View Topic

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.

@Laurentus that was made over a week ago.

In any case @tatte yes, if the proposal has been at vote for seven days.

The Citizenship Integration Amendment Act was at vote for less than two days, I think. How impatient.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ah, I forgot it was passed by the Storting -- I thought it was a decree. I have such good memory.

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.

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.