Post #122026
March 30, 2018, 02:13:22 AM
Actually, I have a thought which I talked to Doc about on Discord, and I'll bring it up here.
Rather than leaving it intentionally vague and creating a potential problem which you're already trying to avoid when it comes to the situation of flexibility (and since this next bill is pretty much dead in the water), how about this?
Remove the idea of "in good standing with the community" altogether. There's no proper way to define it, and leaving it up to the discretion of the Storting might ensure it would never pass since what one body may believe, the other body may not.
Instead, add a time period before citizens can apply for an exemption when they take a leave. Maybe a month, maybe two months, but at minimum it should be a month. A month is at least enough time for a citizen to get both immersed in our culture as well as having already decided if they want to stay with us indefinitely.
Likewise, clamp down on what "Extraordinary circumstances" are.
I mean, like I told Doc, you could always word it like:
"Extraordinary circumstances are those that prevent a person from maintaining their citizenship in Wintreath long enough for their citizenship to expire. Situations can include, but are not limited to: natural disasters, extreme weather, severe illness, extended hospital care, military related such as training or deployment to an area with no internet access, extended stay in a place with no internet access, and the loss of a main source of income."
And likewise, you could always even add a bit that says
"Exemptions requested for personal leave in which a person has access to the internet at any time will not be granted." Or you can even say "will be granted on a case by case basis" if you don't want to completely shut them out.
Personally though, I think if you're going for the "extraordinary circumstances," then it should specifically be limited to situations that bar a person from using the internet, as opposed to situations in which the person just chooses not to come online long enough for their citizenship to expire.
Short version: Rather than gauging as to who, the focus is more on the aspect of why someone is needing the exemption in the first place. It shouldn't matter that someone is a pillar of the community. It should matter that they're someone who is clearly here to be here and has been here long enough to establish that they want to be here, and it should matter that they're not choosing to leave here for an extended period of time...the situation is just forcing that outcome on them.
This prevents having to constantly debate who gets exemptions, why person A is more deserving than person B, and closes the door on potential bad precedents being set.
