After Phil’s passing, I think it’s high time we bring back discussion on moving to WA requiremnt for TSP. From the Citizenship Act:
(3)b are pathways for exemption in case of others that needed it. Although not sure if CRS approval should be needed. Of course there are also points on the Admiralty to not change policy during elections but not sure if it is needed in law.
A resolution on Citizenship Transition is also on the table.
It all seems fairly logical to me, no concerns as of now.
Just to understand the context behind this, is there a particular concern or risk that you wish to address with this?
I am against this idea. The proposed waiver process also creates an unnecessary barrier and gives citizenship an avoidable layer of bureaucracy. I am sure other regions do it. I’ll ask a few questions about this to see if this helps me understand the reasoning for the idea;
Support, support, and support for WA citizenship.
I’m not a WA resident and have no plans to be one for the foreseeable future, so I do worry that this would disenfranchise me and any other who has the potential to contribute but for any reason cannot commit their WA to the region. I know this bill has a waiver provision, but that’s an added layer of bureaucracy that will probably exclude most people who can contribute but won’t place their WA here.
Speaking practically, the citizenship resolution can include a grandfathering in of specific citizens.
SPSF members and those on SPSF operations shouldn’t need to apply for a waiver, anyone who falls under any Admiralty policy for an SPSF exemption should get it automatically. Any recordkeeping that needs to be done there can be done by the admiralty. I’m not quite a fan of how the WA requirement gets phrased in this proposal; I’d prefer something worded more along the lines of this:
I purposefully did not make any changes to Article 3(1)d as members can be part of the SPSF without being a citizen, or someone granted exception by the Assembly might be applying as well. Both situations could lead to a case where the member in question does not have their WA up.
I would also want to see resolutions passed granting that exception to current citizens, grandfathering them in.
How do you anticipate the implementation of an automatic policy by a body separate to the ones setting the policy?
Edit: Saw the change to the Citizenship Act. Could not say I am fully supportive of the change away from operationally-focused exemptions, in favor of a broad sweep of exemption at the behest of the Admiralty. We should be encouraging those serving in the SPSF to keep their WAs in the region when not on assignment.
Why not replicate the system we use for Delegate elections here? Have the Prime Minister send CitComm a list of citizens on an active operation every month.
Largely I mean automatic as in the member in question would not have to take any action to be granted the exception. I would expect that the Admiralty would have to maintain a list of SPSFers in compliance with the policy and communicate that to CitComm. This is something that would have to be done for any implementation of a SPSF exemption, as while the exemption could broadly be granted to SPSF members as a whole, the SPSF exemption should still apply to civilians participating in SPSF operations, such as when we’re whipping updaters for a large liberation and we need every endo we can get.
That is sort of how I intended for this to function, and why I added Article 4(4) in there, but I placed it under the Admiralty. I wouldn’t be opposed to changing the communicating body to the PM.
I have long supported moving to WA Citizenship so I am glad to see the change being proposed once again, but, and this is probably my ignorance speaking, what does Phil or his passing have to do with this proposal?
Phil was in favor of a WA requirement for citizenship
Which seems rather unfair to those who cannot or will not place a WA here but have the potential to be future leaders in the region.
I have no particular concerns that brought this about. Phil was just so vocal about this.
Exceptions always comes with layers of bureaucracy. Also, how is the waiver process a barrier to entry?
As you said, other regions also do this. Logically even if you are one of the most active TSPer, you are incentivized to keep your WA in a region that requires it. They’ll simply not partake in any TSP WA functions. (Unless you are running for delegate ofc)
Truthfully, yes. But only for the government, our roleplay and community doesn’t require any citizenship in the first place. And even if you meant roleplay as in government roleplay, you can still propose and discuss laws (with the exception of private halls, but I think if you have to debate on where to put your WA (and it’s not TSP/or you aren’t mentioned that you should be exempted by assembly members) you shouldn’t be looking at the private halls at all.) just not vote on it. The key word here is “discouraging”.
Yes, Cabinet positions requires citizenship but that is not the biggest problem. It probably lies in the PM election where you would need citizenship to run. I would be in support of not needing citizenship to run but needing it to take office, with a timeframe mentioned in law.
And in the long run it increase the retention rate of active contributers. This is more of a Quality or Quantity situation. So I understand why’d you be opposed to this.
Contribute on what exactly? Other than Cabinet positions and Chair, I don’t see any reason they would need citizenship to contribute? That is like a low number of people that will need the waiver if we are accounting for timeframes. It will just looks like a lot of people on the first granfathered resolution.
Edit: if you wanna be chair for example the Assembly resolution can just be granfathered in with the Chair resolution.
Potential leaders in the region would probably be new, they wouldn’t be needing their WA elsewhere. And if they’re a veteran NSer, they would probably plan on moving their WA to commit to TSP if this proposal goes through. Unless there’s a specific case that you can’t even move your WA to TSP even while you’re in office, your entire NS life? And when you are established enough you can go for the assembly exemption.
Not related but I’m okay with Utopia’s proposal. Although I’m not sure if Section 4 should be under “Citizenship Requirements”.
I’ve been in favor of WA citizenship for a while. The only concern I have is that this would bar people who would otherwise be important members of our community from becoming citizens. While they could go through the process of applying for a waiver I’m not certain that…anyone would. That being said, I’m in support of Utopia’s proposal for the Admiralty’s exemption list. Inactive members excluded, moving WAs back and forth from TSP to R/D is not always easy, especially considering there’s no way to know whether or not there’s something that needs the SPSF. Tidal Force members without piling orders should keep their WAs in the region, yes.
It should be made clear what and what does not require citizenship (for one, you don’t need citizenship for RP).
I also agree with allowing existing citizens to keep their citizenship even without their WA in TSP.
This is a wildly arbitrary measure whose only result will be to shrink an already small pool of potential talent in the region.
Cosmos are potential talent that we want 
Any talent who actually matters would be committed to the region.
That is a sad point of view and I hope most in the region don’t think like that. If someone has the drive and the skills to contribute to the region, whether as a staff member or Prime Minister, I hope they would be welcome regardless of whether they have a WA here, elsewhere, or nowhere at all.
The measure of someone’s commitment is their contribution, not whether they clicked a given button.
Again, that’s just saying that there’re only cons to this. As I said this is more of a quantity vs quality situation and this mostly applies negatively to those who already have commitments in other regions. I don’t really see how this shrink new potential talent. The benefit of moving to WA Citizenship is better engagement and player retention.
I say sometimes, but with an appropriate portion of leeway, which i think a bit of bureaucracy is a fair trade off. Besides you would get options. If someone don’t want to deal with our bureaucracy, move your WA to us and deal with the bureaucracy in the region that the person is already established.
I’m sure this is not the point of view held by most of the region. But WA is also a big part of contributing to a region, in my personal opinion, TSP is a bit complacent when it comes to WA. (Sorry @eternalraven213, I haven’t even answer your questions on discord, do i do a thread or like dm?) WA is a part of regional power, I think we are complacent because we are big. Some of the “potential” already left because we don’t grab their attention.
Yes, this is not a solution to that problem but it’ll help a bit.
I’m wondering. What would, realistically, be the largest barrier to someone just…applying for a waiver? Maybe it’s a bit annoying, yes, but not impossible as far as I see. People can be valuable parts of the community even if they aren’t a citizen.
WA is a part of regional power, I think we are complacent because we are big. Some of the “potential” already left because we don’t grab their attention.
I agree. This is one of my main reasons for supporting WA citizenship.