I am not sure there’s a real solid reason for us having to have this mandatory World Assembly nation must reside in TSP to be a citizen. I thought about the what if’s only for us to have a solution already;
This amendment will stop election fraud or ensure someone can’t just run or vote because they are election zombies. TSP already has certain laws and rules that prevent election fraud!
TSP will retain TSP homegrown talent and eliminate Cosmo players from taking up to many government positions. That argument fails the litmus test because you can’t serve as Prime Minister or Delegate here while serving in a similar role somewhere else.
There are waivers or people get grandfathered in. Interesting compromise and not a terrible idea. My argument against this is if it’s not broken, why fix it?
Other regions have this policy! Quite aware that there are other regions who have this policy. We have a lot of safety barriers already in place Doesn’t need TSP needs to try it again.
That’s just a few arguments but my main point is If it’s not broken, why fix it? I understand the system isn’t perfect and has flaws. The CitCom let in someone by accident this past year a time or two! Ok, it happens. But this WA requirement only adds more barriers to an already well-oiled machine. I’ve been told we did this before and then removed the requirement. On the Cosmo player statement and about being dedicated to TSP. I chose TSP because I spawned here and found it an enjoyable experience. I stashed away a nation in NBB because they are a lot of fun to hang out with. To sum it all up. People are here in TSP because they want to be. Maybe others are here for other reasons, but most are dedicated already.
I did post some interesting statistics about our region in regard to the World Assembly. This isn’t particularly the best venue to go far into depth. The true argument since I got here and before I got here is who’s going to ring the dinner bell to endorse the Delegate? Is it the Delegate? Is it SWAN? Is it OWL? Is it a team effort? This bill doesn’t solve those questions or concerns. I want to be careful here because I don’t speak for the government or the particular bodies because this is a complex situation with a lot of different tree branches. I am only interacting because it was brought up. I think there’s much better ways to address this as well as I have shared my shell of an idea on discord. Probably something we should hammer out or change the norm on. This is just not the venue for that.
The measure of someone’s commitment is also significantly reduced by holding citizenship in multiple regions.
Requiring WA membership for citizenship is overall a net positive for commitment and contribution, that will require some form of commitment to the region before applying for citizenship. Any player in this game knows that not focusing on one region means you contribute at a worse rate to every region that you add to the list of regions you’re a citizen in. Also, this does help with security matters.
I’m not even heavily for or against this. I’m more neutral leaning for, but the contribution argument is kind of silly when you realize who makes up the very very very very overwhelming majority of players who actually contribute to the region and are committed to it. People who can’t have a WA here, for whatever reason: sure, we can make an exception for them.
I understand your concern, Kris. But you’re not looking at the reality, the reality that would mean that this would remove the part of NS citizenry that has plagued minor regions and even large regions nowadays, players who are citizens in multiple regions and do close to nothing or contribute at a much lower level that have no sense of commitment to any region and are generally considered useless to the growth of any region. Players who aren’t ready to place a WA here are only here for the short term, probably to contribute to something small and leave. You’re exaggerating by expecting these people will be the future PM’s or something (which I don’t think is a positive outcome…). Players that actually contribute, are here for the long term, and would be committed to this region’s growth and output a net-positive contribution throughout their journey in TSP are the ones who are actually contributing to our growth. You’re looking at an exception, which is you, who does not want/have the ability to be a WA nation in TSP, out of a large set of non-WA short term players.
This argument fails to consider cabinet staffers and small-level contributors. Which the majority of cosmos actually tend to be.
An improvement to security is a very minor argument and usually a side-effect of this change. It doesn’t make it impossible, but it makes it harder. I’m not sure why you’re only responding to the minor points for this and neglecting all the others. (see: my response to Kris)
So anecdotes of successful implementations of this as well as arguments for it make it not needed?
I think this is another unreasonable argument that doesn’t really take into fact the bigger picture. Implementing this into law would mean that players who are here not to commit to the region or meaningfully contribute to it wouldn’t be able to. It’s not really “needed”, of course, but changing a mediocre system is also not needed (just giving an example), so what’s your point? This is to mostly improve contribution levels and like I said, kick out players that are not of much importance (and sometimes end up in a negative trend of low-quality contribution) out of the citizenry.
Nobody have said anything regarding election fraud…
This is not preventing any cosmos from taking governmental positions. TSP already have a failsafe in that no government position haver may have the same equivalent in another region (as you said).
Because it might be broken someday, and we want to prevent, not fix it after it’s broken. Many government has already echo the failure of TSP in WA voting blocs. (Such as the PfS) Being complacent when Raiders can comeback at anytime isn’t good. And a strong WA Citizenship can help with that. It also gives us more power at the negotiating table.
This is like saying an airbag isn’t needed when there’s safety belts, traffic rules and such.
I share the sentiment that we can be in a much better position in the World Assembly. But this doesn’t address the elephant in the room. At best, it’s a Hail Mary for us hoping that fixes the issue. I’ll say this because I don’t want to go in circles and be a record player. If the region says this is the only and best fix, I propose to add an amendment that makes it mandatory to have a World Assembly nation here in TSP and to be endorsing the World Assembly Delegate. Then you kill the argument of who’s responsible it is got get people to endorse the World Assembly Delegate. I don’t feel this requirement is needed personally. I think it’s more so the government working with CRS, SWAN, the Delegate and other parties involved to answer the decades long question of who’s responsible for what but I digress because this is not the venue for that conversation. I am willing to compromise if the amendment actually addresses something important.
I would support that measure. We implement that endorsement requirement amendment and keep the waiver, I’d cast my vote for the amendment requirement package.
It may not fix but it’ll help. It’ll increase participation in TSP WA functions! And these people will help determining TSP’s WA policy. It’ll help use answer the that age old question.
Oooh I may be a hypocrite for this one. Not all WA nations are gonna be applying for citizenship. Add in a only citizens that are needed to endorse then support.
To clarify, I meant people who don’t want the right/duty to vote. I don’t think they should be forced on this.
(3) Members of the Coalition are in compliance with WA membership requirements if:
they maintain World Assembly membership on a nation within the South Pacific and endorsed the World Assembly Delegate, Council of Regional Security, and the Coral Guard;
they have been granted an exemption by Assembly resolution; or
they have been granted an exemption by policy maintained publicly by the Admiralty;
@Utopia forgive my ignorance on the color coding. I couldn’t figure it out from my phone. I altered and added my proposed amendment.
That’s another separate discussion probably after the new government is seated. I am not a fan of the measure because I don’t think it will truly change much. I do believe this is probably an opportunity to find my common ground and bring forward an idea that I feel might add some value to the proposal.
And not all members of the CRS have RO positions and they aren’t pushed in SWAN dispatches either. I don’t think we should be requiring citizens to be endorsing the CRS.
You’d need to be a known quantity for the Assembly to reasonably consider you, so someone who won’t have their WA here but doesn’t have a prior record won’t have the chance to become a citizen.
And why is it that you cannot or will not place one? Or would otherwise be disenfranchised.
I’ll skip the subtext btw. I’d put a billion dollars on your ass helping Unibot with his little Vertigon scheme one way or another. “So I set myself up with a new identity, one of my NS friends swapped their WA nation with Vertigon, and I lied my ass off to everyone.” [1]
Before you feign that I’m baselessly being an ass, you used to keep a nation in his solo region as recently as April 2023. Reclade, I believe it was called, but it was there regardless.
I do agree with you on the naming, but I don’t think Tin meant anything disrespectful by it, nor intended to leverage any emotions through its naming. I think he just wanted to try and enact something he knew Phil wanted enacted.