Yes, I would be making similar arguments in Starlight if the situation was flipped. I don’t like wa citizenship there and I would be happy if it got removed. WA citizenship feels like a unnecessary requirement, citizenship should be based on how committed you are to a region, not where your wa happens to end up. People can commit to regions without their wa being present in said region. Of course we can encourage them to have a wa here, but we shouldn’t force it.
A WA nation is an objective, straightforward standard that helps reflect commitment to the region that is, at the pessimistic end, exceedingly hard to work around and maintain multiples. Feels like a good requirement to me!
1 Like
I disagree. They contribute to a downward trend of relying on cosmos for regional growth instead of relying on actual, committed members. They’re also very short term and are not trustworthy for any notable for high-risk position like head of government or state.
Joining the World Assembly isn’t a commitment to the game. You cannot lose Word Assembly membership (unless you CTE). It’s a commitment to a specific region.
So you’re loyal to TSP but will drift away to another region once we require you to actually commit to the region? You’re contradicting yourself. Citizenship doesn’t mean you can’t even be a part of the region, but it means you are committed to it once you’re willing to contribute. Your activities in the South Pacific include chatting in the Discord server (which is fine and I’m thrilled to hear why this would be affected), being in the SPSF (which doesn’t require citizenship), and being an ambassador (which is the only thing you’d have to give up beside legislatorship—considering both are positions of trust (maybe not legislator but you get what I mean) it’s, in my opinion, a positive outcome that players not committed to this region are not given those positions.
1 Like
It’s kind of a fine line/gray area. While I commend you on your loyalty to TSP, I’d also say we should maybe find a better flavoring or alternative way to frame this. Some of our citizens are also our allies, friends and embassy partners in other regions. If we take that outlook as a region or sell it that way, it may become a FA nightmare. I’m not criticizing the bill. I’m just saying as legislators, government members, and the assembly, decorum in debate and how we word things could become misconstrued. Welly doesn’t need more headaches hehe 
1 Like
As a citizen who is admittedly mostly involved elsewhere, I don’t think passing this would have negative foreign affairs ramifications. That would only be likely if another region was deliberately using dual citizens to influence TSP, which would itself be a decent imperative to implement the proposed policy.
As this is about to enter the period that we are able to motion. I propose we submit these versions as competing bills. With only difference being (3) between competing the bills. All other parts from Article 2 Section 1 and 2, and Article 4 will both be in the versions with no difference in text.
Note: I’m sorry. I’m unable to add the strikethrough and color, please refer to the original posts.
As for the Granfathered bill that will be voted on the same timeframe. While @KrisKringle had not mentioned any intentions of being included, even if he may loses chair status. As per Utopia’s list, I invite every citizen mentioned below to voice their concerns as this will specifically effects their citizenship status. And please be assured that your votes (for those who are legislators) and voice (for those who aren’t) matter right now, whether if this passes or not.
As there are more than 10 mentions, the resolution will be restrictied by forums infrastructure. It will be split as List A and List B as per Utopia’s catagorization. This also gives the Assembly choice to either pass or fail, one or both of these lists.
Please note that if this passes, you are still able to lose citizenship via failure of vote, and may be ineligible to apply/keep your citizenship again.
If any other citizens have concerns on who to should or shouldn’t be in these lists and alternative catagorization, please do speak now.
Citizens mentioned please look at the post above as it will concern your future citizenship status.
Here's the latter draft formatted properly, the one which requires endorsing the delegate and CG.
The assembly resolution wouldn’t stop granting them the exemption if they lose citizenship, which is probably something we should address. I propose the following change to the resolution drafts:
1 Like
noted and edited, thanks.