View Topic

As I said, we should clarify that through an act then.

But even in the absence of that, we are only talking about restricting the Underhusen's ability to expedite, so if it somehow restricts us when dealing with Paragons too, what is the damage?

The alternative (the inclusion of the part about Non-Paragons) is more damaging, and thus shouldn't be put in.

EDIT: I begin to wonder whether I'm causing confusion when I say we should prohibit the Underhusen from expediting in the case of a Citizenship revocation, by only referring to it as "revocation" while in discussion and assuming everyone will know that I'm specifically talking about Citizenship revocation. Is that where the misunderstanding is coming in here?

You aren't confusing me. However again I doubt it's any damaging because I doubt many more people will have Paragon within the next two years. It's not damaging because it only really affects one person at this time, and will probably only ever effect that one person. Further it raises weather or not any repeal of Paragon Acts can be expedited and if they are considered revocation or not for those that only have citizenship through the Paragon Act. We should discuss it now because it's extremely relevant. 

I honestly can't see why this is relevant for the topic at hand.

If the underlying problem is whether paragons qualify as citizens, then we should address that separately, not in this bill.

And again, we can't include the part about Non-Paragons, because it could become a problem. It is simply bad practice to include anything which could conceivably become a problem.

But since we're now talking about it, let me share my thoughts on it anyway. If someone is a citizen through their Paragon status, then obviously this applies to them too. I can't see why we would need to expedite in the case of repealing someone's Paragon status unless they're a security risk. The fact remains, Chanku, that it is completely within the realms of possibility for someone to be declared a Paragon while still active in the community.

Time for real world examples. It was unlikely for the Holocaust to take place. It was unlikely that 9/11 would occur. It is unlikely that North Korea will nuke the US. And yet you're prepared for it, in a way no one was prepared for the Holocaust or 9/11, because it is always prudent to follow Murphy's Law.

And while we're on the subject of likelihood, it is very unlikely for someone's Paragon status to be repealed when they're not part of this community anymore, because they became Paragons for a reason to begin with.

So again I ask just what harm it would do to keep the "non-paragon" part out? It can't do any harm, whereas including it could.

They qualify as citizens. It's whether or not an act repealing the Paragon Act is the same as a Revocation or if it is not the same as one. If it is the same then it can't be expedited, if it isn't then it can be. The law is pretty damn clear when it gives Paragon's their rights and they are a citizen.

Anywho the fact of the matter is, is that it brings up a VERY complicated question on whether or not a Paragon Repeal act is the same as a revocation bill or not for those that only have citizenship through their Paragon Status. Furthermore I'd rather not bring up a legal issue until we get everything else sorted out, such as the ability to clarify things without the need to pass act, after act, after act through the courts.

You've pretty much answered your own question.

If they would normally have been Former Citizens, but now aren't because of they're paragon status, then they aren't citizens when it gets repealed.

I'm talking about if the Repeal of Paragon Acts count as Revocations or not, if it's for the person that has Citizenship ONLY through Paragon Status.

Again, you've answered your own question. Their paragon status is the only thing which still identifies them as citizens, so repealing that is, in effect, a revocation of citizenship in such cases where the person is no longer part of the community, or on extended or indefinite leave.

But even if that is what we do in effect, it would still be up to Wintermoot to revoke their citizenship because of their departures from the region, which is perfectly within the scope of his powers, and is something he does to all people whose nations have CTE'd or moved to other regions.

So again, there is no reason to stress about the Non-Paragon part.

ACTUALLY Paragon Status can only be revoked by the Storting, as Paragons are essentially Honorary Citizens. Paragons are exempt from ALL citizenship requirements and automatically have citizenship upon gaining that status, if they didn't have it upon gaining it.

And if the Storting repeals their Paragon status, they lose all that immunity and soon after get the axe from Wintermoot, so...

No they loose citizenship....Their citizenship is because they are a paragon...have you even read the Citizenship and Demonym Act?

Yes, and in it, it explicitly states that Paragons are exempt from the requirements of section 2 of the act. It is logical that this is only the case because they are Paragons. So if a Paragon is no longer active/on leave and their nations are no longer in the region when their Paragon status is repealed, then that puts them in the same boat as any citizen who is no longer in compliance with section 2 and gets axed after a monthly sweep.

Your statement that repealing their Paragon status is equal to removing their citizenship is a fallacy, since those who are on extended/indefinite leave, or still actively part of the fucking community when this happens don't lose their citizenship, and so disprove your statement.

Now please, drop the fucking issue. You're starting to wear on my nerves now with things like: "Have you even read the Citizenship and Demonym Act?"

Section 3.2 "Paragons shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 2 of this Act and shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of Citizenship." It doesn't name them as a citizen though. It gives them the rights and privileges of it, and removes the requirements. Therefore their Citizenship is SOLELY dependent upon their Paragon Status, as 66.7% of Paragons in Wintreath hold no other form of Citizenship within Wintreath. Only 1 Paragon (33.3%) has Standard Citizenship and that is Amalya. She can still loose her Standard Citizenship as well, she could still, however, act as one.

As soon as one of the 67% (66.7% rounded up) loose their Paragon Status they loose their citizenship. Further a person can get Paragon Status without ever being a Wintreath Citizen as well. As such it would be foolish to state that they would be a citizen, yet since they have the Rights and Privileges of one the question must be asked if that extends to the Revocation acts and if the repeal of Paragon Acts are the same as Revocation Acts.

I got lost in the bickering so I don't know whose argument I'm supporting. xD

Paragons are not Citizens, but a separate group that has been granted equivalent status as a sort of Honorary Citizen. In fact, they were Honorary Citizens before I played Dragon Age and thought Paragon sounded way cooler. That being said, by intention the Storting has a lot of flexibility in how to handle different cases. In the event that a person both was a Paragon and had maintained Citizenship, the Storting could choose to remove both in a single act, or additionally even declare them persona non grata, as the Storting holds all those authorities. And I imagine that in the event someone that was in both categories did something that justified removing Paragonhood, they would also choose to do that.

Thus, I don't feel there needs to be specific non-Paragon language.

Section 3.2 "Paragons shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 2 of this Act and shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of Citizenship." It doesn't name them as a citizen though. It gives them the rights and privileges of it, and removes the requirements. Therefore their Citizenship is SOLELY dependent upon their Paragon Status, as 66.7% of Paragons in Wintreath hold no other form of Citizenship within Wintreath. Only 1 Paragon (33.3%) has Standard Citizenship and that is Amalya. She can still loose her Standard Citizenship as well, she could still, however, act as one.

As soon as one of the 67% (66.7% rounded up) loose their Paragon Status they loose their citizenship. Further a person can get Paragon Status without ever being a Wintreath Citizen as well. As such it would be foolish to state that they would be a citizen, yet since they have the Rights and Privileges of one the question must be asked if that extends to the Revocation acts and if the repeal of Paragon Acts are the same as Revocation Acts.

And now we're right back to why it might become necessary to clarify the act, because if someone is granted the "rights and privileges" of a citizen then it stands to reason that they also enjoy the right of not having a discussion to revoke their citizenship (which is dependant on their status as Paragon in some cases) expedited.

And if they enjoy the "rights and privileges" of a citizen, then they are citizens, based on inductive reasoning. They just have differing capacities and obligations from the run-of-the-mill citizen.

There is no qualifier in the act that states whether Paragons become citizens, and what it would mean then if they lose Paragon status while they are not Citizens in the traditional sense. So it is completely up to interpretation at this point. That is what we should fix, and then this problem would go away on its own.


And that's why it isn't relevant to this topic, since the underlying issue isn't whether the same clause about not expediting is applicable to Paragons and repealing their status, but whether Paragons enjoy Citizenship status to begin with. Solve that, and we've solved this.

I'm done discussing it now. I'll simply reiterate that it is perfectly reasonable to anticipate a situation where a Paragon is a Citizen in the traditional sense too, and then the part about the Non-Paragon could completely destroy their right not to have the discussion expedited. That's why I'm advocating that if we're going to do anything, we're going to do it properly, and leave no loopholes like that, and instead address the other concern through a clarification, as it should be done.

Thus, I don't feel there needs to be specific non-Paragon language.

Finally.

Section 3.2 "Paragons shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 2 of this Act and shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of Citizenship." It doesn't name them as a citizen though. It gives them the rights and privileges of it, and removes the requirements. Therefore their Citizenship is SOLELY dependent upon their Paragon Status, as 66.7% of Paragons in Wintreath hold no other form of Citizenship within Wintreath. Only 1 Paragon (33.3%) has Standard Citizenship and that is Amalya. She can still loose her Standard Citizenship as well, she could still, however, act as one.

As soon as one of the 67% (66.7% rounded up) loose their Paragon Status they loose their citizenship. Further a person can get Paragon Status without ever being a Wintreath Citizen as well. As such it would be foolish to state that they would be a citizen, yet since they have the Rights and Privileges of one the question must be asked if that extends to the Revocation acts and if the repeal of Paragon Acts are the same as Revocation Acts.

And now we're right back to why it might become necessary to clarify the act, because if someone is granted the "rights and privileges" of a citizen then it stands to reason that they also enjoy the right of not having a discussion to revoke their citizenship (which is dependant on their status as Paragon in some cases) expedited.

They are NOT citizens though. They are a seperate group, even Wintermoot has stated such.

Paragons are not Citizens, but a separate group that has been granted equivalent status as a sort of Honorary Citizen.

And if they enjoy the "rights and privileges" of a citizen, then they are citizens, based on inductive reasoning. They just have differing capacities and obligations from the run-of-the-mill citizen.

Again, if you are going to quote Wintermoot to back up your side, I point to Wintermoot's above statement.

There is no qualifier in the act that states whether Paragons become citizens, and what it would mean then if they lose Paragon status while they are not Citizens in the traditional sense. So it is completely up to interpretation at this point. That is what we should fix, and then this problem would go away on its own.

Basic Logic and reasoning states that they are NOT citizens in any way, shape, form, but separate, otherwise they would not have a title. Further, with the lack of qualifier in the act, it means that Paragons are not citizens in any way shape or form.

And that's why it isn't relevant to this topic, since the underlying issue isn't whether the same clause about not expediting is applicable to Paragons and repealing their status, but whether Paragons enjoy Citizenship status to begin with. Solve that, and we've solved this.

Then I firmly hold that Paragons are not Citizens, but an entirely separate group legally. Wintermoot can not revoke a citizen's citizenship, they are not bound to the requirements of citizens, thus in the law they are NOT citizens. The law explicitly states that Citizens MUST abide by the requirements, although paragons do not. 

I'm done discussing it now. I'll simply reiterate that it is perfectly reasonable to anticipate a situation where a Paragon is a Citizen in the traditional sense too, and then the part about the Non-Paragon could completely destroy their right not to have the discussion expedited. That's why I'm advocating that if we're going to do anything, we're going to do it properly, and leave no loopholes like that, and instead address the other concern through a clarification, as it should be done.

It's not really a fucking loop-hole. It can't be used to wrongfully revoke one's citizenship. This is the ONLY compromise I am willing to make on the bill and that is change to this statement:

Any Skrifa may motion to expedite at any time after a proposal has been introduced.  If the motion receives a second, the bill will proceed to a vote no later than 24 hours after the second. A motion to expedite can not be proposed for a bill which concerns the revocation of the Citizenship of a Non-Paragon Wintreath Citizen and the exclusion of Paragon Repeal Acts.

It's uglier, but there. The loop-hole no longer fucking exists.