted and rejected citizenship applications.
Since August 30[sup]th[/sup], 2020, we have accepted 142 applications. In the same time, we have rejected around 61 applications. About half of them were rejected for not sending a Telegram. Most of them have indeed CTE’d within one month after their application, meaning they have not responded to our Telegram (nor even seen it) and haven’t reacted to the forum post rejecting their application (of which they are likely to have received an email notification in most cases).
So, approximately every sixth applicant looses interest in NS around the time of their application. Seeing that the forum does not restrict their access in any way, (Citizens can do basically the same as any Registered User, right?) I find it hard to believe people loose interest because processing their application takes longer than one day. Having their name written in red characters instead of in grey ones will not make them more engaged, at least that’s what I think.

What I like though, is the part of registering a citizen’s TEP-nation and their WA-nation, and when during an audit their TEP-nation is outside of TEP (CTE’d or moved) and/or their WA-nation is not a member of the WA anymore, they loose their citizenship or more precisely, their right to vote.

Of course, from the ones we’ve accepted, some have become inactive too. I only checked the first 20 of those 142 accepted applications. Half of them have CTE’d. One currently resides in another region (after having CTE’d). If they are exemplary we would have done all the administration in vain for more than half of the 142 applications, or more than 70 users in 7 months. Doing less work in vain, while having a lesser workload would benefit the members of the Citizenship Commission (mostly Sammy and me), and at the same time a speedier and easier citizenship process would benefit the users.

So I think we should give it a go.

43

VW’s endorsement reaffirms my faith in this system. Some tweaks may be required, but no system is ever perfect, especially not right off the bat.

44

So like, funny story actually:

I spawned initially in The Pacific. I applied and all that stuff, but I didn’t actually know how long it would take. So I kinda got impatient and left. I went to TRR, then saw TEP and thought, “hey, that looked interesting” so I joined here.

So a possible factor into why a lot of people don’t want citizenship is how long it would take to process them.

45

I would like to motion this proposal to a vote.

46

I second

47

I object to this motion, on the basis that there is no actual definite change in our laws.

As per the Concordat,

— Begin quote from ____

Section 4) Enactment, amendment, or repeal of legislation, and ratification of a treaty or declaration of war submitted by the Delegate shall be decided by majority vote.

— End quote

SOM defines this further:

— Begin quote from ____

…2.2. Any Citizen may start a debate regarding any such bill or any other topic, in which said Citizen may introduce a Legislative Proposal, Resolution, or Proposed Amendment to the Concordat (hereinafter “Bill”).
…2.3. The Citizen that introduced a Bill shall be its sponsor. They may amend the Bill at any time during the debate, and designate other Citizens as sponsors.
…2.4. Any sponsor may motion the Bill to vote at any time during debate. A Magister who is not one of the bill’s sponsors must second that motion.

— End quote

I do not believe that this constitutes a Bill whatsoever.

I see no Proposal that actually changes any laws here. As such, I do not believe we can do this yet.

48

— Begin quote from ____

I object to this motion, on the basis that there is no actual definite change in our laws.

As per the Concordat,

— Begin quote from ____

Section 4) Enactment, amendment, or repeal of legislation, and ratification of a treaty or declaration of war submitted by the Delegate shall be decided by majority vote.

— End quote

SOM defines this further:

— Begin quote from ____

…2.2. Any Citizen may start a debate regarding any such bill or any other topic, in which said Citizen may introduce a Legislative Proposal, Resolution, or Proposed Amendment to the Concordat (hereinafter “Bill”).
…2.3. The Citizen that introduced a Bill shall be its sponsor. They may amend the Bill at any time during the debate, and designate other Citizens as sponsors.
…2.4. Any sponsor may motion the Bill to vote at any time during debate. A Magister who is not one of the bill’s sponsors must second that motion.

— End quote

I do not believe that this constitutes a Bill whatsoever.

I see no Proposal that actually changes any laws here. As such, I do not believe we can do this yet.

— End quote

The SOM doesn’t cover what the Magisterium does when it has two competing ideas and the Magisterium needs to decide which one it needs to focus its energy on.

As there is no precedent, the Magisterium needs to set one, and then perhaps include it in the SOM.

49

Seeing the [Advisory Question] What exactly does "Legislative Proposal" mean? - The East Pacific - Tapatalk on this, particularly Pakitsk’s response, I am curious where the Magisterium stands on an overhaul as proposed by the TS. So, since discussion has stopped here, I would like to ask the Provost [mention]Dylan[/mention] or one of his Deputies to organize at least such an “informal vote” to poll the Magisterium’s stance on this.

50

— Begin quote from ____

I object to this motion, on the basis that there is no actual definite change in our laws.

As per the Concordat,

— Begin quote from ____

Section 4) Enactment, amendment, or repeal of legislation, and ratification of a treaty or declaration of war submitted by the Delegate shall be decided by majority vote.

— End quote

SOM defines this further:

— Begin quote from ____

…2.2. Any Citizen may start a debate regarding any such bill or any other topic, in which said Citizen may introduce a Legislative Proposal, Resolution, or Proposed Amendment to the Concordat (hereinafter “Bill”).
…2.3. The Citizen that introduced a Bill shall be its sponsor. They may amend the Bill at any time during the debate, and designate other Citizens as sponsors.
…2.4. Any sponsor may motion the Bill to vote at any time during debate. A Magister who is not one of the bill’s sponsors must second that motion.

— End quote

I do not believe that this constitutes a Bill whatsoever.

I see no Proposal that actually changes any laws here. As such, I do not believe we can do this yet.

— End quote

This doesn’t need to be voted as a bill. This can be voted on as a resolution. It would make the most sense.

51

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

I object to this motion, on the basis that there is no actual definite change in our laws.

As per the Concordat,

— Begin quote from ____

Section 4) Enactment, amendment, or repeal of legislation, and ratification of a treaty or declaration of war submitted by the Delegate shall be decided by majority vote.

— End quote

— End quote

SOM defines this further:

— Begin quote from ____

…2.2. Any Citizen may start a debate regarding any such bill or any other topic, in which said Citizen may introduce a Legislative Proposal, Resolution, or Proposed Amendment to the Concordat (hereinafter “Bill”).
…2.3. The Citizen that introduced a Bill shall be its sponsor. They may amend the Bill at any time during the debate, and designate other Citizens as sponsors.
…2.4. Any sponsor may motion the Bill to vote at any time during debate. A Magister who is not one of the bill’s sponsors must second that motion.

— End quote

I do not believe that this constitutes a Bill whatsoever.

I see no Proposal that actually changes any laws here. As such, I do not believe we can do this yet.

This doesn’t need to be voted as a bill. This can be voted on as a resolution. It would make the most sense.

— End quote

The Conclave made a statement and determined the path which I am now advised to take; whereby saying that this is not a resolution as it does not include an opinion of the Magisterium.

I will be creating an informal poll to determine the opinion of the Magisterium between both.

52

— Begin quote from ____

I object to this motion, on the basis that there is no actual definite change in our laws.

As per the Concordat,

— Begin quote from ____

Section 4) Enactment, amendment, or repeal of legislation, and ratification of a treaty or declaration of war submitted by the Delegate shall be decided by majority vote.

— End quote

SOM defines this further:

— Begin quote from ____

…2.2. Any Citizen may start a debate regarding any such bill or any other topic, in which said Citizen may introduce a Legislative Proposal, Resolution, or Proposed Amendment to the Concordat (hereinafter “Bill”).
…2.3. The Citizen that introduced a Bill shall be its sponsor. They may amend the Bill at any time during the debate, and designate other Citizens as sponsors.
…2.4. Any sponsor may motion the Bill to vote at any time during debate. A Magister who is not one of the bill’s sponsors must second that motion.

— End quote

I do not believe that this constitutes a Bill whatsoever.

I see no Proposal that actually changes any laws here. As such, I do not believe we can do this yet.

— End quote

That’s because it’s just rough ideas until the informal poll happens. Then, if this (hopefully) wins over Nociav’s proposal, there will be a concrete bill. Otherwise, coming up with and tweaking legal text would just be a waste of time.

53

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

I object to this motion, on the basis that there is no actual definite change in our laws.

As per the Concordat,

— Begin quote from ____

Section 4) Enactment, amendment, or repeal of legislation, and ratification of a treaty or declaration of war submitted by the Delegate shall be decided by majority vote.

— End quote

— End quote

SOM defines this further:

— Begin quote from ____

…2.2. Any Citizen may start a debate regarding any such bill or any other topic, in which said Citizen may introduce a Legislative Proposal, Resolution, or Proposed Amendment to the Concordat (hereinafter “Bill”).
…2.3. The Citizen that introduced a Bill shall be its sponsor. They may amend the Bill at any time during the debate, and designate other Citizens as sponsors.
…2.4. Any sponsor may motion the Bill to vote at any time during debate. A Magister who is not one of the bill’s sponsors must second that motion.

— End quote

I do not believe that this constitutes a Bill whatsoever.

I see no Proposal that actually changes any laws here. As such, I do not believe we can do this yet.

That’s because it’s just rough ideas until the informal poll happens. Then, if this (hopefully) wins over Nociav’s proposal, there will be a concrete bill. Otherwise, coming up with and tweaking legal text would just be a waste of time.

— End quote

Neat.

However, you still can’t motion this to vote. There’s nothing to motion. You’re telling me that you want to vote on whether or not the text that EM wrote in their first post here to become an official part of our laws?

Cause that’s the only way we could motion this to vote as. I guess we could make this a resolution, but EM has a plan where they rewrite the laws on this, so a resolution is pointless.

54

— Begin quote from ____

The SOM doesn’t cover what the Magisterium does when it has two competing ideas and the Magisterium needs to decide which one it needs to focus its energy on.

As there is no precedent, the Magisterium needs to set one, and then perhaps include it in the SOM.

— End quote

The Magisterium doesn’t need to decide anything like that. That is because the Magisterium doesn’t have ideas, nor limited energy or focus. The Magisters (or Citizens) do. And they write proposals. If there are competing ideas, the involved Citizens or Magisters work on their ideas, and bring a bill forward that can be voted on.

55

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

The SOM doesn’t cover what the Magisterium does when it has two competing ideas and the Magisterium needs to decide which one it needs to focus its energy on.

As there is no precedent, the Magisterium needs to set one, and then perhaps include it in the SOM.

— End quote

The Magisterium doesn’t need to decide anything like that. That is because the Magisterium doesn’t have ideas, nor limited energy or focus. The Magisters (or Citizens) do. And they write proposals. If there are competing ideas, the involved Citizens or Magisters work on their ideas, and bring a bill forward that can be voted on.

— End quote

Hmmmm… I honestly don’t want to waste anyone’s time. That’s why. My proposal requires comprehensive changes and requires a referendum to kick it off. So it still have a chance of failing even with Magisterium support. So why not have the Magisterium decide if they want to focus on this proposal or that proposal?