@AC5230 has notified his interest in becoming a Citizenship Official, so it is my turn now to put this nomination forward. I really don’t have much to say about our current Provost, his deeds speak for him. However, aside from his legislative activity, he has contributed for years (4-5 years, if I’m not wrong) as a member to EPPS, for some time in the role of Assistant Commissioner, also taking part in key discussions with both our Citizenship Officials and Viziers. By working with us for such a long time, he is well-aware of how citizenship processing works and the standards we follow for it. Even when his broad experience places him, in my view, as a perfect candidate for the Office, his nomination is now open to discuss any topics, questions or doubts regarding AC’s suitability for the position, before it’s moved to a vote.
is gud
Perhaps
How would you exercise the power to deny applications for security reasons? Would you completely defer to Viziers, make the decision yourself, or some variation?
Also, are you sure you can commit the extra time to grueling, thankless work that often draws the ire of others just for following the law?
I am not a Vizier. It is, therefore, not my place to be the sole arbiter (no pun intended) on cases where denial of application is necessary. Deference to my superiors in all cases of suspicion is necessary - I’d rather it be done slowly but correctly than be done quickly but incorrectly.
If you are referring to the EPSA incident, it behooves me to make clear to you that the circumstances surrounding that incident were far beyond anything I ever intend on roping myself into or otherwise allowing. That incident was profoundly disturbing to those who believe in the sanctity of the Concordat - no matter which end of the equation you were on - and it is the duty of each and every one of us to ensure such political conditions do not materialize again. I will be in close communication with EPSA leadership regarding all matters relating to the combat waiver.
I see the CitOffice’s work as no more grueling than that of the Office of the Provost in which I have spent much of the last 6 years of my life. I am not dismayed by the idea of taking on more bureaucratic function. I owe it to this region to do something other than sit on my ass, sequestered away in the halls of the Magisterium.
How would you deal with a situation where no amount of communication conveys the importance of the law to a given party? The “EPSA situation” as you refer to it was one of multiple cases in which EPSA members did not do their diligence or follow the law and lashed out against the Citizenship Office for doing what they are bound by law to do. In each situation, the importance of following the law was stressed multiple times and ignored.
What?
Let me clarify with a simulation of sorts
Let’s say a citizen – is found to have CTE’d or dropped WA for EPSA purposes and not returned it after the operation as the law demands. You and others have repeatedly communicated the importance of following the law and have clarified that an unjust law may be easily amended. Despite all your efforts to make the law clear, lapses continue and it eventually falls to you to remove citizenship. Instead of reapplying for citizenship, they attempt to sue you.
How do you approach this situation?
It’s an interesting hypothetical, but one should keep in mind that in the entirety of the history of TEP, this kind of escalation happened once (and was solved out of court).
I dispute that the following qualifies as a simulation, but for the sake of this fair Magisterium, I will operate under that premise.
The Admiral (Overseeing Officer) of the Eastern Pacific Sovereign Armada would simply make me aware of who’s where and why long before we got to the point of routine lapses.
Assuming a purely rogue EPSA with no regard for citizenship law (a yet unseen scenario), the Admiral can sure damn try. Good luck with that, buddy.
Given that Lucklife is still here and that the case you’re hinting at was settled out of court, I’d imagine that his EPSA had plenty of regard for citizenship law. I trust that the current EPSA administration will cooperate with the Citizenship Office fully.
Twice.
You’d think
In fact, I know.
Perhaps what a good citizen official should do here is not
“Communicate the importance of following the law”
But
“Communicate to understand how different branches of the government can help each other”
A simple “Bro are your members back yet” or “Bro can you go do the legwork and yell at your members to come back” is communication that is clear and constructive between all our government branches. We don’t live in a silo. We talk and understand each other.
And perhaps the EPSA side will give a response like “Ah yeah I just sent out withdrawal last update, I’ll go yell at em” or “No we’re still deploying for consecutive updates”.
And you know what? That’s called understanding where the other party is coming from, which goes a long way than just “Communicating the importance of following the law”. Everyone knows the importance of following the law, EPSA has on the ground circumstances, things like infiltrations, back to back deployment orders, things that aren’t breaking the law and entirely allowed. And the solution is simple. It’s called ringing the EPSA department up to talk about it to understand them. We don’t take 3 business days to reply, we don’t bite, and we’re still part of TEP.
And that’s what I’ll look in a citizenship official. Someone who isn’t afraid to approach others and talk it out when doing their duties
Sometimes the law doesn’t give us that luxury. Communication is communication, and I don’t see how “communicate the importance of the law” is different from “communicate a mutual understanding” in any sense except the semantic. Practically, it’s the same thing — Citi Officials and EPSA Officials being equally communicative and collaborative. That is my vision for the Office and it seems like it’s yours, so I don’t think anyone here is disagreeing.
This would be the basis of:
Correction for the record: Dremaur was the Admiral at this time, and evidently he is also still here. Point still stands
Well so, as I said, after a couple of days of margin for any further comments, it is time. I motion this to a vote.
I second the motion.
Due to the passage of [N-2026-19] Confirmation of AC5230 as a Citizenship Official, this discussion topic has been closed. If further discussions on this matter are desired, please contact a member of the Office of the Provost to unlock it.