Thoughts on Honorary Citizenship.

[Audrada Roibeardet]

Has the idea of Honorary Citizenship ever been discussed? Is that something we want to discuss?

I've been watching a lot of Mystery Science Theater 3000 lately and I vaguely remember MST3K was (or maybe it still is) the official TV show of Talossa. I think if anyone would accept an Honorary Citizenship it would be the cast of that show. A citizenship from a crazy little nation going to the cast of a crazy little show.

It's just a thought I had and I was curious what everyone else thought about it.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Gloria Estefan and ABBA might be other potentials for honorary citizenship

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Here's a thought: why don't we make them an offer of real citizenship? Crank this idea up to eleven? An act of the Ziu which bestows citizenship upon these people, contingent on their positive acceptance as confirmed by the SoS?

[Audrada Roibeardet]

I have no problem with that. I was thinking we just give them citizenship without all the red tape us "normies" need to go through, ya know. Just reach out to them and be like, "Hey, want be Talossan?"

I guess I called it "honorary" because we'd be basically handing them a citizenship.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I should point out that anyone anytime can be given Talossan citizenship directly by act of the Ziu.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

I have long thought that those who die whilst they are Talossan citizens should retain their citizenship, though (of course) lose any voting rights, or the requirement to respond to referenda.

Several citizens have, over the years, died. All of us are getting older - I, for example, am 77 years old. If I retain my citizenship whilst alive, why should it be stripped from me at my death? I am also, for example, a citizen of Ireland - and even after my death I shall remain so. Let us bring Talossa into that honourable club that do not disown their dead.  The deceased can, truly, be honorary citizens.

Please?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I have long thought that those who die whilst they are Talossan citizens should retain their citizenship, though (of course) lose any voting rights, or the requirement to respond to referenda.

Several citizens have, over the years, died. All of us are getting older - I, for example, am 77 years old. If I retain my citizenship whilst alive, why should it be stripped from me at my death? I am also, for example, a citizen of Ireland - and even after my death I shall remain so. Let us bring Talossa into that honourable club that do not disown their dead.  The deceased can, truly, be honorary citizens.

Please?

That's kind of a different topic, although obviously pretty important too. I agree that you should keep your citizenship after death, but I don't see any way to have the activity requirement for citizenship at the same time.

The most obvious solution is to create two classes of citizens, with voting privileges suspended after three strikes, but technical citizenship retained. I'd be willing to write that bill and get it going.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

I have long thought that those who die whilst they are Talossan citizens should retain their citizenship, though (of course) lose any voting rights, or the requirement to respond to referenda.
....

There is, I think, no need to create two different kinds of citizens - just to recognise that "not responding when you could" is naughty, and "not responding when you are dead" is not naughty. We can achieve this simply by making the requirement to respond (vote, etc.) to include "...if still alive".  Independently of that we could (if we want) introduce a new post nominal suffix of (say) R.I.P. - but that's a different subject.

We are discussing "honorary" - surely we can include "honoured" (in the formal sense of that word)?
And if not, let's formulate a law fifthwith (that's even sooner than 'forthwith') that allows the dead to retain their citizenship. An honorary measure.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I have long thought that those who die whilst they are Talossan citizens should retain their citizenship, though (of course) lose any voting rights, or the requirement to respond to referenda.
....

There is, I think, no need to create two different kinds of citizens - just to recognise that "not responding when you could" is naughty, and "not responding when you are dead" is not naughty. We can achieve this simply by making the requirement to respond (vote, etc.) to include "...if still alive".  Independently of that we could (if we want) introduce a new post nominal suffix of (say) R.I.P. - but that's a different subject.

We are discussing "honorary" - surely we can include "honoured" (in the formal sense of that word)?
And if not, let's formulate a law fifthwith (that's even sooner than 'forthwith') that allows the dead to retain their citizenship. An honorary measure.

I guess I agree in principle, but I think the practical problem is that citizens will generally have a hard time notifying us about their deaths.  We don't have any real mechanism by which we can reliably find out about someone's death.  And I don't have any idea about how to implement that.  So two classes of citizens seems to be the best way we can do that, with only active citizens being full voting citizens who really count.