Article 1: Membership Requirements

[Todd McCloud]

This is the current Article for membership requirements to TSP citizenship, taken verbatim from the <a class='bbc_url' href='http://z1.invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=8043'>Charter</a>:

<strong class='bbc'><em class='bbc'>Article 1 - Requirements</em></strong>

All membership is voluntary. All nations interested in joining the Coalition of The South Pacific must fulfill the following requirements.



1. Call The South Pacific region their home



2. Be dedicated to preserve and protect the freedom, prosperity, security, and well being of our region as a whole and its individual states.

Please state your opinion on this article, including any revisions you would like to see. You may also argue over the necessity of said article and any other directions this article should take.



Discussion for this article will end on <strong class='bbc'>Wednesday, October 20th</strong>, or on a later date if the Minister of Region determines the debate to require more time.

[Caer Rialis]

I do not think this should change. We are a feeder and home to a diverse community. What's more, since the Delegate is chosen in the game and not necessarily here, it makes sense to include all in the South Pacific as part of our community.

[kloister]

Would suggest the following alterations:

All membership is voluntary<strong class='bbc'>, however actively encouraged.</strong>

1. Call The South Pacific region their home<strong class='bbc'>, by locating their WA nation (if a member) or main nation in The South Pacific</strong>

[Polkstreet]

I like the clarity of Mr. K's addition. Is there a length of residency requirement before it can be considered "home" or just taken on good faith?

[kloister]

In my mind I would think that just being resident would suffice...We have more specific requirements on length of residency for the Delegacy and Ministerial elections if memory serves...

[Southern Bellz]

I think we are a more welcoming community by the fact we don't force WA membership and other types of requirements. It allows those who are interested in passing (like I once was) to get involved in the region, without giving up other NS commitments. I know this policy has backfired (like our last cabinet, pretty much) but overall I think it is more beneficial than harmful as it stands.

[Karatafasadi]

I think k's addition is a little too specific, maybe something along the lines of:

1. Call The South Pacific region their home, by locating their nation in The South Pacific.

I do really like the wording of this though:



[/QUOTE]All membership is voluntary, however actively encouraged.

[Todd McCloud]

I'm personally against the WA requirement, in all honesty. Mostly because I don't want to force people to have to move their WA nation here and keep it here permanently.



Now, should they have a nation in the region? Oh absolutely. And that's not asking much out of the person - just make a puppet, maintain it, and agree to our charter.



I'm also partial to awarding citizenship to nations that post their TSP nation and publicly agree to the Charter (Like, "I, Todd McCloud, do adhere to the guidelines and rules outlined by the Charter of The South Pacific"). It sort of establishes a contract. That way, if we have problems with the person, we can point to the charter and say 'you remember how you agreed to this? Not our fault if you agreed to something you didn't read / agree upon.



Hence why I am for changing it to read the following:

<strong class='bbc'>Article 1 ? Requirements of Citizenship</strong>

All nations interested in joining the Coalition of The South Pacific must agree to the terms outlined by the Charter of The South Pacific by stating their acceptance of the document and providing their TSP nation in the form of a reply to the open Charter Post in the Assembly sub-forum.

This way, it's undeniable - tell us your TSP nation, and that you agree to abide by the terms of our charter. It also does not <em class='bbc'>demand</em> people adhere to it - if they don't want to, they don't have to, but they cannot be recognized as a citizen if they do not agree to the charter.

[Polkstreet]

Is recognition of citizenship required for participation in the voting process?

[kloister]

Is recognition of citizenship required for participation in the voting process?

IIRC it is one of the responsibilities of the EC, to ensure that only votes are cast by 'members' of TSP Forum, not necessarily having a resident nation in TSP on NationStates...

Polky...If it isn't then I think there is merit in it being so...

[Guest]

Actually, we have never done anything with this "coalition" thing, really. We don't check much on people having a nation in TSP either, because in our current setup, that's pretty much unenforceable, but still it's good to have it in the charter so that we can slap it around people's ears if the need may arise. The question is, is the charter only for those who recognize it, or is it for everyone in the TSP, regardless wether they agree to it or not? In the latter case, trying to enforce regional law on others, e.g. the RMB is a bit shady. Although it doesn't really matter in the end, I suppose ("You have been ejected under the 3 warnings law of the South Pacific""But I don't recognize your laws!""Fine, then you're ejected because the delegate thinks you're a nuisance. Have a nice day!")Still, I think the "Coalition of the South Pacific" is confusing, because it is not very clearly defined anywhere.And no, this "membership", whatever it may entail, should not be related to WA membership, IMO. I don't see a need, but do see the risk of excluding many people.

[Todd McCloud]

Actually, we have never done anything with this "coalition" thing, really. We don't check much on people having a nation in TSP either, because in our current setup, that's pretty much unenforceable, but still it's good to have it in the charter so that we can slap it around people's ears if the need may arise. The question is, is the charter only for those who recognize it, or is it for everyone in the TSP, regardless wether they agree to it or not? In the latter case, trying to enforce regional law on others, e.g. the RMB is a bit shady. Although it doesn't really matter in the end, I suppose

("You have been ejected under the 3 warnings law of the South Pacific"

"But I don't recognize your laws!"

"Fine, then you're ejected because the delegate thinks you're a nuisance. Have a nice day!")

Still, I think the "Coalition of the South Pacific" is confusing, because it is not very clearly defined anywhere.



And no, this "membership", whatever it may entail, should not be related to WA membership, IMO. I don't see a need, but do see the risk of excluding many people.

I'm more for the 'binding contract' purpose for this charter. Being a citizen means you're bound by the charter, but also means that you get the benefits of being a citizen too: you can vote, run in elections, participate in the government, etc.



If a member (non-citizen) does something stupid, we can still remove him or her. He or she does not have all the rights a citizen has, so that gives us the ability to remove people who are causing a ruckus who aren't citizens.



Also, edit to what I had above:

<strong class='bbc'>Article 1 ? Requirements of Citizenship</strong>

All nations interested in becoming citizens of The South Pacific must agree to the terms outlined by the Charter of The South Pacific by stating their acceptance of the document and providing their TSP nation in the form of a reply to the open Charter Post in the Assembly sub-forum.

[Guest]

"and providing their TSP nation" I think this is a bit too vague, especially as "TSP"is not really defined (Titanium Sublimation Pump? )
I would suggest

and openly stating the name of their NationStates nation resident in The South Pacific region in the designated area of the Assembly.

Changed some more because I feel this way a) we have a bit more flexible to experiment what procedure works best and B) we keep the thread clean in which the charter is posted. (Just a personal preference )

[Todd McCloud]

Alright, I've added your changes in. This is currently up for vote!