Wintreath Regional Community

A Link to the Past - Archives => The Registry of Things Past - Historic Archive => Underhusen Archive => Topic started by: Chanku on June 14, 2017, 02:02:06 AM

Title: [PASSED] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Chanku on June 14, 2017, 02:02:06 AM
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 2.1 As such, the Citizenship Integration Amendment Act shall itself be considered repealed.

I hereby present this to the Underhusen for Debate. Debate shall last for forty-eight (28) hours, unless expedited, after which it will be open for any motion. All of these motions, except tabling, requires a second to pass. Tabling requires three skrifa to second the motion to table, other than myself unless the Underhusen is equally divided in a motion to table.
Title: [DISCUSSION] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Mathyland on June 14, 2017, 07:31:07 AM
I see you really wanted those commas around "itself." :P I might have to add that to my grammar error list.

The discussion for this in the citizenship's platform didn't really lead anywhere, and I don't think that this has been discussed enough in the citizenship's platform yet. If the discussion doesn't get much father after the next 48 hours or so, I suggest we motion to extend debate.
Title: [DISCUSSION] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Arenado on June 14, 2017, 11:14:55 AM
I like the CPRA and will most likely vote against this.
Title: [DISCUSSION] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Mathyland on June 14, 2017, 03:35:53 PM
North posted on June 14, 2017, 11:14:55 AM
I like the CPRA and will most likely vote against this.
Please elaborate?
Title: [DISCUSSION] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Chanku on June 14, 2017, 06:12:38 PM
Please do elaborate, Honourable North. The way I see it is that this is a measure which had two purposes:
1 Help release the workload of revocation Wintermoot had upon himself.
2 Increase the amount of active and committed citizens by giving them a taste of Wintreath prior to them joining as a citizen.

The first purpose has been solved by Wintermoot automating it a bit, making it much easier to do. That only leaves the second purpose, which has seemed to have failed in it's purpose. I will quote Gerrick here:
Quote
...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.
Less than half, this does not sound like a successful measure to me, instead of getting dedicated citizens, we are just getting people who are willing to jump through the hoops of the post requirement. Wintermoot himself went on to say:
Quote
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.
(Emphasis Mine)
Wintermoot himself states that this seems to be causing the community to stagnate, that the community may very well be loosing it's vibrancy. Further, people like HannahB, Sapphiron, and Tatte stated that they wouldn't have joined if there was a post requirement when this was being considered, these people have contributed to Wintreath in numerous ways and have been, generally, active. Keeping this requirement will turn people like them away, and again we aren't doing better with this post requirement, if anything it seems to be hurting us. As such there is no reason to keep this, at least with the information we have now, and keeping it will only stagnate the community more, leading to it slowing down.
Title: [DISCUSSION] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Mathyland on June 14, 2017, 06:36:16 PM
I noticed that you didn't mention the skrifa in either discussion, so I'll mention everyone who hasn't contributed to the discussion yet: @Crushita @Gattoartico

For those of you who were mentioned: keep in mind that there is a second discussion in this subforum as well.
Title: [DISCUSSION] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Arenado on June 14, 2017, 09:38:23 PM
Well, personally, I see no problem with the CPRA and suspect the reason why we are stagnating has nothing to do with the CPRA. It also stops people from joining and then disappearing.
Title: [DISCUSSION] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Gattoartico on June 14, 2017, 09:42:34 PM
To me the post requirement seems a little unnecessary.

I see no point in having it to be honest. In fact I didn't even notice it being there when I joined.  To state my viewpoint clearly is that it may have been seen as necessary when it came to be but it has overall, become obsolete.
Title: [DISCUSSION] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Mathyland on June 14, 2017, 10:10:36 PM
North posted on June 14, 2017, 09:38:23 PM
Well, personally, I see no problem with the CPRA and suspect the reason why we are stagnating has nothing to do with the CPRA. It also stops people from joining and then disappearing.
The thing is that it doesn't stop people from joining and then disappearing. That quote from Gerrick is applicable again:
Quote
...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.
And I think the post requirement is contributing to why we are stagnating because some people are giving up before reaching those 5 posts, or they are just rushing to get those 5 posts and then forget and don't stay active.
Title: [DISCUSSION] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Chanku on June 14, 2017, 11:01:29 PM
North posted on June 14, 2017, 09:38:23 PM
Well, personally, I see no problem with the CPRA and suspect the reason why we are stagnating has nothing to do with the CPRA. It also stops people from joining and then disappearing.
Honourable North, you seem to be mistaken, this law does nothing over that. For example let's take a look at some people who got citizenship after this requirement, there is Mokei, who has six posts and was last online 156 days ago. Vilemyr, who has 15 posts, and was last online 95 days ago. northlysetharvus who has 11 posts and was last on 52 days ago. Great Moose who has 7 posts and was last on 56 days ago.

If you want we can even take a look at the set of those that had obtained citizenship under this rule, but are now former citizens: Rayden_Greywolf, he had 7 posts and was online 247 days ago, or we can look at MysterEMann who had 13 posts and was last online 202 days ago.

We also have citizens who have gotten citizenship under this law, got a large amount of posts, and then disappeared. For example Raxus who had 119 posts but hasn't been online in 145 days.
I only went back to August of Last year, this has been going on for over a year now, if you went back to May 9th, 2016 I do not doubt you could find more examples of this behavior.

Further let's take a look at citizenship numbers. The lowest point we have been at, that has been recorded, was 59 citizens, this occurred twice in the past year, March 11th, 2017 and April 16th, 2017. From the revocation of citizenship numbers, this is the lowest we have been at since February 23rd, 2014 which is the first recorded amount of citizens that I could find in that thread. Prior to that it was 63 citizens which, prior to the institution of the requirement, only was recorded twice, February 23rd, 2014 and January 24th, 2015.  Since that requirement we have hit that point five times, and in fact been under that at least three others times at  61 citizens. We have not been above 80 citizens since July 16th, 2016 (the only citizenship check that after the passing of the post requirement), which also went down from 95 from the Citizenship check of April 23rd, 2016. The last time we have a recorded amount below 80 citizens was during November 2nd, 2014 to April 4th, 2015 a period of about six months and even then we only had one month were we got below 70 citizens during that, January 2015. We have gone eight months now, without being above 80, and all of those 8 have been below 70, we seem to be holding stable at around 59-63 citizens. Let me also mention that this includes paragons, as well.

With these numbers, and this data at this time, there seems to be little reason for keeping this act. This act does not keep citizens from joining and leaving, it doesn't increase overall retention, and we have less citizens now than ever before, at least since citizenship checks began. We have up and down turns in citizens, but this is an unprecedented downturn in citizen numbers, and it only began AFTER the act was passed. We are getting less and less new blood, thus this act seems to have a direct correlation to stagnation. Here Wintermoot's quote is relevant,
Quote
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.
because this is what is happening here. The current data we have supports this.

There are other arguments that could be made here, however I find numbers and data the most compelling. This isn't even the only argument I have against the requirement, however if I went over all of them I would need several posts and bore everyone, so I'll just end it here.

Citizenship Data
February 23, 2014 - 63
April 06, 2014 - 82
May 13th, 2014 - 87
June 8th, 2014 - 97
June 26th, 2014 - 98
July 13th, 2014 - 104
July 19th, 2014 - 102
July 27th, 2014 - 102
August 3rd, 2014 - 96
August 10th, 2014 - 91
August 17th, 2014 - 90
August 24th, 2014 - 91
August 31st, 2014 - 87
September 7th, 2014 - 83
September 14th, 2014 - 81
September 21st, 2014 - 83
September 28th, 2014 - 84
November 2nd, 2014 - 78
November 23rd, 2014 - 79
January 8th, 2015 - 66
Janurary 24th, 2015 - 63
February 20th, 2015 - 74
April 4th, 2015 - 78
May 30th, 2015 - 88
August 12th, 2015 - 86
October 8th, 2015 - 82
Janurary 8th, 2016 - 90
Janurary 23rd, 2016 - 90
April 2nd, 2016 - 104
April 23rd, 2016 - 95
July 16th, 2016 - 80
October 2nd, 2016 - 65
October 8th, 2016 - 61
October 17th, 2016 - 63
October 30th, 2016 - 63
November 12th, 2016 - 61
December 10th, 2016 - 65
January 22nd, 2017 - 63
January 30th, 2017 - 63
March 11th, 2017 - 59
April 16th, 2017 - 59
May 10th, 2017 - 61
June 3rd, 2017 - 63

(Note: I excluded re-applications from the accounts I named over this)
Title: [DISCUSSION] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Mathyland on June 15, 2017, 12:01:46 AM
Ooh, numbers! :P

To add on to what you said, it would make sense that we get more citizens during summer, but that hasn't been happening. I don't know the exact data, but I think I have noticed more applications this summer than the rest of the year. This would suggest that a lot of people are applying for citizenship but falling to get the required 5 posts, further demonstrating Chanku's point that the 5 post requirement is the problem.
Title: [DISCUSSION] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Mathyland on June 16, 2017, 02:15:27 AM
Well, it's been 48 hours, but I'd like to hear @Crushita 's opinion before motioning to vote.
Title: [DISCUSSION] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Crushita on June 16, 2017, 02:24:46 AM
I see no reason not to repeal this act. The 5 post number seems arbitrary and unneeded, forcing people to post 5 times before getting citizenship was never going to make them stay in the first place, and if anything its only hurt our retention.
Title: [DISCUSSION] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Mathyland on June 16, 2017, 03:35:30 AM
I motion to vote.
Title: [DISCUSSION] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Chanku on June 18, 2017, 11:22:21 PM
Do we have a second?

@Crushita
@Gattoartico
@North
Title: [DISCUSSION] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Crushita on June 19, 2017, 12:13:01 AM
I second this motion.
Title: [DISCUSSION] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Chanku on June 19, 2017, 12:41:39 AM
Motion Passes, this will now head to a vote.
Title: [AT VOTE] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Mathyland on June 19, 2017, 09:37:08 PM
Chanku, I know you think it's the Skrifa's duty to notice that this is at vote, but since we have the mention system, every Skrifa thinks that because there is the mentioning system, they don't need to check every single day. And because we have the mentioning system, we should use it.

@Gattoartico we've started voting on this here. (http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=4480.0)
Title: [AT VOTE] Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.
Post by: Arenado on June 19, 2017, 10:16:39 PM
I agree and honestly feel a bit annoyed at not being mentioned.