Wintreath Regional Community

A Link to the Past - Archives => The Registry of Things Past - Historic Archive => Frosthold Castle - Wintreath Government => Topic started by: Wintermoot on April 03, 2016, 02:58:50 AM

Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on April 03, 2016, 02:58:50 AM
I went through the Citizenship list tonight, and as usual I noticed that the vast majority of people who had their Citizenship revoked had only one post...the post that they applied for Citizenship with. I think one of the points of Citizenship is to have people be more committed and involved in the region, so I was thinking...what about an additional requirement of five non-spam posts before they could have their application considered? It would either encourage them to interact with the community a bit, or deter people that have no intention of doing so...but either way, I think it's an idea worth considering (and not just because it's mine :P).

Also would be a good time to discuss any other ideas to get new Citizens more involved. :)

Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Weissreich on April 03, 2016, 03:15:16 AM
I think this would be a good idea! Even a post requirement of 5 or 10 would ensure at least some level of activity from them without (hopefully) putting them off. I guess its then building on that 5/10 posts of activity to keep them here.

It's late, but I'll try and come up with a few ideas tomorrow :) maybe a forum theme revamp? Also capitalising on RMB activity will be a big thing.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: HannahB on April 03, 2016, 03:21:30 AM
On the post requirement... I'm not so sure... I mean I only have my own anecdotal experience to rely on, but for me applying for citizenship was a big scary thing :o I wasn't entirely sure what I was doing or if I was doing it right... I was very hesitant to get involved with things and wasn't really sure what I was doing :))

The idea of being under scrutiny kinda puts me off (I've been kicked off of things after just joinjng before, for not obeying every rule in a massive list appropriately) so I can imagine hearing that I would need to make so many posts before I was actually a citizen would either lead me to make pointless posts, or in my case more likely mean I was less inclined to apply  :-\

I would say, instead of it being an immediate requirement for citizenship, it might be better to have a check, after like a one month period or something if they still only have 1 or 2 posts including the application then they can have it revoked, and inform people about this maybe in the application. :)
I can see that as a better way of working it.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Sapphiron on April 03, 2016, 03:25:56 AM
I mean I only have my own anecdotal experience to rely on, but for me applying for citizenship was a big scary thing :o I wasn't entirely sure what I was doing or if I was doing it right... I was very hesitant to get involved with things and wasn't really sure what I was doing :))
At least I wasn't the only one who felt this. :P
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Michi on April 03, 2016, 04:08:03 AM
Actually, I'm not completely against it.

Let them post around a bit on the forums and get a feel, and five posts (one of which already would be their application) isn't too much to shoot for.  That's literally 4 posts in the dumping grounds, or 4 posts anywhere else on the forums, and then the 5th being their application.

If anything, encourage people to post up an AMA thread or introduction thread when they join, that's another post right there.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: PB on April 03, 2016, 04:31:18 AM
I'm afraid I have to side with Hannah and Sapph on this one. Making the jump from NS to the forums is a bigger commitment than I think we realize, or remember taking ourselves.  It can be very intimidating to people who may never have been exposed to online communities before.

What if the mentor program was mandatory - in that every new citizen received a PM from a mentor after their application was approved?
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Michi on April 03, 2016, 04:54:23 AM
If anything it'd be:

*Encouraging them to make an Introductory thread (1 post), or we make a welcome thread where people can post their hellos and be greeted.

*Encourage members to post in the Frostwake Orphanage and seek being adopted into a family (1 post)

*Encourage members to post in "Say what's on your Mind" since it's a pretty simply thread (1 post)

*Encourage members to post an Ask me Anything thread (1 post)

And then the application thread.

It's the 4 least intimidating threads that don't require any specific requirements, and likewise are very relaxed as far as posting lengths, since the first is up to them on how long it is, the 2nd is literally just saying they want to be adopted, the 3rd is literally just saying what they want, and the 4th is literally just telling people to ask questions.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Laurentus on April 03, 2016, 05:19:06 AM
With the current trend for people hosting forum games and stuff, it's never been easier to get involved. It's not like we're asking people to reach 500 posts or something. 5 posts just makes Wintermoot's job so much easier, and all the gruntwork that goes into reviewing citizenship applications, and then later having to revoke their citizenships, could finally be cut out and the energy expended in that thankless task could be put to much more efficient use elsewhere.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Arenado on April 03, 2016, 05:40:45 AM
I'm for this.

There is a bit of a problem with people signing up and disappearing. I think that this might help with that.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Barnes on April 03, 2016, 07:02:07 AM
This also eliminates the need to add a post requirement for citizens to enter the Storting according to the Open Assembly bill, because it will have already been incorporated in earning citizenship.

That being said, there will always be the work needed for citizenship checks because nations will still cease to exist or move to other regions in spite of "background checks", but at least this lessens the load due to needing to check fewer citizens and ensures at least a basic level of commitment.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: tatte on April 03, 2016, 07:59:33 AM
I'm against post requirements, but I think we could instead focus more in encouraging new members along the lines Pengu illustrated. We could compose a regularly updated welcoming message that gets posted in each and every citizenship application (getting told "go read these lists" is as bad as "do these things if you want in").

What comes to Wintermoot's burden, to ease that I'd instead suggest looking into the possibility of having one or two other people with the access to change the groups (are they called masks?), or at very least we could look into delegating the checking process completely or partially to somewhere else.

In an extension of my thoughts I have posted this proposal (http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=3521.new#new).
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Michi on April 03, 2016, 08:20:00 AM
I'm against post requirements, but I think we could instead focus more in encouraging new members along the lines Pengu illustrated. We could compose a regularly updated welcoming message that gets posted in each and every citizenship application (getting told "go read these lists" is as bad as "do these things if you want in").

What comes to Wintermoot's burden, to ease that I'd instead suggest looking into the possibility of having one or two other people with the access to change the groups (are they called masks?), or at very least we could look into delegating the checking process completely or partially to somewhere else.

In an extension of my thoughts I have posted this proposal (http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=3521.new#new).

I was going to suggest instead of posting such a welcome message in every application thread...what about updating the automatic PM that Wintermoot sends out to new citizens that join the forums?  That way, they're getting those suggestions right at the very start.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: tatte on April 03, 2016, 08:39:23 AM
Establishing a welcoming message for the forums would encourage the shift from NS to here. If someone has questions about a telegram they receive, they are most likely to respond to the telegram = a shard of integration with the forum environment is lost.

There's also the issue that a telegram sent by Wintermoot can only be sent.. well, by Wintermoot. In NS that works greatly in our benefit nothing really rivals getting a telegram from the monarch, but that's not necessarily the case here.

Having to go to NS for a list of suggested places to start with around here is not very efficient. If we want people to stick around, let's keep them around.

That telegram Wintermoot sends is extremely important, but what happens here is easier for us to improve, so that's where I think we should focus right now.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Michi on April 03, 2016, 08:54:56 AM
I think you're confusing what I mean.

I don't mean the telegram on NS.  I mean the Private Message that is automatically sent on here, the forums, by him when a person joins.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Michi on April 03, 2016, 08:57:13 AM
In other words, altering this:

Quote
Welcome to the Wintreath forums, Tredania!

As Monarch of our region, I'm happy that you have decided to make an account with us! You've taken the first step to getting to know our region and the people in it better. From here, there are two options for you.

Apply For Citizenship - If you're here as a resident of the region, you can apply for Citizenship! This will give you all the rights and protections of the Fundamental Laws, our regional Constitution, such as the ability to take government office, to vote in elections, and to take part in Citizen-only discussions.

Apply For Ambassadorship - If you're here to represent another region, you can apply as an Ambassador and/or request embassies between Wintreath and your region. This essentially means that our regions will have relations, and occasionally share news and updates with each other.

You can apply for either status here. Just find the right form, fill it out, and submit your form as a new topic. Once you submit it, it may take some time for us to review your application. While you wait, feel free to join any discussion in the Howling Wind Tavern, General Discussion, or Valley of the Spammage forums, all of which are open to non-Citizens!

I hope you enjoy our region and our community. Please message me back if you need any help getting started here on the forums.

Warm Regards,
-Inric Nordrim Stark (Wintermoot of Wintreath)
-Monarch of Wintreath

with the different suggestions.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: tatte on April 03, 2016, 09:27:55 AM
Oh, my apologies.

Still, the points stand. People are more likely to respond to that with another PM and having a customs like this that relies on Wintermoot doing everything himself may not be ideal.

If the key here is encourage people to interact with the community, it would be really healthy to look into ways how crushing majority of their initial contact with the community is not just Wintermoot (regardless of how great and awesome he is).
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: HannahB on April 03, 2016, 01:14:39 PM
It's the 4 least intimidating threads that don't require any specific requirements, and likewise are very relaxed as far as posting lengths, since the first is up to them on how long it is, the 2nd is literally just saying they want to be adopted, the 3rd is literally just saying what they want, and the 4th is literally just telling people to ask questions.
With the current trend for people hosting forum games and stuff, it's never been easier to get involved. It's not like we're asking people to reach 500 posts or something. 5 posts just makes Wintermoot's job so much easier, and all the gruntwork that goes into reviewing citizenship applications, and then later having to revoke their citizenships, could finally be cut out and the energy expended in that thankless task could be put to much more efficient use elsewhere.

I wasn't saying 5 was a difficult goal to reach; I was saying that when I joined I was very nervous about posting and the idea that every post I made was being watched with the critical eye of the government might have put me off...

Also thinking about the logistics of this, would it be between them posting an application and that application getting accepted, because sometimes that's really quick? So would we add a margin where they can make posts, I remember I myself posted my app and then didn't log back in for like a day. :)) And quite a few people are really quiet for a while before becoming very active and others are very loud for a few days and then completely disappear.

I think the minimum post thing is a solution to one problem (stopping people with only an application getting made citizens and then needing to be revoked) but it's net casts too wide, not everyone is the same and this might deter other people from joining. I think a more lax approach would be better suited (to Wintreath especially) one where you aren't pressured to interact even if at the time you don't want to that much. A longer time-frame so that you can get involved at your own pace, and are already secure in thinking your a citizen (the same as everyone else) when you are interacting with people.

I like tatte's idea as well, it would be more effective to add the ability to revoke and approve citizenship to more than just Moot or at least a dedicated person to help keep track of everything involved in the process.

And the idea that something could be sent to try and get people more involved... though I am less sure about a PM and think that the "welcome" responses on the topic are the best place for this, because it is the forum and is right there for the citizen in question to see as well as anyone else considering joining.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Laurentus on April 03, 2016, 01:21:02 PM
I agree that having multiple able to do the masking would be the most efficient, but if that's not something Moot wants, then it's a bit of a moot point. :P
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: HannahB on April 03, 2016, 01:28:43 PM
I agree that having multiple able to do the masking would be the most efficient, but if that's not something Moot wants, then it's a bit of a moot point. :P

Can I just say... that was a fantastic pun :))

And yeah, I know that it's all up to Wintermoot, everything is really, but I think he listens to us all, so it's important to keep his options open, and that's why I was trying to be broad, suggesting that they didn't necessarily have to have the powers, we could cut out half the work with what's basically an assistant role(s) who would keep track of things for him. :)

Moot will like what Moot likes; but I think if we don't make loads of suggestions then he might not be able to find the avenue which bests suits him.

(PS: The whole tone of this makes it seems like Wintermoot is god and we are all praying to him :P :)) )
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Arenado on April 03, 2016, 01:45:12 PM
I agree that having multiple able to do the masking would be the most efficient, but if that's not something Moot wants, then it's a bit of a moot point. :P

Can I just say... that was a fantastic pun :))

And yeah, I know that it's all up to Wintermoot, everything is really, but I think he listens to us all, so it's important to keep his options open, and that's why I was trying to be broad, suggesting that they didn't necessarily have to have the powers, we could cut out half the work with what's basically an assistant role(s) who would keep track of things for him. :)

Moot will like what Moot likes; but I think if we don't make loads of suggestions then he might not be able to find the avenue which bests suits him.

(PS: The whole tone of this makes it seems like Wintermoot is god and we are all praying to him :P :)) )

I'm glad you understand  :P

In all honesty, I think you are overestimating the effect a post requirement has on citizenship. I'm also concerned about giving masking powers to other people. How will we decide who gets it? A potential recipe for disaster.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: HannahB on April 03, 2016, 01:52:56 PM
I'm glad you understand  :P

In all honesty, I think you are overestimating the effect a post requirement has on citizenship. I'm also concerned about giving masking powers to other people. How will we decide who gets it? A potential recipe for disaster.

Well I don't think it will have that big an effect, I just don't like the idea of cajoling people into posting :-\ I think they should be free to post however much they want as they want. I myself overthink things, and I overthought things when I joined the region, though I understand I am my own person, I still think a requirement for posting sets an unfortunate precedent with the applications.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Laurentus on April 03, 2016, 01:55:16 PM
I did try. :D

And I actually suggested something along similar lines (though not for this particular application, but to make it easier for the RP area to be kept up to date), but it ended up not happening. I can't recall exactly what the reasons were, though.

A possible reason I would be hesitant to give other people such power were I in his shoes is the possible security risk it entails, but that's just me, and simply appointing people I trust implicitly should do the trick. It's not fool-proof, though.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Weissreich on April 03, 2016, 02:31:13 PM
There's also a lot to be said for simply posting in new citizenship application threads, imho - I've noticed some of us have started to do this more often in recent months, but by engaging people in conversation right off the bat, asking what they're interested in, pointing them in the right direction and generally being friendly leaves a better first impression.

Perhaps we should have a small team of people with citizenship masking ability, rather than just one?

On the posting requirement itself, I don't think a 5 or 10 post minimum is going to put people off. Maybe we need to make it clear that off-site forums operate at a more measured pace? I think a lot of people expect it to be as busy as the RMB often is, and don't come back because there's no immediate response.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Gerrick on April 03, 2016, 08:58:18 PM
I personally think a small post requirement would be good for citizenship if we keep the current legislature model. If people are put off from posting 5/10 times, then they weren't going to stay here in the first place. I just joined a few months ago, and I had enough just in my citizenship application and intro AMA, so I don't think it'd deter those who plan on doing more than just applying for citizenship then leaving. If anything I think it'd create more activity by encouraging new people to get involved, especially if we point them to some areas where they might be interested.

To go off that, we might want to have mentors actively mention them in certain threads they might be interested in just to get the conversation started for them, so they aren't afraid to post something themselves. Also, if the welcome message is very friendly and not pushy (accompanied by all the people who welcome the new person on their citizenship application), I think they wouldn't be scared by the post requirement.

Then again, if we have a different legislature model that requires an opting-in or other requirement, then it would still be helpful, though not as necessary.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Michi on April 04, 2016, 02:16:09 AM
I agree that having multiple able to do the masking would be the most efficient, but if that's not something Moot wants, then it's a bit of a moot point. :P

I think what people don't really understand is that it's a bit more complicated than that.

The different masks include Administrators in that, so logically only an Administrator would be able to do the masking.

So Moot would have to find someone that he trusts to:

*Not abuse the masking system
*Not destroy the forums in any way (deleting forums, fucking the system by changing/deleting any of the coding)
*Not ban people willy nilly

And the like.  If the system here is like any that I've worked with, there's no way to restrict one's access to the Admin CP in specific ways (IE making it so someone could ONLY mask citizens) except for Global Moderators who, if I recall, have access to the smallest features that wouldn't be able to really damage the forums.

So the person would really have access to the ENTIRE Admin CP.


Apparently there IS a way to code it, so this post is essentially null now.  :P
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Michi on April 04, 2016, 02:25:08 AM
It's the 4 least intimidating threads that don't require any specific requirements, and likewise are very relaxed as far as posting lengths, since the first is up to them on how long it is, the 2nd is literally just saying they want to be adopted, the 3rd is literally just saying what they want, and the 4th is literally just telling people to ask questions.

I wasn't saying 5 was a difficult goal to reach; I was saying that when I joined I was very nervous about posting and the idea that every post I made was being watched with the critical eye of the government might have put me off...

Hence why I chose the 4 least intimidating threads.  :P  Some threads in other regions actually require that you post a welcome thread on top of a citizenship thread.  But on top of that, they require that those threads be a paragraph or longer.  I think that's quite a bit much, honestly...even though I myself would be fine writing a paragraph.

Here, a welcome thread could literally just be a title and then you saying hi.  And likewise, the other threads don't ask anything of anyone at all, and are very relaxed in how you can go about them.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on April 04, 2016, 06:47:15 AM
I appreciate all the thoughts and opinions expressed about my idea and the issue behind it...there were a lot of good thoughts and perspectives. :)

Hannah brings up a good point...I remember when I was new in NS and Spiritus that I was nervous for a good while. I was nervous about being a newbie to a game that obviously had a lot of history and meta-game that wasn't easy to understand for someone that was new. I was nervous about being in a new community and doing something stupid. I was nervous that I'd go on for too long and annoy people. I'm not sure that a five-post requirement would have kept me from applying, and Wintreath has many more areas open to guests than Spiritus did (and does), but I can understand that some people might feel intimidated. The question then is, how do we go about making them feel less intimated?

On the other hand, to get to the point that you apply for Citizenship, you have to jump through a lot of hoops...a new player has to create a nation, receive our telegram, move to the region, apply to the forums, and post their application. Other then cases where someone found another region and moved, which is the exception rather than the rule, it seems odd for anyone to go through all that and then disappear. I don't think someone would register to the forums and apply without planning on using their Citizenship. But they aren't...why? Are they not finding what they wanted once they become one, or do they get confused on the forums and don't get the help they need?

Another thought comes to mind...are we over-emphasizing Citizenship and all the benefits of becoming one over joining the forums and the community? Would it be better if we focused more on getting people to join and take part in conversations before bringing up becoming a Citizen?

It seems there are many questions that need to be answered. I still don't think that a small post requirement would be a bad idea...it could encourage people to interact with the community and give them the push they need to get started. But there could be a number of issues at play, and it's obvious now that a requirement won't be the entire solution if we really want to convert those one-post CTEs into active members of the community.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Weissreich on April 04, 2016, 04:11:57 PM
I definitely think there's a risk that we're pushing people into citizenship a little early, before allowing them to really find their legs in the community. That said, I kind of see it as understandable behaviour - being a citizen usually implies a higher level of activity within the region, even if it is all NS-based activity, whereas a Village Drifter straight up states they're not here to stay.

If we could somehow work around this, get people to actively participate without signing up for citizenship, then sure, we'd end up with a far larger member base. However, a lot of them wouldn't be citizens; I think the best thing to do is promote forum activity IN GENERAL as much as we can, and simply encourage active members to sign on for citizenship as and when we can.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Michi on April 04, 2016, 06:29:23 PM

Another thought comes to mind...are we over-emphasizing Citizenship and all the benefits of becoming one over joining the forums and the community? Would it be better if we focused more on getting people to join and take part in conversations before bringing up becoming a Citizen?


No, to me it's no different than validating members before they join, which is a big thing that most message boards I join end up doing.  The only difference is that instead of waiting for your email to be validated/you going through the process yourself, you're posting an application.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on April 11, 2016, 04:57:30 AM
So @Weissreich, how would you handle promotion of the forums on the region page? Remove the Citizenship stuff and just promote what we're doing on the forums?
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Weissreich on April 11, 2016, 12:31:39 PM
So @Weissreich, how would you handle promotion of the forums on the region page? Remove the Citizenship stuff and just promote what we're doing on the forums?
It's a tough one when you think about it, primarily because of the differences between the RMB-style posting and forum-style posting. One is pretty much point, shoot and wait whilst the other requires navigating to the correct boards, replying in the right topics, remembering to check back on the site etc...

I don't think we need to de-emphasise Citizenship so to speak, simply add emphasis to what we're doing as a community. The region page info section should be up-to-date on a week by week basis, at the very least, and those of us who're actively involved in culture, legislation, regional publications etc should be on the RMB letting people know what's going on.

In addition to this, we've recently seen (or at least, recently for me) an upsurge in the number of people who're participating in RMB-wide RP's. If we can convince those hosting and taking part that the forums would be a better place to hold their games, we'd bring in at least ten new forum members from the world map-based RP Canmasu or w/e he's called is running.

Other than that, I really do think it's just about showing the flag on the region page and engaging RMB-actives in the hopes that we'd entice them over to the forum. There's a FAQ post in the Intro/Gatekeep forum, but it might be worth having one subforum entitled "Guides" with a forum guide, a region guide, an RP guide, a NS guide... Give people reasons to come to the forums :)
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: jedi_josh on April 15, 2016, 08:54:55 AM
I'm not what one would call a chatty player. I say hi to those I know and that's that. I came to Wintreath a couple of years ago when Moot first built the region and I've stood solidly for Wintreath ever since. I don't think it's fair to judge my dedication to the region based on the fact that I don't like to chat or post on an offsite forum. Anyone who knows me knows I'm only a telegram away. :)
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on April 16, 2016, 02:53:27 AM
I'm not what one would call a chatty player. I say hi to those I know and that's that. I came to Wintreath a couple of years ago when Moot first built the region and I've stood solidly for Wintreath ever since. I don't think it's fair to judge my dedication to the region based on the fact that I don't like to chat or post on an offsite forum. Anyone who knows me knows I'm only a telegram away. :)

Hey there! It's always good to see you. :)

I don't think anyone is judging your dedication to the region...I'm certainly not, but the vast majority of people who only apply for Citizenship don't stick around, and it's a fair amount of work to give them security checks, grant them Citizenship, and then have to remove their masking when they don't stick around. If they were to be encouraged to interact with the community more, maybe they would find things and people that they like and have a reason to stick around.

Instead of five posts, what about one topic other than their Citizenship app? It could be an introduction, a discussion about something that interests them, some new spam game...it would be contributing to the community, but would it be less intimidating than five posts?
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Weissreich on April 16, 2016, 02:31:17 PM
@Wintermoot I quite like the idea of one topic + application thread before acceptance, but perhaps a mix and match of both? I understand people's reluctance to put a post requirement on but let's be absolutely honest here, it'd take you 5 minutes to make 5 posts. One topic, five post requirement, perhaps?
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on April 16, 2016, 05:36:54 PM
Well, ultimately it's up to the Storting to add a new Citizenship requirement...I'm just throwing out some ideas. :P
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Laurentus on April 17, 2016, 12:16:47 PM
Hmm, the whole point of this is to lighten Moot's workload, correct?

Let's try something else, first, like giving the Ministry of Integration the power to mask people.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on April 25, 2016, 01:37:24 AM
I wouldn't say that the whole point is just to lighten my workload, but to encourage Citizens and prospective Citizens to get involved in the community, where they won't be as likely to drop out and cease to exist. We have an issue where people that have jumped through a lot of hurtles to get to the point of applying for Citizens drop out and cease to exist, and I don't think they would have become Citizens if they didn't expect to get something out of being here.

I've ran some numbers, on post counts for current and former Citizens, and here are the results.

FORMER CITIZENS (363 TOTAL)
--------------------------
1 post - 102 (27.71%)
2 - 4 posts - 109 (29.62%)
5 - 9 posts - 70 (19.02%)
10 - 50 posts - 49 (13.32%)
51 - 99 posts - 12 (3.26%)
100+ posts - 21 (5.71%)

CURRENT CITIZENS (112 TOTAL)
--------------------------
1 post - 18 (16.07%)
2 - 4 posts - 19 (16.96%)
5 - 9 posts - 15 (13.32%)
10 - 49 posts - 19 (16.96%)
50 - 99 posts - 3 (2.68%)
100+ posts - 41 (36.61%)

The first result that I see is that nearly 28% of our former Citizens and 16% of our current Citizens have only made a single post: their Citizenship application. These are people that seem to have hit it and quit it. Further, 3/4 of former Citizens made fewer than 10 posts on the forum. On the other hand, there seems to be a good correlation between higher post counts and remaining Citizens...2/3 of the people to ever reach 100 posts are still Citizens today (note: this counts Paragons). Although it's ultimately the Storting's call as to whether to create a new requirement, I think there's a case to be made for doing so on top of the improvements we recently made to the actual process.

Additionally, it seems to me that as a region (especially the Ministry of Integration), we need to stick with new Citizens until they have reached 50 posts, since over 9 out of 10 former Citizens failed to reach that point. Some of these people may just be long-term residents that aren't into the forums, but a lot of them are people that are at risk of dropping out. We need to try to keep in communication with them...just to make sure that their experience in the region is good, to make sure they know we're there if they have questions, need help, or just have ideas, and let them know of things that are going on in the region. To some extent we're beginning to tackle these problems on the region page, but I think individual contacts would go a long way too.

Any thoughts there?
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Weissreich on April 25, 2016, 02:53:07 PM
Yeah, I'm very much in agreement with the communication suggestion, Mootles - I think the most important thing in any community that draws new members in and allows them to properly bond and settle with those of us already here is definitely engaging them in conversation, answering questions, lending a helping hand where needed.

The new poll on the RMB is a step in the right direction, at least in regards to NS parts of the region, but in terms of correcting that new member drift (as I like to call the phenomena of people signing up only to vanish) I'm not 100% sure how we can go about it. We need more to do on the forums, but what else is there?
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on April 25, 2016, 04:53:53 PM
The region page will be more active going forward...we had a discussion in the Cabinet and determined that the Ministry of WA Affairs should take the lead in keeping the region page up to date and interactive, but the other ministries should be pitching in as well. I also recommend that anyone doing events or announcing things post on the RMB as well...I try to do that, but sometimes I forget. :P

I've already made my initial suggestions, but I think this is going to be a journey we have to take for a long time...we have to look at what people want and expect when they come to the region and forum. For example, Sherlon posted in his Citizenship app that one of the things that attracted him was the LGBT community, and that's something I've heard from others before...but what do they expect when they read that we have a LGBT community? Are they wanting to get to know the people in it, or are they wanting discussions on LGBT topics and news, or do they just infer that it means we're an open and accepting community?

That's just an example. We're going to have to ask those questions every time someone tells us what brought them here, so we can bring about the things they want.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on April 28, 2016, 05:21:33 AM
Since there hasn't been any further discussion since my last post, I have drafted a simple proposal Act containing the post requirement. I'm perfectly fine with this passing, failing, or being modified, but at least this will steer the topic towards some conclusion.

Quote
The Citizenship Integration Amendment Act

Title
1) This Act shall be cited as the Citizenship Integration Amendment Act.

2) The following shall be inserted into Section 2 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act, with subsequent subsections being renumbered accordingly:
Quote
2.1 Prospective Citizens shall have made at least five posts on the regional forum prior to approval of their application for Citizenship.

@Barnes @Laurentus @HannahB @Pengu @Weissreich @North @Point Breeze
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Weissreich on April 28, 2016, 12:07:56 PM
I approve of this wholeheartedly.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Laurentus on April 28, 2016, 01:56:14 PM
I'd probably support something like this if a push is made to give people things to discuss too. Not everyone requests a mentor, so a mandatory Q&A thread for prospective citizens (AMA, basically) would be nice.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on April 28, 2016, 01:59:21 PM
I'd probably support something like this if a push is made to give people things to discuss too. Not everyone requests a mentor, so a mandatory Q&A thread for prospective citizens (AMA, basically) would be nice.
Are you saying that you don't believe there are enough discussions for prospective Citizens to take part in, or that they should be given direction on what specifically they should post?
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Laurentus on April 28, 2016, 02:11:42 PM
The latter.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on April 28, 2016, 02:16:00 PM
I'm not sure that I would go so far as to mandate in law the types the post they should make, but if we came together I think we could create a list of current topics that Citizens (and non-Citizens) might be interested in participating in...maybe we could create a section on the site for it, or post it as a dispatch or something.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on April 29, 2016, 09:23:56 PM
So...if there isn't any further discussion to be had, would someone be kind enough to move it to the Underhusen? :P
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Weissreich on April 29, 2016, 10:00:45 PM
Shall do in a little bit if no one else does first :)
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: tatte on May 01, 2016, 12:10:41 AM
I think this would be a decent opportunity to make a push to divert the RMB people over here. Something easy to approach, maybe even a section where they can post unregistered. The RMB after all is a mess, so providing the opportunity to have a thread for maps, another for something else they like to do over there et cetera (they should have the power to create those threads themselves).

This is awfully likely a really dumb question, but do we actually have somewhere a thread or a page that somehow illustrates the meaning/benefit of being a citizen? To me those statistics say that people come and apply because that's what they feel like they are supposed to do.

Having them submit a few posts before getting the privilege of applying for citizenship may partly fail if my assumption above is true. If we take this route, we should make sure the entire citizenship system works as intended. Is this kind of legislation the best way? Are we sure the same result could not be achieved just by changing a few words here and there and slapping a friendly "Please join the forums. Like what you see? Consider applying for citizenship. Click here to read what citizenship entails." somewhere?

I understand the logistics and statistical side, but since I'm one of those who would be uncomfortable joining a forum that has such requisites, no matter how insignificant they may be, I must voice my opposition. Community that demands that you participate/contribute diminishes its appeal. You know what they say about first impressions. This would be a bad law.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Chanku on May 01, 2016, 04:24:01 AM
I have to somewhat agree with tatte here. I also have a few concerns over the law, on the basis of it potentially violating the administrative section of the Fundamental Laws. Further this doesn't have to be Law. Wintermoot can simply direct all people with the authority to accept citizenship applications to not accept applications until they have reached the limit and also request that all people make that requirement in order to be considered.

Also just a quick note, had there been a post requirement when I joined, I would have not joined Wintreath as a Citizen, at least at that time. So it seems you WILL be actively deterring people that would be willing to contribute with this policy, and honestly I have to say I do NOT believe this is a good policy. 
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on May 01, 2016, 04:55:52 AM
In fairness, we have taken measures to make the Citizenship process quicker and faster. We've substantially shortened the Citizenship form, and with the entire Riksråd able to process applications things go much quicker. We're also going to keep better watch of Citizens with fewer than 50 posts, and try to help them out of it looks like they're struggling in the region.

What's being forgotten here is that unlike many other regions where you have to be a Citizen to do much of anything, or to even view their forums in some cases, our entire culture area is open to anyone that makes an account. Not only does that make it simpler to reach five posts, but it also means that Citizenship is only really needed to participate in government or to join the military, and if they are averse to making four posts plus their Citizenship app, how are they going to be part of those things? Joining the forum has no such requisites...our requisites to be part of the community are lower than almost every other region in the game...it's really just participating in government and the military that requires such requisites.

But that brings up what you said, tatte...you're right, people probably come and apply because they feel like that's what they're supposed to do, and that's not necessarily true. If people want to become Citizens that's great, but what we really want is for people to get involved with the community. As I was talking with Weissreich somewhere, it may be that we're overemphasizing Citizenship and not emphasizing just being on the forums enough. That's something I'm trying to change with things like the Codex of Topics (http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=622147). If we can get people involved in the community, I'm sure eventually they'll become Citizens anyhow...if they apply for Citizenship and never get involved in the community, we just lose them.

I have to somewhat agree with tatte here. I also have a few concerns over the law, on the basis of it potentially violating the administrative section of the Fundamental Laws. Further this doesn't have to be Law. Wintermoot can simply direct all people with the authority to accept citizenship applications to not accept applications until they have reached the limit and also request that all people make that requirement in order to be considered.
That is something I would consider to be a legal but inappropriate use of executive power. The Fundamental Laws is very clear that the Storting sets Citizenship policy...while the authority may have been delegated to me as well, I know that it was with the unspoken intention of being used in rare, individual cases, such as the one time that it's been used in. It was never intended to allow the Monarchy to circumvent the Storting and set its own Citizenship policy that would be applied to everyone. For that reason, this is not a route that I will be perusing.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Chanku on May 01, 2016, 05:05:41 AM
Wintermoot Section 2.5 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act gives you this authority.

Honestly I would rather you use this authority than just passing it into law, because honestly I think you just want to be able to say you can't do anything about it. For once in your life take a stand with pride, I don't understand how you can stand to the side!
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Barnes on May 01, 2016, 05:11:14 AM
Further this doesn't have to be Law. Wintermoot can simply direct all people with the authority to accept citizenship applications to not accept applications until they have reached the limit and also request that all people make that requirement in order to be considered.
Honestly I would rather you use this authority than just passing it into law.
At what point does a monarch "directing" outside of the law stay outside of the law, and how long does it stay that way before it effectively becomes law?

As for everything else, I think that if we emphasize forum membership moreso than citizenship, RMB users (and new Wintreans in general) will move here and participate and then decide whether to advance to citizenship. By that point potential citizens will already be more prepared than just offering citizenship outright where new recruits are confronted with indecision on how to participate.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on May 01, 2016, 05:12:20 AM
Wintermoot Section 2.5 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act gives you this authority.

Honestly I would rather you use this authority than just passing it into law, because honestly I think you just want to be able to say you can't do anything about it. For once in your life take a stand with pride, I don't understand how you can stand to the side!
I have already answered the first portion of your post, and won't be dignifying the second portion with a response.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Chanku on May 01, 2016, 05:16:50 AM
Wintermoot Section 2.5 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act gives you this authority.

Honestly I would rather you use this authority than just passing it into law, because honestly I think you just want to be able to say you can't do anything about it. For once in your life take a stand with pride, I don't understand how you can stand to the side!
I have already answered the first portion of your post, and won't be dignifying the second portion with a response.
Wasn't that technically giving it a response? :P (Also I believe @Reon might have something to say about the last part :P )

Further this doesn't have to be Law. Wintermoot can simply direct all people with the authority to accept citizenship applications to not accept applications until they have reached the limit and also request that all people make that requirement in order to be considered.
Honestly I would rather you use this authority than just passing it into law.
At what point does a monarch "directing" outside of the law stay outside of the law, and how long does it stay that way before it effectively becomes law?
So long as it can be reversed as soon as it's realized this is a bad policy very quickly, I don't really care. If Wintermoot believes it's better to forgo our accepting nature and become more exclusive than it's his prerogative to do so.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Weissreich on May 01, 2016, 09:23:03 AM
So, I took a little look after reading through Chanku's complaint, and the FL deems this proposed amendment entirely legal through this clause:
Quote from: Fundamental Laws
15. The Storting shall have the authority to interpret these Fundamental Laws and statutory laws and consider the constitutionality over laws brought before the Storting, determine rulings and verdicts in regard to violations of these laws, and determine punishments for violations of these laws within the parameters of these Fundamental Laws and any other laws.

Chanku's point is actually well made in that the Citizenship and Demonym Act states:
Quote from: Cit. & Den. Act
   2.5 The Monarch, or any subordinate official appointed by the Monarch, shall have the authority to grant or deny citizenship to any person who applies.

However, under the cited subsection of the FL, the Underhusen has the authority to interpret this law as it sees fit. I argue that rather than occluding our ability to legislate on citizenship matters (as we already have done with the Cit. & Den. Act anyway), sec. 2.5 rather notes the ability of the Monarch to enact Royal Prerogative in the acceptance or denial of citizenship. In no way does this section prevent the Storting from legislating a citizenship requirement of 5 posts, rather it allows Mootles to ignore that legislation should he so think it's needed (e.g. he knows an applicant is likely to be trouble, so denies/revokes; or he believes in good faith an applicant will fulfil the requirements of citizenship and thus sidesteps the approval process)

As we all know, Mootles has been studious about sticking to the powers he has in law and has AFAIK never used any of his executive powers that could be described as superseding the legislative process or already enacted law. I don't think we have anything to worry about from this amendment.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: tatte on May 01, 2016, 10:18:20 AM
Another thing we should consider here is that this kind of post requirement robs away the chance to provide mentors and in general wastes the opportunity to provide any kind of personal spot-on guidance before new members start roaming around.

I would much rather see the current citizenship application process be turned into residency application that requires no masking. New members would be asked to post a similar application, they'd receive their warm welcomes, mentors could still be appointed early on and we'd avoid losing those who'd turn around at the "you must be this tall to take this ride" -sign.

Actual citizenship could then be barricaded behind even higher requirements since it would no longer be the sort of initiation to Wintreanthy that it is today. Ten posts, maybe fifteen posts? However crazy you want to go. Then by the time people felt like this is where they want to stay, we would likely even have an actual clue of what kind of persons they are, and could further help them thrive here.

Our population would regardless be divided from the second we start demanding deposits from the would-be citizens. The better the repelling stench of such control would be hidden, the more likely we would start seeing active members who never bother to seek the citizenship.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Weissreich on May 01, 2016, 10:21:20 AM
I see no reason why we can't take it forward whilst adapting the current proposal, Tatte. Why not make citizenship an optional masking on the forum at X number of posts, with residency being the benefit of just signing up for an account (aka, no access to legislative areas but pretty much everything else). Rather than making Citizenship something that one has to work for, it becomes something you take on should you want to be more involved in the region.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: tatte on May 01, 2016, 10:09:02 PM
@Laurentus @North @Point Breeze @Pengu @Barnes @HannahB

I'm doing this to try and bring the Skrifas over here and discuss this with the citizens. Both me and Chanku, the two persons with most political support after you seven oppose this. Please make this a proper discussion. Weissreich has done a great job, but he is just one person.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Emoticonius on May 05, 2016, 04:45:32 AM
I could support Weiss' suggestion. It's reasonable. Adding a post count requirement just discourages people from seeking citizenship. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure the spam section is open to non-citizens which makes any post count requirement nothing more than a redundancy. I don't participate in these discussions often, but in this case I feel that I must.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: tatte on May 07, 2016, 10:15:26 AM
@Chanku is it legal to legislate without the full Underhusen? (Reference (http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=3613.msg73887#msg73887))
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Laurentus on May 07, 2016, 10:53:05 AM
Frankly, I think people's complaints against this move are largely nonsensical. 5 posts are such a small requirement that if someone couldn't have been bothered to make so few, they probably wouldn't have stuck around anyway. In some individual cases, it could irk people, but overall, I think this is a positive move from a practical standpoint.

And for god's sake, Chanku, could you stop giving Wintermoot such a hard time? Please and thank you. We don't want to see you throwing your shit around.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Chanku on May 07, 2016, 02:39:31 PM
@Laurentus that was made over a week ago.

In any case @tatte yes, if the proposal has been at vote for seven days.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: tatte on May 07, 2016, 03:26:09 PM
The Citizenship Integration Amendment Act was at vote for less than two days, I think. :P How impatient.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Weissreich on May 07, 2016, 08:33:25 PM
Eh, the moment something reaches a majority Aye/Nay vote there's no point leaving it open any longer, and there was no way the one single remaining vote would change the outcome of the Bill's passage. I think Barnes was well within his rights as Speaker to move it on to the OH.

IIRC several acts have passed this way or failed this way, with the Speaker of the time moving it on to the OH or killing the bill as it reached a majority one way or the other. No need to bring legality into this, that'd just be petty.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Barnes on May 07, 2016, 09:02:01 PM
I normally keep bills open until everyone has voted. The only reason I closed the vote "early" is because there was no way for me to be certain whether @Laurentus would be present to vote, seeing as how he had been offline for seven straight days. When he returned and voted, I recorded it as valid and present, effectively leaving the vote open for him.

However, the vote would not have affected the outcome either way and would have passed no matter what, so as Weissreich said, I was perfectly fine and "well within my rights" to transition to an Overhusen vote.

I am nevertheless hurt, @tatte, that you had not brought up the issue with me directly if you had a concern about my actions.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: tatte on May 09, 2016, 12:48:50 AM
I am nevertheless hurt, tatte, that you had not brought up the issue with me directly if you had a concern about my actions.
When you put it like that I feel bad, I suppose there's not much I can say to correct anything (sorry? Sorry.), this is how this ended up going down and I'll keep a wider mind to impacts of my acts in the future. You're a great speaker, it's the passing of that law that bothered me and lead to that petty remark.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Barnes on May 09, 2016, 01:08:01 AM
What I had meant is not bringing up the act itself to me, but rather your complaint about it being passed too quickly. After all, I was supposedly the one who motioned the bill to the Overhusen too quickly (though I did make measures to incorporate Laurentus's vote).
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: tatte on May 09, 2016, 01:48:20 AM
Quote
What I had meant is not bringing up the act itself to me
I have no idea what this refers to, it's awful because it forces me to post another reply.

My behavior was gratuitous but I wouldn't call it a complaint. I checked (using Chanku) if what the Underhusen did was legal and proceeded to make a light hearted comment about it.

I hadn't at any point thoughts like "damn Barnes did something", so you surprised me with your response, but in all fairness you had the right and the reason to take my dissatisfaction personally. I apologize for that unintended outcome of my behavior.

Doesn't make me any less disappointed that the law passed.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Barnes on May 09, 2016, 02:28:07 AM
My wording was confusing but you still addressed everything I was talking about. I guess I was just surprised that you didn't check using me. No hard feelings, though.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on March 11, 2017, 05:24:21 AM
To my surprise, it's been almost a year since we enacted this requirement. I just wanted to check back and see what everyone thought...what your impressions are of the effects of this a year later. :)
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on June 05, 2017, 01:25:24 AM
It's nice to see so many people are interested in this topic. :))

I'm thinking about calling for the post requirement to be repealed...the reason for adopting the requirement was to reduce the workload for approving and revoking Citizenships from people who weren't serious, and it was a big problem when we had over 100 Citizens and Citizenship checks took over two hours a week. We have far fewer Citizens now, and we have scripts to help make it go much faster...which may have been the solution to begin with.

And to be honest, seeing how things have turned out with less fresh blood and a somewhat stagnant community, I wonder if I made a mistake calling for this to start with.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Gerrick on June 06, 2017, 02:28:29 PM
Eh, I think it had more to do with less recruitment than with the post requirement. But it's more of a technical/admin issue, which is why I think people aren't talking much about it. Just depends on what you'd prefer to deal with.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on June 06, 2017, 02:44:52 PM
I think less recruitment is part of it, but we've been doing some good recruitment the last month or two and I don't think that it's translated into more people on the forums. And for those that do come on, I think instead of it being a chance to experience the region before becoming a Citizen, it ends up being a hassle that people rush through just to be done with it.

But at the end of the day, it's a community issue, which is why I brought it up to start with...at the very least the Storting would have to undo the requirement. :P
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Gerrick on June 06, 2017, 03:28:58 PM
Ah, I forgot it was passed by the Storting -- I thought it was a decree. I have such good memory. :D

But the whole point of the post requirement was to help with your workload and to get new people involved/committed before they become citizens. So the first problem you've solved with your new scripts.

For the second problem, we have 22 current citizens who have joined since the post requirement was implemented (May 2016, about a year ago). Less than half (10) of them have over 50 posts. So I don't know how well we're getting dedicated members with the post requirement.

It might just be better to have a bunch of new members with very few posts to attract with their activity more new members who do stay. I guess it depends on what kind of community we want. If it's a close-knit group, then I might keep the requirement; but if it's a large, all-inclusive one, I'd remove it.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on June 07, 2017, 06:19:51 AM
I think we have to consider the impact of new members too...they bring in new perspectives and mindsets, new opportunities for friendships, new ambitions, new interests...they help keep things fresh and vibrant, and it feels like when we don't have many newer people the community becomes stagnant, complacent, and even jaded. I've noticed this in a lot of older regions in the past where the members are mostly old-timers, but I didn't really connect the two until I started noticing it happening here.

Are we not in balance because this requirement dissuades people from joining? I didn't think five posts was much of a barrier for people wanting to join, but I know people like Hannah and tatte felt otherwise, and...I dunno, were they right? For the recruiting that we've done, are we getting the same applications for Citizenship that we were before? Maybe we can look at the data and answer that question, and I'll look more into that tomorrow if I can, but for now it's still food for thought.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Melehan on June 07, 2017, 02:41:58 PM
As a new member, I'd like to say that I found the post requirement a bit of a hassle not because of the requirement itself being in place, but because the community isn't very active in the places I could access and so my options for posting meaningful content were pretty limited.

To an extent, they still are, and this is one of the slowest-moving forum communities I'm currently in.

Things to note: I joined with the full intention of participating in this community and was actively looking for ways to meaningfully do so. I'm also chronically allergic to spamming and necroposting, and I also read through all the documentation on the region I could find before joining up.

I fully understand and agree with the reason why the post requirement was put into place, and I really don't think five posts is a lot generally, but the activity levels in new-blood-friendly areas is a bit lacking at the moment, especially if the new blood is not as precocious as I am to leap straight into weighing in on the more administrative things in the region.

I don't think the requirement needs to be waived, however, if more activity could be injected into the community areas. Something as simple as a "post to introduce yourself" thread which explicitly counts towards your post count could make all the difference.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: taulover on June 07, 2017, 07:13:11 PM
=Something as simple as a "post to introduce yourself" thread which explicitly counts towards your post count could make all the difference.
Hmm, that's a good point. I just noticed that there isn't even explicitly an introductions subforum anymore (intros are in Gatekeep's Post, but aren't in its description); I'm guessing it got overlooked when AMAs got moved back into a separate subforum?
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Chanku on June 10, 2017, 07:37:12 AM
I have a repeal drafted up that I'll introduce into the Underhusen if we are to repeal that requirement.
Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act
Quote
Title
1. This bill shall be titled the Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.

Amendments
2. Section 2.1 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act shall be stricken null and void with all subsequent sections being renumbered accordingly.
 2.1 As such, the Citizenship Integration Amendment Act shall, itself, be considered repealed.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: taulover on June 10, 2017, 04:44:59 PM
@Mathyland could we get these commas checked? :P

(I'd recommend "As such, the Citizenship Integration Amendment Act shall itself be considered repealed." Capitalization is altered to be consistent with Section 1 of the Citizenship Integration Amendment Act.)
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Mathyland on June 10, 2017, 05:05:01 PM
@Mathyland could we get these commas checked? :P

(I'd recommend "As such, the Citizenship Integration Amendment Act shall itself be considered repealed." Capitalization is altered to be consistent with Section 1 of the Citizenship Integration Amendment Act.)
Hey! You took my job! :P
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Chanku on June 10, 2017, 08:55:06 PM
To be fair I consider the word itself in that sentence to be separate from the rest of the sentence, somewhat like an interjection...it's kinda hard to describe how I viewed it, however it may very well be grammatically incorrect.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: taulover on June 10, 2017, 10:05:51 PM
To be fair I consider the word itself in that sentence to be separate from the rest of the sentence, somewhat like an interjection...it's kinda hard to describe how I viewed it, however it may very well be grammatically incorrect.
It's just how I would write it. Having the commas there probably is grammatically correct, if not better.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Gerrick on June 10, 2017, 10:37:51 PM
I'll have to agree with tau on that.

Edit: Er, I mean I think there should be no commas around "itself".
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Melehan on June 10, 2017, 10:39:47 PM
"be stricken" should be "be struck".

I'm not sure if a full repeal is in order though.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Mathyland on June 11, 2017, 12:43:01 AM
To be fair I consider the word itself in that sentence to be separate from the rest of the sentence, somewhat like an interjection...it's kinda hard to describe how I viewed it, however it may very well be grammatically incorrect.
I think the word you're looking for is appositive (http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/appositive.htm), but I don't think that counts as an appositive.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Mathyland on June 11, 2017, 01:05:34 AM
"be stricken" should be "be struck".

I'm not sure if a full repeal is in order though.
According to this, (https://simple.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/strike) it should be "be stricken"
Quote
When you strike a part from a document, it is stricken from the document.
(Italics added by me)
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Melehan on June 11, 2017, 01:16:28 AM
"be stricken" should be "be struck".

I'm not sure if a full repeal is in order though.
According to this, (https://simple.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/strike) it should be "be stricken"
Quote
When you strike a part from a document, it is stricken from the document.
(Italics added by me)
Ah, the intricacies of irregular conjugations.

Especially considering things are struck from the record.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: taulover on June 11, 2017, 01:27:29 AM
"be stricken" should be "be struck".
Stricken is nonstandard but still grammatically correct, particularly in legal usage.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: taulover on June 11, 2017, 01:33:25 AM
To be fair I consider the word itself in that sentence to be separate from the rest of the sentence, somewhat like an interjection...it's kinda hard to describe how I viewed it, however it may very well be grammatically incorrect.
I think the word you're looking for is appositive (http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/appositive.htm), but I don't think that counts as an appositive.
You could probably go with the broader term, a parenthetical phrase.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Mathyland on June 14, 2017, 07:39:45 AM
(I'm trying to revive this discussion)

I don't think it would be a bad idea to try the repeal and see how it goes. If some people make the citizenship application post and then leave, so what? They'll have their citizenship revoked soon after anyway. With more motivation to recruit combined with no 5 post requirement, we would probably get more active citizens. This is my opinion, at least.

I also think that adding an "introduce yourself" subforum is a good idea.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on June 14, 2017, 10:03:53 PM
There used to be an introduction section at the end of the Citizenship app...would it be better to have the intro in the app?
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Mathyland on June 15, 2017, 12:12:20 AM
There used to be an introduction section at the end of the Citizenship app...would it be better to have the intro in the app?
I liked having a welcome thread for each person that is separate from the apps so that others can ask questions without the person making an AMA thread or welcome the new person. I like the questions and welcomes to be in a separate place from the place where the citizenship app is accepted.

A separate welcome thread could also introduce the new person to the other members and the other members to the new person, as opposed to an AMA where the other members are introduced to the new one. In AMAs, it feels like it's more one-sided than in a welcome thread.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: taulover on June 15, 2017, 12:45:44 AM
I also think that adding an "introduce yourself" subforum is a good idea
Or rather, restoring, since IIRC that used to be a thing.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Doc on June 15, 2017, 01:49:12 AM
I'm honestly kind of opposed to a post requirement. I mean, in complete honesty, if it wasn't for the fact that I had sweet fuck-all to do while way out in the boonies, I would have continued my bullheaded obstinacy of not joining the forums because the idea of having to make 5 posts when I don't know anybody, and don't know if I can contribute, is kind of alarming. It helped that Ainur refugees did know me and welcomed me, but I imagine it's much worse for someone who is genuinely new to the game and the community as a whole.
I think what it really is is that having a post requirement kind of makes it feel like you're intruding into rather than joining a community. That requirement kind of suggests 'there is a club, and you're not necessarily in it', and that can be a big disincentive to try and join in.

As an addendum to that, I might suggest that in order to really make someone feel like they're wanted in the community (as opposed to just sort of passively being like 'oh okay you're new here') that, rather than have them create an AMA or something like that, that someone else (ordinarily I'd suggest the Jarl of Integration but he seems to have dropped off the face of the planet) create a welcome thread for them (once they'd been granted citizenship, natch). There it's kind of a place where we introduce ourselves to them, so it's not a 'hi I'm the new guy' kind of deal, it's more of a 'hey, we're glad you're joining us!'
That to me seems like a much more successful means of integrating new people into the community, as opposed to just passively letting them insert themselves in a way that they might feel is a bit intrusive.
I might also suggest automatically assigning a mentor, and then letting the person say 'oh, no, that's not really necessary' if they don't want one. Of course, that would require people who'd be down to mentor.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on June 15, 2017, 02:36:01 AM
As an addendum to that, I might suggest that in order to really make someone feel like they're wanted in the community (as opposed to just sort of passively being like 'oh okay you're new here') that, rather than have them create an AMA or something like that, that someone else (ordinarily I'd suggest the Jarl of Integration but he seems to have dropped off the face of the planet) create a welcome thread for them (once they'd been granted citizenship, natch). There it's kind of a place where we introduce ourselves to them, so it's not a 'hi I'm the new guy' kind of deal, it's more of a 'hey, we're glad you're joining us!'
That to me seems like a much more successful means of integrating new people into the community, as opposed to just passively letting them insert themselves in a way that they might feel is a bit intrusive.
I might also suggest automatically assigning a mentor, and then letting the person say 'oh, no, that's not really necessary' if they don't want one. Of course, that would require people who'd be down to mentor.
Those are some good ideas...unfortunately as you mentioned we have some issues with some of the ministries, but they're good ideas that ought to be enacted. I'm curious...in these topics that someone would create to welcome people to the community, would they say just about the same thing or try to customize it? I'm asking because I imagine it would be hard to come up with more than a few variations of a welcome post, but on the other hand we could try our hand at automating it when someone is made a Citizen.

On the other hand, by that point they've already had to post a Citizenship app...wouldn't they have already introduced themselves in a way by then?
Or rather, restoring, since IIRC that used to be a thing.
I don't believe there was ever a dedicated subforum for introductions...at one time the AMA forum functioned for both, though.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: taulover on June 15, 2017, 03:17:05 AM
Or rather, restoring, since IIRC that used to be a thing.
I don't believe there was ever a dedicated subforum for introductions...at one time the AMA forum functioned for both, though.
Yeah, that's what I meant. Pretty sure it was first AMA+intros, then apps+intros, but now, Gatekeep's Post doesn't even mention introductions.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on June 15, 2017, 04:18:41 AM
As I mentioned I might do the other day, I put together some data on the matter. I took the number of recruitment telegrams sent, the maximum regional population recorded by NSDossier, and the number of Citizenship applications posted, and then I put them in a chart with trendlines. For all cases, blue are months before the requirement was implemented, and red are months after it was implemented.

(https://wintreath.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYnVS2FU.png&hash=d490ea27eca03e85c1c592aa571628cb)

As it so happens, we haven't recruited nearly as much after the change as before, which partially explains the issue. However, even comparing months before and after the requirement was adopted where nearly the same number of telegrams were sent, months from before the requirement almost universally saw more Citizenship apps. I have to admit, I'm not an expert statistician, but at least to me the data is fairly compelling.

Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Chanku on June 15, 2017, 05:46:15 AM
Inspired by Wintermoot's post I finally decided to make some graphs based off of the data I presented to the Underhusen (You can find that here (http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=4475.msg98878#msg98878) )

Images
Unmarked
(https://wintreath.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FaQqfFsb.png&hash=bd9e833363759a1b6d8731f6b602fcf3)
(https://wintreath.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FD61bD9C.png&hash=987a7c62f96294c0e1d5528d4dc4a351)
Marked (with the date that the Post Requirement took effect)
(https://wintreath.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhvVLv5L.png&hash=7825a9119b43ccf2c3a56cfedf3156cd)
(Note: The last chart is not the same chart type as the other two, it is an XY chat, due to the fact that Line Chart's don't do the line well, I also only had the last chart in lines because I had to do something hackish to get it to work, and the line wouldn't have appeared outside of the line graph)

Edit: While talking to Wintermoot I figured out how I could combine some of the data he was talking about to see if there was an alternative cause, or any correlations with other factors, so I checked to see if the amount of recruiting has any direct effect on the numbers of Citizens we have, from the graphs that I have show no direct effect on the two, below are the graphs.
Moar Graphz
(https://wintreath.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6zmG2fy.png&hash=ce4527ade8db3158657b51688215699f)
(https://wintreath.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FESOOYTb.png&hash=cc68737106ef41707da0838daaa49312)
(Duplicates and Outlier removed)
(https://wintreath.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzYPWXaY.png&hash=723ac6db759bfaec79e02a64b3fd8c88)
There seemed to have been a data error between the first two graphs, however that error is in an outlier so I am less worried about that at this time. I defined Duplicate as any data for a month that had multiple points (this was relevant for the Citizenship Numbers), in which I removed all of the data for that month, except the last reported citizenship value, the outlier that I excluded the citizenship number and telegrams sent that were reported May of 2015. This would lead me to believe that there recruitment has no direct correlation on citizenship numbers, somewhat surprisingly.

However, I will also note that the correlation between Nation Numbers and Telegram Amounts are have a very weak positive correlation, with the correlation coefficient for the data (both with and without that outlier for recruitment removed) are below 0.30, With the outlier it was roughly 0.22 and without it it was roughly 0.16, I would expect it to be more strongly correlated. This leads me to believe that the dataset Wintermoot provided is too small to use when it comes to these kinds of analysis, and thus would make the conclusions drawn here to be inaccurate.

Also please note that I may have made an error during this or, in fact, mis-interpreted or misread any of these numbers. I may also be doing something incorrectly, I only took one DC Stats Class (taught by someone who was horrible and frequently got things wrong) that I didn't pay attention in this past school year, and the data graphs may also be incorrect due to errors in data collection. Any one who knows more of what they are talking about would be greatly appreciated for their double-checking of my information.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on June 15, 2017, 12:42:44 PM
I think the issue with your second series of graphs is that you're comparing total Citizens against telegrams sent, when the number of Citizens is determined by other things as well such as nations CTEing, the number of checks done that month (Citizenship checks have happened more often recently), and after November 2016 whether they had made at least five post that month or the previous month. Total Citizen numbers in the checks also include Paragons, who in many cases haven't been involved in the region in years. Since so much more goes into it, you wouldn't expect a strong correlation between recruitment for a particular month and the cumulative number of Citizens up to that point.

I think a better comparison is telegrams sent vs Citizenship apps...even there it's not perfect, but you would expect a stronger correlation since most (but not all, which is why it isn't perfect) members apply soon after being recruited to the region by a telegram.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Doc on June 15, 2017, 05:25:29 PM
Those are some good ideas...unfortunately as you mentioned we have some issues with some of the ministries, but they're good ideas that ought to be enacted. I'm curious...in these topics that someone would create to welcome people to the community, would they say just about the same thing or try to customize it? I'm asking because I imagine it would be hard to come up with more than a few variations of a welcome post, but on the other hand we could try our hand at automating it when someone is made a Citizen.

On the other hand, by that point they've already had to post a Citizenship app...wouldn't they have already introduced themselves in a way by then?
I mean, if you thought that would be effective, sure, it could very well simply be a sort of forum equivalent to the welcome TG that everybody who moves into the region gets - but if anyone .
To be honest, it could very well just be one topic where whenever somebody gets citizenship, they get a shoutout and people pile on and welcome them - or it could just be a sort of tacit encouragement for, at the very least, the Underhusen, Ministers, etc. to jump in on someone's citizenship app and say 'hey what up'. It's just that I think the goal should be to take away the feeling that the new person is doing the online equivalent of walking up to a group of people he doesn't know at a party, and instead make it feel more like they're being actively encouraged to join this group by the people in it.

And sure, they've already introduced themselves, but 1) that's a great tool to personalize people's welcome messages with, since they'll have said things about themselves (and everyone loves talking about themselves, with the clear exception of me, seeing as I'm the most humble person in the world), and 2) in online communities there's always this feeling of everyone kind of knowing you (because you've introduced yourself) but you not knowing them (unless you take the time to go dig up their citizenship app), and that kind of blunts conversations because suddenly the easiest topic in the world (again, talking about themselves) is sort of talked out already.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Chanku on June 15, 2017, 07:28:40 PM
I think the issue with your second series of graphs is that you're comparing total Citizens against telegrams sent, when the number of Citizens is determined by other things as well such as nations CTEing, the number of checks done that month (Citizenship checks have happened more often recently), and after November 2016 whether they had made at least five post that month or the previous month. Total Citizen numbers in the checks also include Paragons, who in many cases haven't been involved in the region in years. Since so much more goes into it, you wouldn't expect a strong correlation between recruitment for a particular month and the cumulative number of Citizens up to that point.

I think a better comparison is telegrams sent vs Citizenship apps...even there it's not perfect, but you would expect a stronger correlation since most (but not all, which is why it isn't perfect) members apply soon after being recruited to the region by a telegram.
However that doesn't explain the things I came across in my edit, meaning the rather weak correlation between Nation Numbers and Telegrams sent, which I expected to at least have a correlation coeffecient of 0.30, meaning it would be, weakly correlated. Also Wintermoot I never said I expected a strong correlation between Citizenship Numbers and Telegram amounts, however I will admit I expected a stronger correlation beyond what is shown, in fact I expected it to get around 0.15, but I didn't.

 In any case I decided to redo the second series of graphs, but I got the same thing, I did put together a second graph, which excluded the months that I didn't have citizenship numbers for (I previously threw all of them into a graph which was a mistake, unfortunately I didn't save this new graph), which revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.12, with that outlier (I didn't recompute without the outlier, but I expect it would be even less that 0.10, which, if I recall correctly, means there is practically no correlation). This leads me to revise my previous statement, in that I do not believe we can faithfully compare the two data sets due to the fact that the second (Wintermoot's Data Set) due to it being too small and the first data set (My data set/Citizenship Numbers) due to the fact that My data set is also too small when excluding the data before March 2015, and when comparing the two the citizenship count is not collected every month past March 2015.

So basically, unless someone wants to compute the data for citizenship at the end of every month, excluding paragons the conclusions drawn from here seem somewhat useless for our uses, as we don't have enough citizenship data to compare it against the other dataset, and I am unsure we have enough data from before the measure was implemented in order to draw meaningful conclusions from that.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on June 16, 2017, 03:30:03 PM
Well, the nation numbers are misleading because they're the maximum recorded by NSDossier in that month...if the region was in decline at the time, the maximum would have been at the beginning of the month...if I had used the minimum count in a month the numbers would have been very different in some areas. In any case, I included it as a frame of reference rather than something to do hard statistics with.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on June 16, 2017, 08:10:55 PM
I mean, if you thought that would be effective, sure, it could very well simply be a sort of forum equivalent to the welcome TG that everybody who moves into the region gets - but if anyone .
To be honest, it could very well just be one topic where whenever somebody gets citizenship, they get a shoutout and people pile on and welcome them - or it could just be a sort of tacit encouragement for, at the very least, the Underhusen, Ministers, etc. to jump in on someone's citizenship app and say 'hey what up'. It's just that I think the goal should be to take away the feeling that the new person is doing the online equivalent of walking up to a group of people he doesn't know at a party, and instead make it feel more like they're being actively encouraged to join this group by the people in it.

And sure, they've already introduced themselves, but 1) that's a great tool to personalize people's welcome messages with, since they'll have said things about themselves (and everyone loves talking about themselves, with the clear exception of me, seeing as I'm the most humble person in the world), and 2) in online communities there's always this feeling of everyone kind of knowing you (because you've introduced yourself) but you not knowing them (unless you take the time to go dig up their citizenship app), and that kind of blunts conversations because suddenly the easiest topic in the world (again, talking about themselves) is sort of talked out already.
Do you think it'd be the same as if everyone introduced themselves in their Citizenship topic? I suppose we don't really talk much about ourselves to new members...just welcome them and approve their app. =/
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: taulover on June 17, 2017, 01:31:28 AM
I mean, if you thought that would be effective, sure, it could very well simply be a sort of forum equivalent to the welcome TG that everybody who moves into the region gets - but if anyone .
To be honest, it could very well just be one topic where whenever somebody gets citizenship, they get a shoutout and people pile on and welcome them - or it could just be a sort of tacit encouragement for, at the very least, the Underhusen, Ministers, etc. to jump in on someone's citizenship app and say 'hey what up'. It's just that I think the goal should be to take away the feeling that the new person is doing the online equivalent of walking up to a group of people he doesn't know at a party, and instead make it feel more like they're being actively encouraged to join this group by the people in it.

And sure, they've already introduced themselves, but 1) that's a great tool to personalize people's welcome messages with, since they'll have said things about themselves (and everyone loves talking about themselves, with the clear exception of me, seeing as I'm the most humble person in the world), and 2) in online communities there's always this feeling of everyone kind of knowing you (because you've introduced yourself) but you not knowing them (unless you take the time to go dig up their citizenship app), and that kind of blunts conversations because suddenly the easiest topic in the world (again, talking about themselves) is sort of talked out already.
Do you think it'd be the same as if everyone introduced themselves in their Citizenship topic? I suppose we don't really talk much about ourselves to new members...just welcome them and approve their app. =/
Perhaps we should add back the old Section II of the application that asked new members to introduce themselves.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Chanku on June 19, 2017, 01:02:33 AM
I have an idea that could potentially be used for the issue of not enough people wanting to be mentors. Perhaps we could have people in the government that have been here for X amount of time must mentor at least one person X period of time?

So elected officials would be required to mentor someone prior to an election or after an election to stand for reelection and the Monarch could set the requirement for the Riksrad?
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Doc on June 19, 2017, 01:26:01 AM
This and your recruitment recommendation seem like good ideas...but otoh it might disqualify people from running to the extent that there might not be enough to actually fill the Underhusen.
I suppose there would be the benefit of only ever electing people who 'give a shit', or at least are willing enough to fake that they do that it's functionally indistinguishable, but that seems kinda fringe...

Also since I can't comment on the recruitment thing, I'm just gonna do it here: that seems like it would disenfranchise (I mean, to the extent that they can't run for political office) people who don't maintain NS nations.
On the subject of this requirement, it seems like the kind of thing that could lead to...idk, patronage, of a sort? A sort of mentor-mentee deal seems like it would build enough of a relationship that it seems like that vote might be perennially locked in, and so give the advantage to people who had mentored longer (and consequently more).
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Chanku on June 19, 2017, 01:30:06 AM
This and your recruitment recommendation seem like good ideas...but otoh it might disqualify people from running to the extent that there might not be enough to actually fill the Underhusen.
I suppose there would be the benefit of only ever electing people who 'give a shit', or at least are willing enough to fake that they do that it's functionally indistinguishable, but that seems kinda fringe...

Also since I can't comment on the recruitment thing, I'm just gonna do it here: that seems like it would disenfranchise (I mean, to the extent that they can't run for political office) people who don't maintain NS nations.
On the subject of this requirement, it seems like the kind of thing that could lead to...idk, patronage, of a sort? A sort of mentor-mentee deal seems like it would build enough of a relationship that it seems like that vote might be perennially locked in, and so give the advantage to people who had mentored longer (and consequently more).

To be fair we don't have to require it for elected officials then, it could just be a Riksrad thing with the Storting recommending it for those running. However I also considered adding in clauses to the requirements stating that such the act would be waived if not enough people run that would fit the requirements and maybe requiring reauthorization by the Storting (giving the Storting at least something to do on occasion). We could also only require it for those looking for re-election.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Gerrick on June 20, 2017, 02:23:07 AM
To be fair we don't have to require it for elected officials then, it could just be a Riksrad thing with the Storting recommending it for those running.
I think we have trouble enough as it is to get people to join and stay active in the Riksrad to put any more requirements on them -- though I would very much be in favor of these if it were a viable option.
Title: Citizenship: Add Post Requirement?
Post by: Wintermoot on June 25, 2017, 07:24:23 PM
Just so you know, I've modified the Citizenship app:I also posted some links to this discussion in the Cabinet area and brought up the need for the Cabinet to engage with and introduce themselves to new Citizens, so that new Citizens don't have to put themselves quite as far out there to start getting to know people. Anything we can do to help them start making friends and feel comfortable here is good for them and for us. After all the time and effort we spend recruiting, it'd suck to lose people that have come so far as posted an app just because they still felt like an outsider and wasn't sure how to start being part of the community.

I'm also open to other ideas too, if anyone has them now or in the future. :)