Citizenship

[tsunamy]

So ... the charter has been in effect for all of ... four days? ... so I think it's time to propose amendments. Jk ... kinda.
 
I was just reading over the the citizenship thread and I realized we don't dictate and official person and/or group to decide who should be accepted as citizens and not. At least, that is, from what I can tell from Articles 1 and 2 of the charter.
 
I realize we're still getting back to normal, but to use the current Vejey situation as an example, I feel like this is a situation where two people could decide every differently.
 
As such, my questions are:
 
1) Is there a presidence or law that I'm missing dictating who meet the requirements for citizenship?
2) If not, should we discuss a provision to dedicate a position(s) to this?
 
 
 

[Belschaft]

Article 1: Citizenship and Regulations of Citizenship
<ol class="bbc bbcol decimal">

[*]All nations resident in the region The South Pacific may apply for Citizenship in the Coalition.

[*]Citizens are guaranteed the rights defined in Article 2 of this Charter.

[*]All Citizens, in order to ensure to all the rights and benefits resulting from such, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present charter and Code of Laws.

[*]All nations wishing to obtain Citizenship must accept and abide by the terms and provisions of the Charter, declare their current nation residing in The South Pacific, current nation which holds membership in the World Assembly and all current regions and organizations in which the applicant is involved in.

[*]Citizenship requires a nation to be in The South Pacific at all times. If a Citizen no longer has a resident nation their Citizenship may be removed by a majority vote of the Cabinet.

[/list] 
Those guidelines are almost the same as they were under the previous version of the Charter, which had been the same for a very long time. If you meet them all (Have a nation in TSP, declare your WA, declare affiliations and meet the Charter obligations) then you are entitled to Citizenship. I believe it has always been admin who have processed them for the relatively simple reason that we're the ones who can remask people.

[tsunamy]

Those guidelines are almost the same as they were under the previous version of the Charter, which had been the same for a very long time. If you meet them all (Have a nation in TSP, declare your WA, declare affiliations and meet the Charter obligations) then you are entitled to Citizenship. I believe it has always been admin who have processed them for the relatively simple reason that we're the ones who can remask people.

 
My goal wasn't to question who can be a citizen as per the charter, it was to question who gets to determine the validity of citizen requests. I mean ... if I'm the only one who thinks this could be an issue, I'll happily drop it.
 
I guess I'm just seeing an issue possiblity where two admins could theoretically decide differently on the same nation.
 
Edit: I also realize this is a discussion that could take place amongst the admins, but I thought it would be best to discuss it openly for transperancy purposes.

[Belschaft]

I'm not aware of that issue ever arising, largely due our citizenship laws being so liberal.The only circumstances were I can imagine it might be an issue would be if there was debate whether a nation was compliant with the terms and provisions of the Charter.Also, I note at this point in time that lying on a citizenship application is Fraud under Article 6.3 of the CoL.

[Rebel-topia]

Vejey's specifics aside...
 
I know it was always Todd who had control of granting/denying the citizenships. I think there should be 1 or 2 admin(s) in charge, so confusion doesnt happen. And if theres a problem with someones application, it needs to be stated, not just "under review" (unless theres some security issue).

[Hileville]

Vejey's specifics aside...
 
I know it was always Todd who had control of granting/denying the citizenships. I think there should be 1 or 2 admin(s) in charge, so confusion doesnt happen. And if theres a problem with someones application, it needs to be stated, not just "under review" (unless theres some security issue).

 
If Todd's essay he wrote during NS fair is accurate we are going to be needing more than 2 admins looking at citizenship apps.  Based on the numbers that I have seen just over the last 24 hours limiting it won't be a good idea.  We don't want people to have to wait a long time for citizenship and that is why any admin should be able to review the apps.

[tsunamy]

So ... I don't know the specifics with Todd at the NS fair ... but I agree that limiting it isn't nessecarially the way to go.
 
Could we just add in a clause saying that if there is an issue, the Chief Justice or the Cabinet makes the decision? Just for formality's sake. We don't really want admins acting as gatekeepers ... do we?

[Hileville]

So ... I don't know the specifics with Todd at the NS fair ... but I agree that limiting it isn't nessecarially the way to go.
 
Could we just add in a clause saying that if there is an issue, the Chief Justice or the Cabinet makes the decision? Just for formality's sake. We don't really want admins acting as gatekeepers ... do we?

I think that depends on the issue.  If it is account multying it would entirely be in the realm of admin denial.  Also in the case of someone who was banned who is trying to get around that ban it would be in the realm of admin denial.  If there is some other security issue I would recommend it be discussed with the CSS who will be responsible for security.

[HEM]

I would say that any member of the Cabinet could approve it initially, but there's a two week period in which an administrator may review the decision. If the administrator has a concern, the Delegate personally may make a final decision. 

[Belschaft]

Cabinet don't have the required access to the admin CP to mask people HEM. In practical terms it has to be admins.

[tsunamy]

Again -- I think it is perfectly fine for the admin to do. I'm just wondering if we need a procedure in case of conflicts. That's all.

[Hileville]

Again -- I think it is perfectly fine for the admin to do. I'm just wondering if we need a procedure in case of conflicts. That's all.

 
I don't think that is needed.  I don't believe we have ever needed something like that since I have been here.  Although Todd usually handled all the apps himself.

[God-Emperor]

That he did, which I always found odd, especially since he wasn't terribly active here anymore.