View Topic

A few weeks back I proposed allowing any Citizen who makes ten posts a month and/or maintains a nation to retain their Citizenship...even with such a low post requirement, they would not have permanent Citizenship if they never came back because then they wouldn't be posting. And in spite of being told to figure it out for myself, I still have no clue how it's preferable to only grant this to certain people determined by the powers that be rather than have a requirement that any Citizen can reach.

Nor do I see this as much of a reward...it only takes a few seconds to maintain a nation in the region. I made my proposal because I foresee and hope that the time will come when people come here for reasons other than NationStates to begin with, and it wouldn't be fair to require them to be on NS to be part of what they came here for...but it also happily extends to those who no longer want to be part of NationStates as well. They just have to continue being here.

Just so we're clear, that wasn't a snide remark on my part. I simply saw this as the type of issue where people are going to have their own interpretation of what it constitutes.

I see a reward (since I truly hate NS and don't want to go anywhere near it to retain my ability to vote and remain involved in guilds (but not in leadership) and so forth), which at the same time should be kept in line, since it's not fair to be in the cabinet or other aspects of government when I've become so disconnected from the actual NS region page, and that is still after all where we receive our members.

Pengu sees something else completely, so does Hannah, Elderpion and Robin. That's all I meant. I can't speak for any of them.

I think that it makes sense as an act, as long as there's some caveat so every citizen doesn't remain a citizen forever even if they don't go onto the forums.  Perhaps it should be a combination of a nation CTE'ing and 30-plus days of inactivity on the forums without telling everyone. 

There could also be a post/length of time requirement as well.  For instance, someone who just joined a week ago and went inactive wouldn't keep it, whereas someone who joined a year ago and is steadily active should be able to should their nation CTE.

Hmm, maybe my goal of simplistic wording with lots of derived meaning failed , I am sorry, (and as such I may edit it) what I attempted to convey with section 6.2 was that this would be done on an individual basis, a lot like paragon status, but simpler and without as many strings and connotations, it could be granted and repealed easily and without much government intervention making the process smoother and less contentious...

Maybe that isn't best

I already beat you to it with my first post in this topic, Wintermoot.

And no, it should be made clear that it does not put such a citizen on equal footing with a Paragon. I liked Robin's suggestion, and think it should be added as a requirement, already differentiating it quite a bit from the Paragon status.

Also, my objections in that other thread Wintermoot mentioned still stand. I don't think a citizen who retains his citizenship this way should be allowed to serve in the cabinet.

EDIT: Nor, for that matter, should they be allowed to serve in the Underhusen.

I hadn't considered people granted this exemption not having full citizenship... I guess it could work on a similar basis to American "Green Cards" where all the laws apply to them but not all the rights unless they apply and maintain full citizenship... can I give that some consideration in my head?

The goal of this isn't as a privilege or a reward, instead it's to simultaneously make this forum less dependent on NS while also making the system easy to understand and apply...

I honestly do understand it's not perfect... I did have a MUCH longer act written, but what I realized was that we don't need all the caveats, assurances, references and securities, in the end it isn't that big a deal if someone stays citizen for too much longer than they should have (hell, it happens anyway) and this grants legitimacy and precedent for those circumstances...
At least that's how I see it, I have hummed and hawed over this idea since Moot proposed it a while ago, and I totally understand misgivings and uneasiness over this... it's mainly just to give us all a more pertinent and different way to discuss it.

A few weeks back I proposed allowing any Citizen who makes ten posts a month and/or maintains a nation to retain their Citizenship...even with such a low post requirement, they would not have permanent Citizenship if they never came back because then they wouldn't be posting. And in spite of being told to figure it out for myself, I still have no clue how it's preferable to only grant this to certain people determined by the powers that be rather than have a requirement that any Citizen can reach.

Nor do I see this as much of a reward...it only takes a few seconds to maintain a nation in the region. I made my proposal because I foresee and hope that the time will come when people come here for reasons other than NationStates to begin with, and it wouldn't be fair to require them to be on NS to be part of what they came here for...but it also happily extends to those who no longer want to be part of NationStates as well. They just have to continue being here.

I think I just see it as a balance of the forces.  Keeping the current requirement to start keeps the NS roots, and giving permanent citizenship to established members removes the need to have to undergo constantly reviving nations we don't even use.  I see the current method as well as your suggested method as good ways to test activity from a person.  However, those of us that have been here for a period of time have already proven ourselves, so why thrust the requirement on us as well?  At some point in time, the requirement needs to be removed since, and I'm repeating myself, we've already proven ourselves in the region by keeping active already.  Revoking our citizenship at that point due to inactive nation or missing a post count just seems highly unnecessary.

Are you trying to say you want to remain Citizens forever without having to even make a measly ten posts or take a few seconds to maintain a nation in a month? We remove Citizen requirements from Paragons because the Storting has determined that they've proven themselves to the community and because they no longer have the ability to meet the requirements (though I understand that legally Paragons could still have the ability). It just comes off sounding like we should remove requirements for people that can't be bothered to meet them anymore no matter how minor they are, and that doesn't set well with me.

But then that's contradictory.  You and Elderpion cry out Elitism, but that's exactly what Paragon status is.  It's an admirable reward, but it removes any requirement from having their nation CTE.  What you're saying right now is that if I decided to take a month or 3 hiatus, I'd come back to a revoked status simply because I'm not worthy enough to be a Paragon.  Isn't that the very definition of elitism?

I'm saying that I shouldn't have to go through a revocation scare.  I've been here for 2 years now.  I've more than proven myself with keeping my nation active despite not even going on nationstates, and I've more than proven my activity.  Why should I continue to be forced to prove that just to keep my citizenship?  Why should anyone that has posted for even a few months time?  There needs to be a point when we recognize a stopping area for forcing people to prove their activity and dangling theit citizenship if they start to go quiet...not just to a select few Paragons who only get the title BECAUSE they went inactive and may never even come back to take advantage of permanent citizenship anyways

I'm pretty sure this drama is not what Hannah intended, so perhaps we give it a rest for a bit?

I wasn't intending for drama, I was just intending to use his example as a point.  A select few chosen by a group as worthy enough is elitist, which is what Paragon status is.  It's a highly admirable title, but it's still elitist.

Opening that up to anyone that is active for a set time isn't elitist, it's a reward for their continued dedication, and it's a reward that anyone can get when they reach that set time.

Anyways, I've made my point clear, so I'll give it a rest now.

That's not how I intended it...when I first thought of honorary Citizenship (which later became Paragonhood), when Charax was no longer allowed to be involved with NS, I assumed that they would reapply for normal Citizenship if and when they returned. That assumption created a loophole where there's no obligation to actually do so...it's what came of things, but I didn't intend for there to be active Paragons. I really meant it for people who were not here at all.

But at the end of the day, I think Citizens should be active...Citizenship isn't like a shiny title that should be given out as a reward. It's a status that holds rights like the ability to vote, the ability to hold office, and the ability to participate in regional governance. If someone isn't here to exercise those rights...then what's the point of even having it? 10 posts or maintaining a nation to maintain this status of Citizen...not high bars to leap.

I think that's the clearest I can make my feelings.

As have we all, I'm sure.

Rare is the day that I'm the one calling for peace.

I will say this: people who get busy IRL could do us the courtesy of coming on and saying so in the LOA thread. Some sort of post requirement does make sense to me.

But at the same time, I do agree with Pengu on the elitist nature of the Paragon status. I have never had a particular problem with it, since it has allowed Weissreich to remain active as well, and even enabled me to appoint him as the RP Guildmaster and allowed him to serve a term in the UH, but I see a clear bit of contradiction in allowing Weissreich to do so, but not us. After all, he could revive his nation as well. He chooses not to. And I'm fine with that.

That said, and this may apply to Paragon status too if we really want to get bothered about elitism (which I don't, because this is a forum based on a nation-simulation game and as long as something remains practically fair, I just don't give a shit), I can see why people would be against people being in government when they have no interest in the NS side of things anymore.

I have to ask though: what does maintaining my NS nation actually achieve, when I'm in reality still as apathetic to that side of things as I am now, and will never even look at the RMB or know anyone on it? It's a silly ceremonial requirement that does not ensure I do my part in government well, or care as much as I should.

I venture to say that we should at that point be honest with ourselves and each other that if I already care that little about the NS side of things, I probably don't belong in government anyway, whether I choose to maintain my nation or not. It seems strange to get hung up on something as insignificant as whether I still maintain my NS nation at that point, when the actual problem could be so much larger if I've reached a point where I do it as a tedious chore to remain in a government where I've become so disconnected.

Title
1. The Restricted Citizenship Act

Amendments
2. Section 2 shall be amended to add subsection 7, which shall read as follows:

2.7 Should a citizen have had their citizenship nation CtE, and they have been online within one week of the last check and make at least an average of 10 posts a day then the Monarch, or the Storting, may grant the citizen a restricted citizenship. Upon gaining this citizenship type the person shall get full citizenship upon returning their citizenship nation and informing the person tasked with maintaining citizenship. After gaining this citizenship type they must meet an average 10 posts a day and be online at least twice a week.

3. Section 2.7, shall be amended to add subsection 1 which shall read:

2.7.1 A citizen with restricted citizenship may loose it upon the act of the Monarch, an act of the Storting, or upon failing to meet the requirements. Upon loosing it all citizenship shall be lost. Further revocation of restricted citizenship shall not be counted as revocation of citizenship within the Storting.

4. Section 2.7 shall be amended to add subsection 2 which shall read:

2.7.2 People with restricted citizenship are not be eligible to run or stand in elections or to assume office. For the purposes of elected offices held prior to gaining this status, they shall be considered non-citizens. People with restricted citizenship may, however, vote.

I decided to take Hannah's act and ad a few changes. Notably added a few requirements, created a special status for it, and added some restrictions (notably that they can not hold, run, or assume any elected office.). This act does not go as far as forbidding those restricted citizens from being within the executive, as technically/legally there is no requirement to be a citizen to be within the Riksrad/Executive AFAIK. As such I would expect the Monarch to consider them non-citizens as well.

The average 10 post per day part sounds dodge, since that translates to 280 posts per month, no mean feat, especially at certain times of the year, but overall, that is exactly what I would be comfortable with. I think I recall something about the Storting not being able to legislate anything to do with the cabinet?

With respect to the ability of the Storting being able to legislate the cabinet, that's a bit legally odd...

The reason being that technically there is no explicit, or legal, prohibition or restriction on the Storting doing that. Legally it could do that under the Necessary and Proper clause. However attempts to legislate the cabinet would more than likely fail.

So legally/technically yes, realistically no.

@Laurentus, there's nothing that I disagree with in your reply, so I'm not sure where the problem is.

@Chanku, I'm probably the only person that has an average of over ten posts a day, and that's barely over ten...the Act won't do much good if I'm the only person it could apply to. Also, there's no reliable way to know if someone has been online twice a week, since the forum only records the last login time. Otherwise, I'm mostly concerned that the Act may be unconstitutional due to Article V Section 7, with guarantees Citizens the right to stand for any elected government office. I'm not sure you can legally have a 'restricted Citizen' that strips those rights.

But isn't a former citizen essentially just another word for a restricted citizen since they don't have access to those parts of the forum?