That was poor phrasing on my part. In some of our past responses to public feedback, I think things were easier because there was a specific and explicit change we could point to. Here, it’s harder to have something like that. The workload is there, but I think there is always some degree of awkwardness in a government institution just throwing up its hands and saying, "welp, this is too much for us to handle, so we’re just not going to do it anymore.” For example, we could just decide not to give out Discord roles to citizens anymore—that’s not explicitly required anywhere by law—but I imagine that would be quite unpopular.
I think the idea I was trying to get across is that I felt like there’s this perception that CitComm has a big long list of mandatory checks—that’s what I meant by “required by established processes”—but that could equally be viewed as accepting applications by ‘default’ unless the nation is not in the region, the applicant is also in a proscribed region, etc. Obviously what’s contained in that list is subject to discussion, but I think that’s an example of how more or less equivalent descriptions can feel like overestimates or underestimates. But framing the issue alone doesn’t make the process faster or change the workload.