View Topic

It's been a while since I wrote any laws, so I don't remember which laws deal directly with this, but why not amend whichever act it is with the following?

#.# The Storting recognises that some citizens may need to go on an extended leave of absence, and in such cases, grants the Monarch the authority to decide how long to keep their citizenship status active.

(# being a placeholder for whichever portion of whichever act deals with it)

Since this is a topic being discussed in the UH, I figured I'd use this thread to bring up something related to it.

Simply, that this statement by Chanku actually bothers me a bit:

[3:37 PM] Chanku: Well aside from the fact I wouldn't count missionary trips as being worthy of an exemption

Now, I'm not religious myself, but I wouldn't say that missionary trips aren't worthy of an exemption.  You're being sent out for a long period of time, sometimes to places with absolutely no internet access.  Regardless of the reason, I don't think it's fair to say that this wouldn't be "worthy" of an exemption just because it's a missionary trip.  This is something that is very important to the person taking part, as it's part of their very religious faith.

If they're wanting to be here but can't for an extended period of time because they're taking part in that, I think it should be worthy for an exemption.

Now, for things like a personal vacation? No, I don't think it's entirely worthy for an exemption.  You'll have internet access in some form, so checking the forums every so often isn't an issue.  Likewise, even business trips don't cut off your access to the internet, so that's not always a worthy reason as well.

But if you're undergoing something that is going to pretty much cut you off from the internet for an extended period of time, then I think those instances are worthy for an exemption.

What I felt were the most relevant things when I threw out the idea of granting AJ an exemption were that he's been an outstanding member of the (Discord/IRC) community for a few years now and that he's unable to meet the Citizenship requirements for a temporary amount of time but intends to return when he's able. I didn't consider the reason one way or another, but I included it in there to show why he would not be able to meet the requirements.

Basically, a minor token of our respect and affection for him.

I can't really imagine Wintreath attracting many people who would be missionaries, thus my poking fun at Daws later in the Discord chat, but for me it was more about who than why.

What I felt were the most relevant things when I threw out the idea of granting AJ an exemption were that he's been an outstanding member of the (Discord/IRC) community for a few years now and that he's unable to meet the Citizenship requirements for a temporary amount of time but intends to return when he's able. I didn't consider the reason one way or another, but I included it in there to show why he would not be able to meet the requirements.

Basically, a minor token of our respect and affection for him.

I can't really imagine Wintreath attracting many people who would be missionaries, thus my poking fun at Daws later in the Discord chat, but for me it was more about who than why.

I figured that was usually a given.  But I assume things a bit differently than others sometimes.   

I mean, it's different when it's just someone who disappears, compared to someone who announces an LOA...which I'd assume exemptions would only be granted to the latter.  I guess that's why I was using that example as well, though.  Because I'd assume exemptions would be given only to those who can't be online for a period of time (IE military/peace corps related, going to somewhere with no internet for a period of time, medical related) as opposed to those who just choose to not be online (since even a post a 1-2 times a week with even the most basic thing is fine).

I do think it should always be a case-by-case situation though, as opposed to setting a basic template.  I do think there are certain guidelines that should be considered, such as length of time they've been here (since I'd be a little iffy granting it to a brand new member who just started posting, and then announced an LOA) and their overall activity in Wintreath, I think even in certain situations for those, it should be somewhat flexible depending on what exactly the case is.

Laurentus made a good point, that I want to emphasize.  Why do they have to be an "outstanding" member to be worthy of an exception?  What does that even mean anyways? If they're in good standing and the circumstances prevent them from being online for a length of time, shouldn't that be enough?  If we restrict it too much to a select few, we might as well just make them paragons at that point since it'd start to tread that line.

In AJ's case, outstanding means that he's a fairly well-known person in the community who has been active for a long time...in his case, on IRC and then Discord specifically. I don't think I would have come up with the idea if it has been a newer member or someone who wasn't as well-known...anyone that loses Citizenship can just reapply, so at the end of the day it's basically a minor honor. By contrast, Paragonhood is a larger honor that's usually reserved  (in practice if not in law) for members who probably won't be back for a long time if ever and have a record of accomplishment in the region.

That's just what's in my head though, it's up to the Storting to do what it wants here.

As the author of the act, what Wintermoot has stated is, in fact, correct.

So why not make that the reason for allowing anyone to take such an extended leave of absence?

What constitutes "worthy" will change from person to person, and thus from one Underhusen term to the next. Rather than always debate these silly matters, why not just leave it to one person to decide when to grant such leave, and be done with it? It won't make the scale used any less subjective, but at least it will create a bit of consistency.

Who should decide this, you ask? Why not the monarch? The Storting already delegates much of its powers to the monarch when it comes to citizenship issues, so why not this one?

Why not just give a blanket period of 10-14 days?
Make a thread in the Citizenship app area to track LOAs.

Don't do the LOAs based off of name recognition that wouldn't be fair. Most people would be back in the time frame suggested.

Why not just give a blanket period of 10-14 days?
Make a thread in the Citizenship app area to track LOAs.

Don't do the LOAs based off of name recognition that wouldn't be fair. Most people would be back in the time frame suggested.

I think you're missing the point...

Wintreath has no activity requirements other than either maintaining an NS nation in the region or posting five posts per month. There is no point to tracking such short LOAs because they happen all the time.

This is for the special case of people needing to be gone for longer than they can maintain such requirements (so for NS, 60 days).

Right.  If people want to take an LOA for personal reasons, that's a different story.

This is mainly about people who HAVE to take an extended LOA due to specific circumstances, such as going through military training/boot camp (which doesn't allow access to the internet for recreation).

There is only so much that can be done. If they fail to meet the minimum requirements and the Citizenship is revoked then they will have to reapply for it. Just like almost any other region.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you were just stating your opinion here, because otherwise, that statement is simply false. There is something that can be done, and said something is granting a temporary citizenship exemption. You will find, in the various threads on this topic since Wintermoot first proposed the idea, that there has been essentially unanimous support for granting a citizenship exemption, and that the debates have only been in the particulars of how to implement this exemption.

I also don't see what you're trying to get at by drawing comparisons to other regions. We know how things are done elsewhere; many if not most of us have been in NS for quite some time and/or are dual citizens. Just because things are done one way in much of NS does not mean that it has to be done the same way in Wintreath. You're new to our community, so I'm not sure if you've picked up on this yet, but in many ways, Wintreath prides itself in being different from other NationStates regions. (As an aside, citizenship requirements are already permanently waived for Paragons, so in a way, there's already a precedent for this here.)

I really like the sentiment behind this amendment, and while I do think that leaving it up to the Monarch's discretion is a simple solution, I figure I might as well throw out some possible alternatives.

I also think that these would be most flexible in tandem, like how the citizenship requirements are to maintain a NS nation in Wintreath or meet the five monthly posts requirement (which forum lurker me appreciates).

Some concrete things we can look at are non-spam post count, when someone was first granted citizenship, the ratio of time as a citizen vs time on leave (if they've taken a prior LoA), the date of their NS nation's founding/refounding, and if they're active on IRC/Discord.

Example requirements for eligibility for official LoAs could then be things like "maintained citizenship in Wintreath for six consecutive months" (which has built-in flexibility thanks to flexibility of the citizenship requirements) and "participates in the IRC/Discord/forums on a minimum monthly basis".

*tosses out the cents*

@Dawsinian could you please explain your reasoning for seeking to override the Overhusen, particularly without addressing any of the concerns that they (and others) have posed?

While AJ'BLarg may qualify as "an outstanding member of the region," this law seems to be establishing procedure for doing this again in the future, not just occurring for this case alone, and without defining what such a thing means, interpretation of this law may be altered from the original intent in the future. (Already, I've seen people forget details surrounding the context of some laws passed several years ago, and that could certainly happen again.)