[abandoned] No, and Also Go Away: Part II

[Luca]

No, and Also Go Away: Part II

PREAMBLE. Whereas RRS 5. and its subsections were written in 2019 with the intent of providing enfranchisement and government participation to nations which have been banned from the World Assembly, as the Region's founder had been in the past,

Recognising that the statute has never been used in this capacity,

Perceiving that the many World Assembly Exemptions granted by the Regional Council fall into two categories -- Delegates reigning outside of the Region, and Residents wishing to undertake military operations as a component of a foreign power,

Reflecting that it is difficult or impossible to carry out foreign commitments while remaining impartial to the Region, and that foreign interference, influence, and subterfuge invites more negative consequences and hardship to the region than the opportunities it grants,

Believing the truly invested will commit their efforts to the Region when it becomes an interest and not a resource,

Abolishes RRS 5. and its subsections, and decrements the Refugia Revised statutes by one thereafter.

Authored by: Refuge Isle
Seconded by:

[Natalie]

What will happen to people with currently active exceptions?

[Luca]

What will happen to people with currently active exceptions?

A generous read would yield that the statute only impacts the application process, and does not reference extant exemptions.

[Catherine]

I believe Lyxu/St Leone was initially granted an exemption for a 1 year WA ban, however as he is a WA nation once again this no longer applies to any current exemptions.

[Luca]

I believe Lyxu/St Leone was initially granted an exemption for a 1 year WA ban, however as he is a WA nation once again this no longer applies to any current exemptions.

Right, as seen here there are Member States which have WA exemptions that are also WA members. They're at the top of the list. Non-WA nations which have exemptions are at the bottom of the list.

There is currently no capacity to vote-remove or sunset an exemption; it can only be revoked by the nation updating in another region or being ejected (RRS 5(b)).

[Zukchiva]

I think it reads well, the only issue is that if the goal of this is to prevent foreign influence... is being in the WA enough to prove that Refugia's your main priority? A lot of places use IP citizenship or just don't care about WA stuff at all, not to mention some places don't even tie their leadership position to their WA Delegacy.

If the concern is to prevent foreign influence, Member-States should be restricted from holding citizenships in other regions, or at least government positions. Otherwise, anyone who isn't Delegate, security councillor, or R/Ding can just plop their WA here and then nothing much really changes. When picking between a WA-centric position in X region (citizenship, Del, R/D, vizier) and Refugia, then WA is a good indicator of someone's priorities. Otherwise... it isn't, not really. And I do get that most exemptions are to Delegates or R/D peeps and so preventing exemptions would stop most types who would get MS here from getting it with an exemption, but that doesn't change the greater concern over foreign influence imo.

If the concern is mostly to get rid of a mechanism that hasn't been used for its intended purpose, and the preamble is just flowery language, fair enough.

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

[Luca]

I think it reads well, the only issue is that if the goal of this is to prevent foreign influence... is being in the WA enough to prove that Refugia's your main priority? A lot of places use IP citizenship or just don't care about WA stuff at all, not to mention some places don't even tie their leadership position to their WA Delegacy.

If the concern is to prevent foreign influence, Member-States should be restricted from holding citizenships in other regions, or at least government positions. Otherwise, anyone who isn't Delegate, security councillor, or R/Ding can just plop their WA here and then nothing much really changes. When picking between a WA-centric position in X region (citizenship, Del, R/D, vizier) and Refugia, then WA is a good indicator of someone's priorities. Otherwise... it isn't, not really. And I do get that most exemptions are to Delegates or R/D peeps and so preventing exemptions would stop most types who would get MS here from getting it with an exemption, but that doesn't change the greater concern over foreign influence imo.

If the concern is mostly to get rid of a mechanism that hasn't been used for its intended purpose, and the preamble is just flowery language, fair enough.

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

You are correct that the draft is not intended to be a personal attack and should not be perceived as one. It also does not impact anyone who currently has an exemption, only those seeking one in the future.

Refugia doesn't carry out IP checks and citizenship applications, as most other regions do, and it almost certainly never will. I do not like any system where and in-group can subjectively look at every individual applicant and decide "yes" or "no" based on their own personal feelings, biases, and alignments. I like straight rules that apply to everyone equally and transparently. One should not seek permission, one should seek the right. If you have the right, you get the goods, no questions asked.

Saying people cannot even be citizens of other regions is, in my estimation, unreasonable, unenforceable, and beyond the jurisdiction of the Revised Statutes. Our years of history demonstrate that WA restrictions have been useful, not only in Refugia, but in Conifer (which had a similar system of enfranchisement). Just as requiring people to have a nation in Refugia to gain access to the chat has been a useful mechanism for keeping out low-effort trolls, it is even more unlikely for a GP player (where a WA is a valuable asset) to keep that status in Refugia if the region is not their priority.

While you may say that this system would only prevent influence from delegates, influence-based security positions, r/d players, and other citizenships which require World Assembly status, I think that set covers 100% of the areas of concern. And those players are welcome to WA up in Refugia during elections if they want, just as they're able to set aside three months of WA time in Refugia for a term in office.

It is almost certain that they will not do so in a region which cannot be raided if they do not care about it.

[Zukchiva]

Yeah, that makes sense.