SB 2016-024: Bugger Off Act of 2016 (Failed)

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Scott

72 hours for debate.

[tmthforu94]

My thought: either put some teeth into the bill (invalidate the vote of anyone who sends a PM to someone on this list) or don't have it at all. We tried having a "Do Not PM" list in the past and it was repealed soon after because there was no consequence for sending PMs.

Personally, I think it is undemocratic to invalidate the vote of someone who is simply urging others to vote. This is largely an elections simulation - if you don't want PMs, either vote early or don't be involved in the game. It's just part of the nature of the game. I'm fine with bringing back deregistration, but I can't support this legislation.

[tmthforu94]

I understand what you're saying, but as I said before, what is the point of doing this if it has no teeth? Let them make it known that they don't want to be PMed and hope that people respect that, but if we're not going to have consequences, I don't see the point of spending congressional time on putting this in the statue.

[tmthforu94]

Blair brings up another good point. The people who would hypothetically sign up for this list are old-timers. That puts old-timers in the game, like myself, at an unfair advantage because we're going to have personal connections with some of these people and will be able to send them a quick "Will ya help me out?" PM to them and not have to worry about getting publicly shamed for PMing someone on the "Do Not PM List" (because as it stands, the only consequence to breaking this law is public humiliation). Cuts off newer members who may be running excited campaigns and want to share their ideas with voters. While campaign threads are great, not all voters read through them, and getting PMs from multiple sides allows them to hear from different points before casting a vote, rather than just helping out a friend.

[tmthforu94]

Again, I reiterate, what is the point of mandating something if we are not going to enforce it? The government is here to make laws, not suggestions. I would be curious to hear input from other senators/Atlasians on this.

[tmthforu94]

^^^Another solid repercussion to this bill, in addition to the fact that it gives candidates who have been around longer another edge over those with less experience.

[tmthforu94]

I considered writing an amendment creating a consequence just so the Senate would be able to vote on it, but it's so hard to even prove that someone did it considering you can't post personal message on the board. The only way you could actually create a consequence would be if the person admitted to doing it...

I've already made my arguments and nothing has really been said to alleviate my concerns with this bill. This has been on the floor for over a week. Unless there are any amendments, I will plan to open a final vote tomorrow on this bill.

[tmthforu94]

Senators, this bill is now at a final vote. Please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.


Nay

I understand the reasoning behind this bill, but I think the negatives raised by President Leinad, Senator Cris and myself far outweigh the positives of this bill.

[tmthforu94]

This has enough votes to fail. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[tmthforu94]

(Super late, my apologies)

This bill has failed.