Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Welcome to The Rejected Realms

Government:

Delegate: Wabbitslayah
Officer: Frattastan (Foreign Affairs)
Officer: Marilyn Manson Freaks (Outreach)
Officer: PowerPAOK (Media)
Officer: Relfa (Culture)

Other Officials:

Speaker: Vulturret
RRA High Commander: Frattastan
RRA Commander: Guy
RRA Commander: Wopruthien
Welcome to The Rejected Realms, NationStates' ejection-free zone!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can only view some areas of the board and you can only post in the Troubleshooting and Suggestions forum. If you register an account, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customising your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Register now!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Adding New Residents; A temporary measure
Topic Started: Jan 29 2011, 01:43 AM (543 Views)
Biyah
Member Avatar
High Priest of the Cult
The delegate's vote is officially over, leaving us without an official means og adding new citizens to this forum for debate.

As much as he might be a pain, Manetheren is not trolling the forum, and if he'd joined the forum a month earlier he'd have met all criteria for joining as a citizen. I also doubt that he'll be the last person to try joining in coming days and weeks.

Until such time as a government/process/document is created for handling these situations, I propose we continue using the base guidelines provided in by the Two Rivers document to add citizens to this forum for regional debate. The alternative is to leave them hanging and be accused (again) of being an 'eite group'

~B

Edit After Split: Discussion on Manetheren continues in a split thread, I mention him here only as an example of someone waiting.
Edited by Biyah, Jan 29 2011, 06:28 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
Is the suggestion here that we continue with the Council of Three (and it's current membership) for the time being? I'll side with that, though obviously there's a slight bias there :P
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Biyah
Member Avatar
High Priest of the Cult
Yes, I'd be perfectly content with that. The CoT can continue verifying residency- along the same residency rules that were in effect for the election.

which means that Manetheren would have access.

~B
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Naivetry
Member Avatar
Spammer
I'm for this. We need to keep the residency/citizenship process open especially while we're trying to set up a new government... because if it takes anywhere near as long as it took to get elections going, we'll still be talking about this in April. There should be a clear and easy way to keep adding more people to the discussion throughout, for anyone who wants to take part.
[nation]Kandarin[/nation] the Younger/[nation]Lirantha[/nation]
~
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dalimbar
Member Avatar
Contributor
I also agree with the CoT idea, until there is a codified process in place.

As an aside, I would like to recommend an oath that all residents must take in order for their residency to be recognized. In effect, they would state that they recognize this forum as the legitimate government, that the Delegate elected/appointed from here is the legitimate one, and whatever basic requirements for citizenship the region asks of them be met. In many of the feeders, failure to maintain ones oath (like the above mentioned one) is grounds for expulsion either from the government section, the forum all together, or the region. Naturally the wording will have to be worked on, but an oath to become a resident could be a benefit to the government: try to prop up a rogue, don't expect to find yourself welcome here.
Dalimbar
Delegate (Ret.) of Osiris
Delegate (Ret.) of The North Pacific
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Biyah
Member Avatar
High Priest of the Cult
I like the idea of the oath, but I think we'd need a government to actually impliment it.

Though I could be wrong, if we all vote for it.

~B
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan Termopylae
The Fool on the Hill
Theres no point in an oath. Oaths, like this kind, are pretty pointless these days. I also have a problem with the idea of generalised forceing of oaths on people. Except in certain matters, like services, there is no point in the general citizenry having to take an oath. What kind of backwards place would that make us? It'd make us the kind of place that can't trust it's citizenry to do what they think is right. Plus, well, people can take oaths with their fingers, in a figurative sense, crossed, with no intention whatsoever of honouring the words.

But, Dalimbar, you talk of propping up a rogue and getting punished. What if someone props up somneone who a small, and to use someone else's words, elite of the region view to be a rogue, but this person just agrees with their ideology, and wanty to see a change. Unless the person is in an official position and is bringing the collapse from the inside, they cannot truly be called rogue. In reality, they turn into what, over my way, we call the Opposition. It encourages debate and clarity and tries to bring about the best for all parties, because it can introduce an extra layer of honesty. I'm not saying that I'm in favour of the likes of Anur Sanur or Pristine Angel, but sometimes.....in an open society, this is a good state of affairs
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die

Liebe ist fur alle da
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
Do we need a vote on this, or should we wait a couple more days just to see if there's anyone who opposes the Council of Three deciding on residency applications? At the moment, everyone seems in favour of continuing with it.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan Termopylae
The Fool on the Hill
Just to make my stance clear, as I've seen it in a couple of places now, I won't take an oath
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die

Liebe ist fur alle da
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
I don't see the necessity for an oath either.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Thought Transference
Member Avatar
professional loafer
I don't see the point of an oath except for a kind of RP, like pledging allegiance and such. The folks we would most want/need the oath from would likely be happy enough taking it "with mental reservations" (i.e., knowingly lying for whatever their real agenda is). The only way I want to receive an oath from someone is if I'm looking him or her in the eye.

Far more useful if we know the nation involved --- or even the player behind it --- wherever possible. And yes, I do know that nearly all of the time that won't be possible.
Peace,
TT

Coffee is the cause of all things. (Thales, 2nd ed.)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Biyah
Member Avatar
High Priest of the Cult
An oath just for an oath's sake is worthless. However, we could use one to help clarify issues in the future.

If the oath is 'loyalty to the government of TRR', then when someone like Anur pops up in the future, we can automatically remove them. There would be no long, drawn out debate necessary. For example.

~B
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
If the Council of 3 is in charge of determining residency, then someone clearly working against the region, like Anur-Sanur, would almost certainly have their residency revoked, without any need for them to have violated an oath.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Thought Transference
Member Avatar
professional loafer
A thought. And it's provoked by your reference to Anur-Sanur. Would we make the effort of documenting the expulsion procedure, as TEP documented A-S's Trial? I ask because when I saw the way she started behaving here, I hadn't known her before she came here. It clarified things for me to see that she was acting in character. It might be similarly helpful to other regions to be able to read the summary history of offences of a nation if we deprived them of citizenship (assuming that they decided to leave once they no longer could exercise the vote here). Also, it might be a helpful way to deal with any attempt by nations that don't leave after being disbarred from citizenship. As time passes, it's bound to be a temptation for such a nation to argue a distorted version of things. A record made at the time of the real process of disbarring them from citizenship at least can provide outsiders with the facts.

Subsidiary thought. Would we consider doing this in the form of an actual trial, as TEP did with A-S, or some other way?
Peace,
TT

Coffee is the cause of all things. (Thales, 2nd ed.)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
No trials... they're bad... documenting why people are removed/denied citizenship makes sense, but trials wouldn't be a good idea.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Assembly Archives · Next Topic »
Locked Topic