WA citizenship may seem like a good idea, but it adds a extra layer of beurocracy and makes citizenship harder for some to obtain. WA citizenship essentially WA locks everyone who wishes to remain a citizen, and since TSP is a feeder it would cause those who aren’t ready to commit to the game to go elsewhere. In Starlight and Horizon, there is WA citizenship and it can be a pain at times, because I would prefer to have my WA in TSP but citizenship requires it in starlight or horizon, WA citizenship forces those who have commitments in multiple regions to make a very difficult decision that could have negative impacts on them. I understand that cosmos are frowned upon but they provide a very important source of ideas, culture, and participation, and requiring WA citizenship will cause them to turn away. I am loyal to TSP, but if WA citizenship is passed, I do not know if I will remain as a citizen because of my own commitments in S&H. I know I am a part of tsp culture at this point, and I want to remain a part, but the addition of WA for citizenship may cause me and other important TSPer to leave or reduce participation. I am not threatening to leave but it is a possible outcome if this passes.
For someone who’s speaking from experience, I’d like to ask is there any particular reason you need TSP’s citizenship/if losing citizenship would bar you from contributing to TSP’s culture? Having citizenship in Starlight have never barred you from participating in TSP’s culture before.
I say this as a TSP “fixture” who don’t have citizenship half the time.
Thank you for going straight to whatever weird attempt to impeach my character that was. Nice try, I suppose.
I’ve never hidden the fact that I disagree with bans for out-of-TSP reasons, which includes Unibot’s ban, but in this case I’ll have to disappoint you: I genuinely have no idea what scheme you’re talking about.
Now, if you please, how about we continue debating on the merits.
Now, I would have to ask why there are members on the CRS who aren’t in the World Assembly? Please don’t answer that here as this is a rhetorical question. On that note though, I think we should at least endorse the ones who are in the World Assembly given the CRS has had to step in before because of Delegate resigning or who knows what it is in the future. I’m not trying to push the envelope for more arguments. This was presented to the Assembly in this format, and I’m only advocating for the position of us having a stronger World Assembly program as a whole.
Unless we’re going to require the CRS to maintain endos as the CG does, I don’t think this should be built into the citizenship requirement. Some members of the CRS are pushed in the SWAN dispatches because they’re also members of the CG, but I don’t want to have a law that says “endorse only a specific part of this group. good luck.” I’d prefer to keep cohesiveness with how we define how a group should interact with others.
I’m happy to concede it. We can remove the CRS from this conversation.
(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, 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;
————————————————
I encourage everyone to take a step back and breathe. This is a very serious bill with possible changes if passed. Legislators shouldn’t be coming at each other’s throats. I am against the amendment! But if I am in the minority, I do want this Endorsement requirement because it gives us a meaningful baseline from this amendment. I’d support it based on if it’s added. My question now is;
We say people can be grandfathered in. If that’s the case; I propose some kind of writing or amendment assuring they do. I do not support word of mouth because it’s not actionable unless it’s set in stone. So will there be a grandfather clause? If so, how will it be implemented?
I would prefer the grandfathering to be done by a Assembly Resolution separate to the Amendment, but passed in conjunction with it together in the same vote. That way it works nicely with the Assembly resolution exemption and sets a standard for what we want to see.
“Nice job trying to impeach me, [bafflingly self-impeaching statement].”
I don’t see why pointing out a very plausible basis for your objections is any less merited than pointing out that someone else’s is based in their own personal interest (for example, not wanting to choose between two regions to have their WA in).
I think something simple like this should do. The CRS should have these exemptions in case of security threats after all. If we need a Whereas reference to the citizenship act feel free to add to it.
As of this moment these are all the citizens who don’t have their WA nation in TSP. I’ve split the list into a few categories.
If there are any incorrect listings, please correct me.
I don’t think we should grant exemptions to anyone with their WA currently in TSP. The grandfathering resolution should apply to the first two groups, but not the last two. I would also prefer that this grandfathering exemption ends for someone if they ever move their WA into TSP for non-military purposes. If they’re no longer restricted to keeping their WA elsewhere there’s no reason to continue their exemption.
With current wording by Raven, It could technically be interpreted that it is required to be endorsing a delegate that doesn’t have to be recognized by the region (i.e. a couper) Leading to most being in non-compliance with the requirements. In case of, Citcomm suddenly wanting to revoke citizenship, a needed caretaker PM, who would fill that role legally? This is a total non-issue in reality tho and would need like total leap and bounds of logic.
What about this?
November 2026 WA Requirement Exemption Resolution
A resolution to grant exemptions on citizenship requirements to members
WHEREAS, the Assembly recognizes an ease of transition to WA requirement in citizenship for its members.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY:
Grants WA membership compliance exemptions to List of People until a WA membership nation is moved into the South Pacific by these members for non-military purposes in the future.
My wording is a bit weird but i want to cover all bases.
An interpretation that members have to endorse the person holding the in-game delegate seat rather than the person elected to be head of state is pretty clearly incorrect. We don’t need to legislate around this.
If you are new to NS and TSP you aren’t really well-versed with how the game or the forums work; you have a tutorial, but that doesn’t teach the how the running of the South Pacific works (atleast not since I did it)
TSP doesn’t have a civics test for new members on how the government works, how to bring a claim to the High Court etc.; you have to go looking for them in the current — and sometimes older — forums to see how are run, and even then it can be outdated. And as far as I’m aware, the Discord doesn’t have that much info either.
You can always ask someone — 'tis a welcoming community after all — but there’s not always a guarantee you’ll get a response in a timely manner, if at all.
If the goal is for new/returning players to be more active or prominent within, then having them dedicate to either establishing a WA nation here (which new nations might not understand to do) or submitting a waiver, which either might not understand to do.
I bring this up as I’ve been here for a while, (not that long but a while), with about a year break in the midst, and I’m still learning things about TSP and NS as a whole. Still after reading up on both forums and dispatches, I’m still not sure of certain areas e.g proposing legislation.
To stop rambling, for someone to apply for a waiver they have to know what they’re doing, where to do it, and how to do it
From the getting involved wizard “Become a Citizen and participate in the region’s government, including voting, holding office, and contributing to the legislative process.” Being a citizen is a requirement for being a part of the process for determining the future of the region.
The reason being a citizen in Starlight hasn’t impacted my participation is because TSP doesn’t have wa citizenship and, with how I work, not being a citizen in TSP would cause me to drift away.
I ask as a rhetorical, but could you name any returning player of note that did not know how to join the WA?
Separately, new players are already directed to join the WA and endorse the Delegate and Coral Guard by way of both the welcome telegram and the same community that welcomed them in. If any new player was actively resisting joining the WA, then it might be worth looking into why that is the case, since it is is otherwise expected and simple to do.
Fortunately I have no obligation to convince you of anything, and quite frankly I don’t care whatever it is that you think of me.
I appreciate that, but honestly I’d rather not be included in that. It feels rather unfair that some people would be given exemption from a rule just because they happened to be around when it was implemented.
I honestly don’t know what i was on last night probably not enough sleep.
Funnily enough Utopia did made one although it isn’t easy and more of for older players.
Well, establishing needing it early’s probably good?
I agree to this to some extent, though a little change of wording would leash us less. half of government groups doesn’t really need citizenship and it’s technically isn’t mentioned in law, being part of the legislative process can be done except voting and well holding office.. there’s no workaround.
Would this have been a problem if TSP have WA citizenship and Starlight don’t? and it’s not like we can repeal’s Starlight so it’s gonna be there? The benefit is that now TSP are more likely to to retain WA members in the first place.
Wouldn’t you be needing it to continue being chair, if this passes? If i recall correctly you need to be a legislator to be chair, and citizenship to be a legislator, no?