[ADP] Border Farce Policy
Day 3,043, 00:20
•
Published in Australia 
•
by
•
by The ADPs official Org
Wood Day,
It's the ADP party chair here. No, not that sort of party chair, don't get excited.
I'm riveted that just over half of the ADP membership chose me, an ordinary empty chair, over one of their own species. It is the greatest day for furniture since my cousin became an astronaut.
But I'm not here just to pad my own back. I've been at the table with the ADP membership, and we've managed to furnish a policy on the Border Farce.
The ADP is in favour of the idea of a citizenship committee on the following conditions:
👍The committee has a consultative role only - there to advise the senate of citizenship applicants who are unknown or in doubt. Senators are still free to use their one pass using their own best judgement.
⛹ The committee is made up of 5 members - one from each of the major parties - who are appointed by either the party president or a vote of the party membership. Parties should do their best to put forward players who are generally active at least once a day.
☺The business of the committee is overseen by the Prime Minister, as well as a Senate Observer such as a Senate Chairperson should that position come into effect.
✎ Records of committee business are to be kept either via a gdoc or in a dedicated thread at auserep.forumotion.org
✉ Applicants are to be contacted by a committee member within 24 hours of application with a request for at least 2 references from well known players in good standing in the eWorld.
☏ Upon receipt of the references, the referees are to be contacted within 24 hours by a committee member.
⚖ After replies are received from the referees, the committee members have 24 hours to cast a vote on the citizenship application.
We also note that the Border Farce committee is yet to be ratified by a Senate vote.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
While I am sad to be beaten by an empty chair, a fate that even Tony Abbot was spared, I am glad that it is doing such a good job in the role. No hardwood feelings.
Who is the first endorser?
The real question is who is the dirst enforcer?
Response to your points:
1) They are there as a consultative role only...
2) When the issue was raised, only a handful of people spoke up, however as you would of already seen, the nominations can be changed per PP request (a point I made mention in the congress thread). Since people change parties and party leadership changes.
3) It is currently silently observed by the CP (their is no PM or Senate Chariperson).
4) All records have been kept of everything discussed so far.
5) That is up to the people in the committee, as a silent observer, the CP can not force anything as it could be seen as interference by one of the CPs many admirers. I hope with 5 active players, 1 of them would make contact with any new would be arrivals
6) and 7) follow on from number 5.
But two quick questions as I would love to try and find something that is workable by the majority of people during my term.
You said that you want the committee to be voted/approved by Senate?
How is that possible when people choose not to partake in Senate (plus has it been voted on in the past? should it be voted on by each new congress once they are elected?)
and if the current committee has issues that you and other people do not like, how come no one mentioned it ages ago when I brought up the list of the people who were nominated and those who accepted my asking (by their own free will, in case someone thinks I 'hand picked' the people for what ever purpose)?
1) I'm glad that's cleared up, as there has been some confusion in the past. The mention of the lack of a vote is more pertinent to some senators wishing this to be enforced as mandatory for all approvals. It's not such an issue for a non-binding advisory committee.
2) The ADP are quite happy with our representative, Thedillpickl, how other parties handle their part in this is up to them, but we do still have concerns if all parties aren't on board equally. I believe issues were raised about the selection process, both under you and Ilene, which haven't all been fully or clearly addressed. I realise that an ADP policy sooner would have been better for the debate, but better late than never. It would also be helpful if all major parties released their own policy papers so we can see if we can get on the same page.
5-7) There has been a lack of timeliness. I haven't used my pass for this term or last term due to a lack of vetted applicants. Some potentially valuable citizens seem to have given up once the 5 day deadline passed with no action. If there is a time limit it means it only takes one active committee member to keep things moving and they don't have to wait around for other members to respond once the deadline has elapsed, especially on the final vote.
4) Goes back to this. The senate has no idea of the progress of most applications. A short internal report on each, whether vetted, vetoed, withdrawn, or lapsed, would be helpful.
And no, I don't believe it was voted on under Ilene, but as I say, not really an issue for a non-binding advisory committee. Just an issue because some sought to make it more binding.
I agree with the report, however I am there as an observer only, if I was to be the one who released a report or came back to Congress with 'let this person' or 'dont let this person' it could be seen as interference.,
I do appreciate your article on it and the fact the ADP wants to try and get something binding. While nothing will stop some people handing out passes as they see fit, I do believe if we can get some form of agreement from different parties, hopefully it will mean at least 90% of passes are done in a far and honest process.
But the raises the point, do the committee members need to be selected/nominated by their party and then voted for by congress?
Do they need to be re-voted every congress election/CP election/PP election or just when one changes party or when the political party wants to put someone else forward. And if this is the case what happens in the 'down time' eg. You have been elected PP of the ADP, you prefer someone else rather then Dil (example sake), what happens with the ADP vote while congress is saying yay or nay to your new rep? does it go with the old one even though the PP might not be happy or does it go with the PP? or something else.
All in all, I do think it is a good matter to be discussed on a wider level. But also discussed with the input of all parties, even if the top 5 have reps there as we never know who will be in the top 5 in 2 months time.
The vote was just related to the initial setup if it was to be binding. Not the selection of members which is done at a party level.
My main question is what has this committee really achieved? I've seen maybe one or two applicants being given the go-ahead. What has happened to all the others? Would senators be better off questioning potential applicants themselves?
Dil would be the best to answer that one, being the ADP rep. Or one of the others. However we have not had many applications lately, that were not accepted by others before the committee could do it's job/task
The three simultaneous applications I mentioned in my personal newspaper all seem to have all lapsed. One is looking elsewhere for a similar situation and the other two are still hanging in eAustralian territory. That was a snapshot from one day. Slightly more than usual, but there is another one waiting there now.
I will ask Dill for a more detailed report as you suggest, however it would be easier if the ongoing records were able to be perused by senators.
Have you considered the possibility that if parties refused to nominate a representative, that the committee could merely have less seats, as participation isn't mandatory?
*not party policy - just putting it out there devil's advocate style.
But that would open a can of worms wouldnt, since some people will say 'their party isnt represented' or 'why is it only those parties who have a say'.
For example the KH PP did not respond, whether by choice or due to RL issues prevented or a full inbox. But since I know the KH is one of the larger parties, I message Lany, (who has been vocal on CS passes, a long time member of the KH and also vocal about the dictatorship and he views on CS passes hand out during that time in a bad way against me), to see if she wanted to represent KH. She accepted.
While this is not a perfect nomination by the party, with out a response in a congress thread or from the PP, I believed a active/vocal figure was the best 'middle' ground to ensure that KH was represented and by someone who is not aligned to any particular group (as it has become a 'us against them' CS battle in some peoples eyes).
I do believe in, if a PP refuses to take part or is inactive, that it should continue, but with out the ability to 'impeach' a PP, one party should not suffer because of the views or inactivity of their leader.
Either way it is very wormy. Hopefully all parties can solidify a position on this, and hopefully there's someone out there I can use my lonely CS pass on.
It will always remain wormy if people look at with blinkers on, rather then look past their conspiracy theories and focus on the country as a whole.
All in all, I can not see any form that would actually work, due to the fact people can always use their passes in a way they tell themselves is correct. The only way to stop that is via game mechanics:
a) make it a law proposal - but if one party has majority or group has, it will mean PTO scenario.
b) dictatorship style/one person controlling it all - but people would complain no matter who holds that power
The best we/Australia can hope for is an agreement that is majority preferred and that people will uphold that agreement by their own choice (since it can not be forced). Even then people who were not apart of that agreement making still might have issues with it all.
No matter which way I look at it... every road has it's can of worms, but Australia needs to agree/come up on/with one that has the less negatives and more positives. Nothing is perfect.
The passes which people have been using under their own steam seem to have been fine so far, they have been knowns for the most part.
The issue is the unknowns which nobody seems willing to pass without some advice. Maybe I should have used my pass for Jack Jockson, maybe I still could as he is yet to be approved elsewhere. But I have no idea about him. If I wait for the Border Farce as it has been, then I will maybe never use my pass unless someone known to me applies. My question again. Am I better off contacting Jack Jockson or any other applicant myself and asking for references?
What about the new applicant now?
As far as we are concerned he is Jason Bourne.
A new MEK was let in without consultation of any committee so I let in the latest applicant without any consultation of the committee.
Consultation with the committee isn't mandatory, as Rusty has confirmed. If I have no doubt about an applicant, for example if I know them personally, or if a reference has been provided to me directly, I am happy to pass them. If I am in doubt however, I would prefer to wait for the committee. The committee sadly has not been functioning for the most part, which is why I didn't have an opportunity to use my pass last term along with many other Senators, and why many applicants are being ignored altogether.
Until today I haven't used a cs pass since January or February 2015, what's the big deal about you not using yours?
Get rid of the Gdoc and use the forums for records as it seems that there is already more than one Gdoc and we cannot get coordinated to have singular records
http://auserep.forumotion.org/t308-citizenship-requests-passes-and-issuing#2400
HT8 has also raised the possibility of using a newspaper article for public feedback and a summary of Border Farce business. I think a Border Farce org could be fun if we mirrored some real life rhetoric.
Government newspaper is possibly a good idea, it could hold records of the incomings and who vouched etc. Also gives the community a bit more visibility on what is happening.
I am still trying to work out if the following dead cits are real players/multi's/sleeper accounts and who vouched for them to come in
http://www.erepublik.com/en/citizen/profile/5433707
http://www.erepublik.com/en/citizen/profile/8700505
http://www.erepublik.com/en/citizen/profile/8802489
http://www.erepublik.com/en/citizen/profile/8763437
http://www.erepublik.com/en/citizen/profile/7976155
Seems like a blatant waste of passes
Guag you have a twisted sense of humour. Obviously a horrible maritime disaster has occurred somewhere in eAustralia leading to several casualties including a rare shark.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/citizen/profile/8906096
And the love child of Tony and Malcolm who has gone to join Harold Holt in Atlantis:
http://www.erepublik.com/en/citizen/profile/8903697
Several other rank and file members of the ADP were also amongst the dead. So much for the future leadership of eAustralia, we will have to adopt our proteges from overseas now.