The grandfather idea was a compromise to all personnel who are in SPSF, active contributors, and negotiated on good faith. I support this amendment if it has at least an exemption path of some kind and the endorsement of the Delegate and CG. This amendment is a highly debated and split decision. Like I echoed earlier, I’m going to guess everyone who’s not in the WA here has a legitimate reason. Some of those reasons could include they feel the WA is a waist of time and don’t want to participate in it as I’ve been told 
The grandfather clause and the SPSF exemption are two different things. Without an SPSF exemption we wouldn’t be able to have a military because our members would not be able to utilize their WA to update, and it needs to be able to apply to all SPSF members present and future.
So to clarify, the competing bills are on whether or not to add a endorment requirment. Both of which have the Assembly and Military exemption paths.
The granfathered resolution uses the Assembly exemption pathway to exempt current citizen that don’t have a WA or not looking to more WA to TSP right now. This argues on whether or not to give privileges/leeway for some citizens or not.
Should they still have to state, though, where their WA nation is? Conflict of Interest and all that jazz? In some departments, that information is extremely important for security reasons and especially in the SPSF and FA.
Well, he did CTE whilst he was in a major position not too long ago, so I kind of think there are no grounds for an exemption at all.
I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed for that to be required for the exemptions through assembly resolution, but it wouldn’t be feasible for SPSF exemptions. During certain kinds of operations WA membership can change rapidly, and additionally it would negatively impact our ability to perform any kind of operation that requires stealth.
Is this idea like a one time thing in this thread or like CitComm asking every time it’s time to check citizenship.
I’m just asking for the actual implimentation.
I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed for that to be required for the exemptions through assembly resolution, but it wouldn’t be feasible for SPSF exemptions. During certain kinds of operations WA membership can change rapidly, and additionally it would negatively impact our ability to perform any kind of operation that requires stealth.
No but there could be a WA nation in TSP which changes out for operations and when the SPSF is quiet, it goes back onto the main nation and endorsements start again, I know that’s tedious but surely anyone swapping around their WA knows that when they take on the duty? I mean, this is not at all similar because I am paid to be a teacher but I can’t exactly complain because a band wants to use the Music room to practice until 5:30PM, I know as a Music teacher I am often the only one in the school with that subject and it’s not fair on the kids if I say no so when school finished at 4PM, I am finished at 5:30PM, you know, there’s tedious bits to it that you just must know are going to come with it. The only problem with the tedious bits and pieces is retention of members of the SPSF.
Is this idea like a one time thing in this thread or like CitComm asking every time it’s time to check citizenship.
I’m just asking for the actual implimentation.
I mean, like, it should be an expectation rather than a stated requirement, I would think, a courtesy or maybe the Minister or a delegated member of Ministry staff should enquire as to whether they have nations elsewhere and roles elsewhere, this is required when anyone runs for office, but in certain behind the scenes roles and positions, this can still be important. Consider, for example, I am not in the WA, I am applying for the SPSF, my WA is somewhere else and I haven’t told you where and 6 months down the line you realise my WA is in the Black Hawks and I’m quite a high-up raider with them but you’re finding out 6 months down the line because I didn’t make a conflict of interest, that would be a disaster because TSP is very much rooted, now, in the defender sphere, we haven’t always been but we are now coming up to the past 10 years, if there’s a member of the SPSF who is a raider somewhere else, they undermine TSP’s place in that sphere. Do you see what I mean? If it’s a case we expect it but we don’t follow it up, we are kind of allowing a disaster to unfold. I’m not sure if that’s making sense.
I know the Black Hawks may not necessarily be around anymore, they were very annoying once upon a time, but it’s just an example.
I interpreted it as SPSF members having to provide their WA nation to CitComm during regular recurring citizenship checks, nothing to do with applications.
We do check the WA nations of new SPSF members, and I do not admit people who cannot provide their WA. The CRS also runs the same security checks as for citizenship if the SPSF member isn’t already a citizen.
What I am saying is I would prefer that SPSF members are not required to provide a WA nation to CitComm for regular recurring citizenship checks, as it can end up moving across dozens (or sometimes even hundreds) of nations during a given update, and more importantly it would impact the ability of the SPSF to conduct stealth operations.
I’m more interested in a CoI declaration for resolution exempted in the granfathered bill.
The best way imo is for Citcomm to ask where their WA is sometimes, although I’m unsure how/if we have to/want to (just in case even if there’s no legal penalty) include it in the resolution.
Like this.
WHEARAS, the WA exempted members via this resolution is expected to answer the Citizenship Committee, on the location of their current WA membership nation, when requested.