|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 25, 2016 15:56:25 GMT -6
This is a thread for a bill intended to address some recent obvious issues. Specifically, I want to create a bill that will (a) ensure that Talossa does not become associated with or a safe haven for some of the worst sorts of people, and (b) allow for the country to put some sort of distance between Talossa and those sorts of people (once they're found out).
This is not a final draft, and this is intended as a jumping-off point to work out a final bill. I am currently not an MZ, so any actual bill will receive its own new thread at the start of the next Cosa.
The main issue with Part 1 is the privacy thing, I think, and that might need some hard consideration about how to handle it. And I know that Part 2 might get a lot of argument, and that's okay. I want to be clear that this wouldn't strip any current citizens of citizenship (not that this would be possible from this sort of statute, anyway). Again, it's a jumping-off point. Thoughts and comments and contributions are very welcome, particularly on the third part, which is undone until I figure out a legal mechanism for procedural "inactivity"
Part 1
Lex.E.2, which currently states
2. The Minister of Interior shall ascertain to his own satisfaction, through correspondence or conversation, that the prospective immigrant is a real human being with genuine interest in becoming a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa. The Minister shall be free to inquire of the applicant on any and every subject, and shall be required to collect the name, postal address, telephone number, and e-mail address(es) of the candidate, which information the Minister shall communicate to the Secretary of State. Additionally, the Interior Minister shall be required to collect an essay, written by the applicant, entitled "Why I am Interested in Becoming a Talossan."
shall be amended to read
2. The Minister of Interior shall ascertain to his own satisfaction, through correspondence or conversation, that the prospective immigrant is a real human being with genuine interest in becoming a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa. 2.1. The Minister shall be free to inquire of the applicant on any and every subject, and shall be required to collect the name, postal address, telephone number, and e-mail address(es) of the candidate, which information the Minister shall communicate to the Secretary of State. 2.2. The Minister shall be required to collect an essay, written by the applicant, entitled "Why I am Interested in Becoming a Talossan." 2.3. The Minister shall be required to ask the prospective immigrant to disclose any history of serious crime to the Minister, including but not limited to murder, violent assault, sexual assault, or other felonious conduct. The Minister shall not disclose this information to the public under penalty of five years of civil disability from all offices, but may choose to halt the immigration process at this time based on the prospective immigrant's responses and the Minister's best judgment about whether the prospective immigrant would present a serious risk to any citizens or to the reputation of the nation.
Part 2
Lex.E.1, which currently states
1. Prospective immigrants who will be age fourteen or older by the next regularly scheduled Balloting Day shall be directed to the Minister of Interior. The Minister of Interior shall act on every such request received by that office, without discriminating on the basis of age, political preference, religion, or other personal information.
shall be amended to read
1. Prospective immigrants who are aged fourteen or older shall be directed to the Minister of Interior. The Minister of Interior shall act on every such request received by that office, without discriminating on the basis of age, political preference, religion, or other personal information.
Part 3
TBD
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Feb 26, 2016 17:55:28 GMT -6
I'm alright with Part 1. I disagree with raising the age to eighteen, however.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 26, 2016 21:02:40 GMT -6
I am double-die-in-a-ditch opposed to kicking 14 year olds out of a country founded by a 14 year old. Let us make sure they don't fall prey to criminals, rather than tell them that Talossa is too dangerous for them.
The first part seems good, although I prefer the essay be called "What Talossa Means To Me", because tradition.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Feb 26, 2016 21:52:22 GMT -6
Part 1 seems good. I assume anyone who fails to disclose this information could be nailed by A.16.1 if their lie was ever discovered?
I will never support Part 2. Never. Talossa attracted me because it is the only place where I can participate in politics. I am not going to allow that opportunity denied to others simply because a handful of people cannot act responsibly. Raising the immigration age is punishing those who have done nothing wrong, rather than punishing the criminal. Raising the immigration age is defeatist, functionally declaring that there is nothing we can do, when in fact there are many things we can do.
There are plenty of good ways to increase our security. Many ideas have been proposed, though my own two cents is to revoke the citizenship of anyone convicted (in a court of competent jurisdiction) of a crime against minors. Miestra's proposal is also good, as is Part 1 of this very proposal.
We must be clear that the Number 1 way to protect minors against criminals is to kick the criminals out if they constitute a threat to minors. We should take care for the safety of minors before we fret about whether or not revoking the citizenship of a convicted child abuser makes us a "club." It is unjust to allow Iusti to simply strike out because we can't be bothered to do more, while simultaneously proclaiming that the presence of people like Iusti makes Talossa dangerous for minors.
Again, there are ways to expel Iusti and others like him without "cutting a great road through the law." I don't see any way that convicting and expelling Iusti under Miestra's proposal could be considered ex poste facto; Iusti brings Talossa into disrepute by simply being in prison for a heinous crime; something he isn't liable to stop doing after the law goes into effect. Alternatively, I thought my own proposal to revoke his citizenship under I.2 was unlikely to establish dangerous precedent, though I could be wrong.
Some sort of parental consent for minor applicants would be more agreeable I think, just to let it be known that Talossa is a largely internet based group, and with it comes the dangers normally associated with the internet.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 27, 2016 2:39:39 GMT -6
Part 1 seems good. I assume anyone who fails to disclose this information could be nailed by A.16.1 if their lie was ever discovered?
I will never support Part 2. Never. Talossa attracted me because it is the only place where I can participate in politics. I am not going to allow that opportunity denied to others simply because a handful of people cannot act responsibly. Raising the immigration age is punishing those who have done nothing wrong, rather than punishing the criminal. Raising the immigration age is defeatist, functionally declaring that there is nothing we can do, when in fact there are many things we can do.
There are plenty of good ways to increase our security. Many ideas have been proposed, though my own two cents is to revoke the citizenship of anyone convicted (in a court of competent jurisdiction) of a crime against minors. Miestra's proposal is also good, as is Part 1 of this very proposal.
We must be clear that the Number 1 way to protect minors against criminals is to kick the criminals out if they constitute a threat to minors. We should take care for the safety of minors before we fret about whether or not revoking the citizenship of a convicted child abuser makes us a "club." It is unjust to allow Iusti to simply strike out because we can't be bothered to do more, while simultaneously proclaiming that the presence of people like Iusti makes Talossa dangerous for minors.
Again, there are ways to expel Iusti and others like him without "cutting a great road through the law." I don't see any way that convicting and expelling Iusti under Miestra's proposal could be considered ex poste facto; Iusti brings Talossa into disrepute by simply being in prison for a heinous crime; something he isn't liable to stop doing after the law goes into effect. Alternatively, I thought my own proposal to revoke his citizenship under I.2 was unlikely to establish dangerous precedent, though I could be wrong.
Some sort of parental consent for minor applicants would be more agreeable I think, just to let it be known that Talossa is a largely internet based group, and with it comes the dangers normally associated with the internet. Iustì is not actively remaining in gaol; he has no choice but to remain there. He has been put there for something he has already done (and has been convicted for). Ergo: ex post factō. That law would be a little bit like saying: “One brings Talossa into disrepute if one has stains on their carpet.” So, stains already there, which I cannot remove, and which have been on the carpet before this law was passed, now will have the consequence of banishment for me? How great! Not ex post factō, at all!
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Feb 27, 2016 4:08:10 GMT -6
When I was 14, Talossa graciously welcomed me as a citizen. 7 years later, and I'm still here. I don't think I would have remembered otherwise. There are many active citizens who joined when they were under 18.
Obviously there are risks for young people being on the internet, but that goes for social network sites and other fora as well. Talossa isn't even one of the dangerous places on here.
I know this sounds really weak compared to the extreme measure that is being proposed, but maybe the interior ministry should just sent immigrants under 18 a list of the most obvious do's and don'ts on the internet/in Talossa and the risks involved, in case their parents forgot to warn them and require them to read and agree to it or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Feb 27, 2016 4:45:51 GMT -6
Speaking of genuine prospectives - I think I can attribute to this conversation. There were two prospectives not so far ago: Joshua Shoeman-Grey and Seamus Tobanney. Joshua behaved very suspiciously and was rightly driven out of Talossa. I too think he was fraudulent, though not very intelligent in his story. Seamus Tobanney was me. I admit I did an ESB here, because I wanted to understand is our imm system still fragile after the ESB affair. I know this sounds bad, but to justify myself I'll say that I never intended to actually get past this process: I ceased any Seamus activity and returned to my true account. I didn't really know how to share experience I've gathered, but I think now is the right time. I wasnt caught and that dissatisfied me. But now that we disciss bad immigrators, I have some things to point out. Trust is good, but now we see we have to be more cautious. I made a very solid life story for Seamus, and everyone beleived me by default. My story went even more convincing compared to Joshua's, who was promptly considered a liar. I wanted to know if a good backstory enough to trick Talossa - and it is. I could be catched. My weird English. My nonexistent college course. My name which isnt anywhere on the net but this forum. And most importantly, my IP, which is Russian and even more, identical to Soleighlfred's. I could be caught but I wasn't, and that,s the problem. Our Immigration ministry fails to fix the immigration procedure (I had to specifically email Talossans to get in), then it fails to check people's story. I'm sure that if I continued, Seamus would be granted citizenship, and who knows what such a masked man could have in mind. I think it has to be MinImm's job to filter people properly. It could be done without ID scans. Check people's IP. If an Irish man has a Russian IP - ask why. Mind you, if someone wants to do harm, he would be very cautious in his fraud. If I wanted to harm Talossa, I would make a convincing story, not some Joshua-style rubbish. And that story, as of today, would pass. There's no way to fully defend us, but Seamus would be caught, if we had a good system of prospective checking. So my opinion, based on my experience is: Talossan immigration system is still fragile.
|
|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Feb 27, 2016 4:52:26 GMT -6
The age int a problem. Th likes of da Dhi and da Schir would never get in Talossa is a threshold was higher. The problem is insufficent proof-making. I like the proposed Part 1, but I humbly propose to also find a way to check people's IP.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Feb 27, 2016 5:01:47 GMT -6
Jesus Alex! You can't just do that. Trust is already an issue. If you had been caught there would have been no way of verifying you really intended not to go through with it.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Feb 27, 2016 5:06:26 GMT -6
For the record, I know multiple people were worried that Seamus wasn't a real person. For the reasons youve mentioned. We had already found out you weren't on the internet anywhere. I guess someone should have said something earlier, but I doubt people would have let a petition go through without complaints. Still, I should have spoken up earlier. I had sent a message to His Majesty advising him to check Seamus IP adress. Apparently that didn't happen though.
|
|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Feb 27, 2016 5:06:54 GMT -6
I took that risk. You probably know that back then I was in a pretty low phase of my life, I left MRPT and practically stopped my Talossan activity. So I concluded that if I get caught, I'll just share my experience and vanish, having paid my final tribute to Talossa. But my circumstances changed, and my Seamus project became my burden. I'm glad I finally shook it off.
|
|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Feb 27, 2016 5:09:07 GMT -6
For the record, I know multiple people were worried that Seamus wasn't a real person. For the reasons youve mentioned. We had already found out you weren't on the internet anywhere. I guess someone should have said something earlier, but I doubt people would have let a petition go through without complaints. Still, I should have spoken up earlier. I had sent a message to His Majesty advising him to check Seamus IP adress. Apparently that didn't happen though. Oh, this is good news then!
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Feb 27, 2016 5:25:54 GMT -6
I took that risk. You probably know that back then I was in a pretty low phase of my life, I left MRPT and practically stopped my Talossan activity. So I concluded that if I get caught, I'll just share my experience and vanish, having paid my final tribute to Talossa. But my circumstances changed, and my Seamus project became my burden. I'm glad I finally shook it off. And what kind of tribute would that be? Another disgraced citizen, a further attack on our trust, more paranoia and anger. Seriously, this was a bad idea. I'm really glad you've confessed though.
|
|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Feb 27, 2016 5:39:13 GMT -6
If no one attacked systems to prove their vulnerability - they will always stay vulnerable until someone actually exploits them.
It was only a bad idea from a citizen's point of view. My life perception was warped this January and I did it without caring much about my reputation, which I thought I'll never need either way.
Yes we have a trust issue, and this issue will cpntinue until we make sure we can trust our new citizens.
EDIT: this is not to distract the hopper from describing the AD's proposal. If you want to boo what i did or discuss it or sue me or anything - write me personally or make a separate thread.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 27, 2016 8:44:12 GMT -6
Checking IPs would actually be more of a risk to people, I think.
I see there's significant opposition to my proposal in Part 2. That's not a surprise, I guess. I still think that's the best way, but it's possible to find a compromise. Something more than just a warning... perhaps if we required parental permission, that might be enough.
|
|