Citizenship Changes

[Hileville]

Okay so right now you can obtain citizenship fairly easy here in TSP which isn't a bad thing but there are no regulations on losing citizenship unless you have committed a crime. Please post on your thoughts on our citizenship process and how it could be changed if you believe change is needed.

[Rebel-topia]

This has been debated for as long as I can remember (and Ive only been here 9 months)... IMO (and Im not too sure how many other regions run their cit), there should be some way to lose cit thats not being thrown out of the region for committing a crime... But becoming a citizen its right in line with how things should be. Have a nation in TSP, you can become a citizen.

[Hileville]

I am okay with how people get citizenship but I also feel there needs to be something in place for removal of it for various reasons. I am just not sure how we should go about implementing it.

[Antariel]

'Losing' - spelling I think there need to be inactivity bounds.I'm going to cite the example of Dali, who having posted nothing for the duration of my time in TSP, popped up in support of the MPA, then disappeared again, forever.4 weeks of inactivity - no forum posts, should merit losing the mask.

[Gandallfia]

4 weeks of inactivity - no forum posts, should merit losing the mask.

I'm tempted to agree that there is a call for some form of losing citizenship, adn I've not been here very long at all, as for 4 weeks I'm in two minds, I can see that it seems to be a reasonable time frame, but does making one post on the "ban the person above you" in that time frame ensure that you do not loose your citizenship?

I also think, and I'm not sure if it would make lots of work for somebody or not, but a message warning people that they are going to loose their citizenship would be nice.

[Hileville]

'Losing' - spelling

You know I really should take some more time when typing things. That is what you get when I am in a hurry.

[Milograd]

'Losing' - spelling

I think there need to be inactivity bounds.

I'm going to cite the example of Dali, who having posted nothing for the duration of my time in TSP, popped up in support of the MPA, then disappeared again, forever.

4 weeks of inactivity - no forum posts, should merit losing the mask.

This isn't a great idea.

Fudgie hasn't posted on the forums for around four weeks - for example - does that mean she should be stripped of her citizenship? If that was implemented it'd be moronic; people have lives outside of the game, and we must recognize this. Even if someone could re-apply it'd be fairly superfluous.

Furthermore, I think our citizenship policies are fine as they currentlyare.

[Hileville]

Okay so I am iffy on putting an activity requirement on citizenship but I believe that having a process in which citizenship requirement is checked every X amount of months or before elections or something is a must. If someone doesn't have a nation in TSP they shouldn't be a citizen. I don't believe it is a lot to ask for someone to log on to a TSP nation every 28 days or whatever it is before a CTE if they want to participate here.I wouldn't have as much of a problem with that if not every citizen was a member of our Assembly which is something I don't want to see changed. I do believe that we should also look at new citizens being able to vote on items that are currently at vote in our Assembly. We may want to restrict that to where they are unable to vote on anything that is already up for a vote.I understand the activity requirement as once again all nations are a part of our Assembly and if they are not participating in the discussion of things and then come in and just vote against something without explanation it sometimes seems like people are calling them in to vote on it. It is frustrating but the way our government works I don't think that applying activity requirements would work.

[Rebel-topia]

Im with Ant, here... kinda.I think there should be some sort of activity requirement... but only for a time period. If you're around TSP for so long (ie: 2 years or something), you become a "life citizen" or something along those lines. Like Carta said... Fudgie hasn't been around here for a while, but she has been in TSP since forever!! Shes been a HUGE part of TSP and, as such, shouldn't lose cit unless she breaks the law (not that she would EVER do something like that, but y'all get what I'm saying)...And is there some way for someone to denounce citizenship? something like if said nation leaves TSP for somewhere else, can they strip their own citizenship so said nation can become a cit somewhere else? Or do they just have "duel citizenship"?

[Hileville]

And is there some way for someone to denounce citizenship? something like if said nation leaves TSP for somewhere else, can they strip their own citizenship so said nation can become a cit somewhere else? Or do they just have "duel citizenship"?

I believe they just get dual citizenship. I am sure people could resign citizenship but we don't have any official policy on that.

[Rebel-topia]

[quote name="Hileville"] [quote name='"All the Kings men of Rebel-topia"] And is there some way for someone to denounce citizenship? something like if said nation leaves TSP for somewhere else' date=' can they strip their own citizenship so said nation can become a cit somewhere else? Or do they just have "duel citizenship"? [/quote']

I believe they just get dual citizenship. I am sure people could resign citizenship but we don't have any official policy on that. [/quote]

It was just a thought... Its not something that anyone mentions that I've seen in their laws/charter...

[Hileville]

I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to include that in whatever reform we do but just stating that currently we don't have any official policy like that.EDIT: Oh and to clarify Fudgie has posted on the forum in recently just not in a public one.

[Antariel]

We need something; letting people who've contributed nothing vote on TSP policy which is in their interest seems flawed.

[Eluvatar]

If we institute activity requirements for the Assembly then I would insist that we further enshrine our policy of allowing the region to select who wins the Delegacy, after our forum primary narrows the choices down. We'd be potentially taking away the vote of some people less active on the forum after all.

[Rebel-topia]

I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to include that in whatever reform we do but just stating that currently we don't have any official policy like that.

Its not so much that we'd have to add this, because, depending on what we put in writing, NOT having a nation in the region would make you loose citizenship...

[Hileville]

So I am so far seeing that those who have voted want to see some kind of change in our Citizenship policy.ELU: Our current Delegate Election policy is that candidates are narrowed down to the final two and then it goes to NS and whoever gets the most endorsements at the end of 2 weeks wins. That wasn't used in the last Delegate election as I ran unopposed so there weren't 2 people to run on the NS site.

[Eluvatar]

So I am so far seeing that those who have voted want to see some kind of change in our Citizenship policy.

ELU: Our current Delegate Election policy is that candidates are narrowed down to the final two and then it goes to NS and whoever gets the most endorsements at the end of 2 weeks wins. That wasn't used in the last Delegate election as I ran unopposed so there weren't 2 people to run on the NS site.

Yes I know.

I'm saying that if that isn't enshrined at the charter level, if we do this it should be.

[Hileville]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > So I am so far seeing that those who have voted want to see some kind of change in our Citizenship policy.

ELU:  Our current Delegate Election policy is that candidates are narrowed down to the final two and then it goes to NS and whoever gets the most endorsements at the end of 2 weeks wins.  That wasn't used in the last Delegate election as I ran unopposed so there weren't 2 people to run on the NS site.

Yes I know.

I'm saying that if that isn't enshrined at the charter level, if we do this it should be.
</blockquote> Okay. Got it. That wouldn't be a bad idea.

[Hileville]

Below is something to work off of. Wording may need changed as I am not sure if I was clear enough. Let me know your thoughts.

<strong class='bbc'>Article 2 ? Regulations of Citizenship</strong>



Citizenship is voluntary. All members of the Coalition of The South Pacific must accept the following regulations in order to become citizen nations:[*:h7tmc574] Fulfill the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present charter and state their nation that resides in the Coalition.





[*:h7tmc574] Refrain from threat, harassment, or abuse against any nation in The South

Pacific.





[*:h7tmc574] Refrain from working or plotting against the Coalition of The South Pacific, or giving assistance to any state or region which the the Coalition of The South Pacific is taking preventive or enforcement action.





[*:h7tmc574] Nations in the Coalition will lose their citizenship if they no longer have a nation residing within the Coalition with the exception of nations who are on assignment as an agent of the state.  The Chair of the Assembly will be tasked with monitoring the status of citizenship and may request the help of the Ministry of Security in cases of nations that are on assignment.





[*:h7tmc574] Upon the approval of a citizenship application the nation will not be able to vote on any item including but not limited to Assembly votes and elections if said items vote is in progress at the time of approval.

[Rebel-topia]

Upon the approval of a citizenship application the nation will not be able to vote on any item including but not limited to Assembly votes and elections if said items vote is in progress at the time of approval.

I think it should be expanded to topics going to a vote within<strong class='bbc'> 7 </strong>days of confirmation of citizenship. So, a new citizen they can join initial (just started) discussions and vote, but not become a citizen the day before a vote and expect to be able to vote.





**** I think 7 days is reasonable, as the charter calls for the bill to be put to vote within 72 hours of the 7-day discussion period. So they can vote if they arrive within the first 4 days of initial discussion (unless an extension is granted)

[Hileville]

It is Article 6 of the Charter: <a class='bbc_url' href='http://z1.invisionfree.com/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=10057'>http://z1.invisionfree.com/theSPacific/ind...showtopic=10057</a>

[Rebel-topia]

Thanks, Hile

[Unibot]

We do need tougher activity requirements for citizenship because at the moment, people can be citizens and try to vote and their legitimacy is questioned... which is wrong.I like Rebel's idea of a life member idea, I'd extend that to anyone who has served in the cabinet or in the SPA. That way our policy really is only changing for people who seem to not be contributing very much to the region.

[Dark_King]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > 'Losing' - spelling

I think there need to be inactivity bounds.

I'm going to cite the example of Dali, who having posted nothing for the duration of my time in TSP, popped up in support of the MPA, then disappeared again, forever.

4 weeks of inactivity - no forum posts, should merit losing the mask.

This isn't a great idea.

Fudgie hasn't posted on the forums for around four weeks - for example - does that mean she should be stripped of her citizenship? If that was implemented it'd be moronic; people have lives outside of the game, and we must recognize this. Even if someone could re-apply it'd be fairly superfluous.

Furthermore, I think our citizenship policies are fine as they currentlyare.
</blockquote> I agree Carta, there fine.

[Rebel-topia]

I like Rebel's idea of a life member idea, I'd extend that to anyone who has served in the cabinet or in the SPA. That way our policy really is only changing for people who seem to not be contributing very much to the region.

If this is done, I think there would need to be terms for this:

Elected officials
(*) Any ___ consecutive terms or ___ nonconsecutive terms (not needed to be the same elected position).

The South Pacific Army
(*) Anything over the rank of ____ for ____ days/months.