I dislike our current leniency provisions for a couple reasons.
It’s subjective. It’s left almost entirely up to CitComm discretion (barring whatever ‘otherwise active’ means). Frankly, it seems really easy to politicize, and that shouldn’t be CitComm’s role.
It’s unclear. There’s no defined standard. You miss an election, you log back in, you request leniency, and then you might receive it and might not. Even if CitComm tries to take the subjectivity out of it by imposing some objective standard upon itself, that’s not apparent to anybody reading the law.
I am not necessarily opposed to codifying some standards for ‘leniency’ but I also think that, frankly, it’s been a really long time since we had a leave of absence request really scrutinized. Most of all, I just think CitComm ‘discretion’ is a weird way to do things.
Against unless provided with a new leniency system for citizens who didn’t vote/ some way to make the election post more visibile (even not necessairly a ping, for example a global pin on the forums for said post). Even the opportunity to ask leniency for citizens Who are voting for the First time and don’t know very well how things work here.
CitComm is exploring making the election area of the forums, by default, send notifications to all citizens (you’d have to then be silly and turn them off).
Assuming you mean the Election Central category, I’m against pinging for every post in that category. If there’s any topic in it that should be pinged, it’s the declarations, but I believe pinging for elections themselves would be a mistake.
I disagree I think pinging for elections will remind people to vote and which will in turn abolish the need for leniency all the time
I do have to agree with Coltranius than I won’t support this if there isn’t a plan to replace the current leniency policy, since Griffindor has started to kind of say the plan I will currently abstain.
The point should not be to have more people vote, it should be for people to make informed votes. Ultimately, the citizens accept the responsibility of making sure they cast their ballot on time when they apply for citizenship. If we must send out pings, it would be best in the declaration phase to give people time to look into the campaigns.
At any rate, I’d argue that if we’re pinging for elections that’s a reason for totally removing leniency.
I think leniency is the wrong framing — what people are actually proposing is to change the citizenship eligibility requirements. We could just as easily have a system in which every citizen loses their citizenship after each election, but receive leniency if they cast a ballot. It would be silly, but it would have the exact same end result as a system with “no leniency” that we’re discussing here. If you feel that CitComm should be able to grant leniency if it wants to, then you’re just advocating for the current system (under which, by the way, CitComm could just as well grant leniency to nobody). But if you have a specific idea of when leniency should be granted, you’re really just proposing a different eligibility requirement.
Basically what I was saying, but no matter if we ping there will be more votes eventually, I think it should be all stages so they keep getting notified because if it’s just the declarations they will forget about it eventually, and if they ping it during the actual voting it will remind them, but sort of what I was trying to say pinging for elections will be a reason to totally get rid of leniency
I mean, elections start less than a week after declarations begin, if someone gets the pings for declarations and then forgets to vote that’s an issue they need to take responsibility for. We can’t hold people’s hands all the way, there needs to be a measure of trust if we’re expecting them to vote in our elections.
Yes, and we do trust people but no matter what these pings are going to act like we’re holding there hands the entire time we do trust but giving them a reminder doesn’t hurt
I see what you’re going for, but I’d rather just restrict it rather than remove it, because sometimes there are cases where it makes sense. Like, somebody is currently swamped in florida due to some hurricane or whatever again during the election but getting citizenship removed would yeet them from the CRS, as an extreme example.
I don’t disagree in principle, but how would this work in practice? What sort of restriction would meaningfully limit Cit Comm’s discretion? Especially given that there would almost certainly be no judicial review of a decision to not revoke citizenship, it’s hard to imagine even a strongly worded limit would make much difference.
Right — it only ‘just makes sense’ so long as (a) we know about it and (b) we agree about it.
I realize that requesting a leave of absence might be the last thing on someone’s mind as they’re bracing for an incoming hurricane, but requesting leniency might equally be the last thing on their mind as they’re dealing with the aftermath of a hurricane.
I have realized, however, that leaves of absence must be approved by CitComm prior to each voting period. That seems bad on its own — if CitComm just misses your leave of absence request, that’s not on you — but especially bad if CitComm can’t grant leniency afterwards. So, how’s this?