Legitimize the Voting Act of 2010 (Law'd)

[Antonio the Sixth]

I have no doubts that the moderators would fully cooperate...but don't you think it might be important, from a legal perspective, to clearly mention that any and all IP checks are performed by the two Atlas moderators?

Indeed. We need to make it clear that the mods are required to check everybody.

[Franzl]

I have no doubts that the moderators would fully cooperate...but don't you think it might be important, from a legal perspective, to clearly mention that any and all IP checks are performed by the two Atlas moderators?

Indeed. We need to make it clear that the mods are required to check everybody.

Some specific procedure should also be mandated, like publicly declaring the information in the DoFA thread. Just as a matter of procedure.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Yeah. I was thinking the same thing. Looks like we need to amend this puppy further.

[Fritz]

Amendment:

1.  Responsibility for enforcement of this law shall be vested in a Moderator General.  The Moderator General shall be a Cabinet position, requiring nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate.  The Moderator General must be a moderator on the Atlas Forum.

2.  The Moderator General shall publicly announce violations of this law, in the thread maintained by the Department of Forum Affairs.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Wait, would we need to nominate someone and hope that Dave allows them to moderate the Atlasia board or simply nominate one of the moderators like BK or MJ? If it's the latter, I don't see a point in the President nominating them since they are already given the powers they need by the higher authority.

[Fritz]

My thinking was that an existing moderator would be nominated and confirmed.  And you seem to be missing my point here.  Moderators have no authority to enforce Atlasian law.  If we are going to pass a law that requires a moderator to enforce, then we need to appoint a specific moderator who is interested and willing to take on that responsibility.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I see what you are saying now.

[MasterJedi]

Why don't you just have it so you can ask any Mod? We're currently creating an IP list anyways so it would make this whole thing much easier with a private list already in place that just needs to be verified.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The mod issue is dicy, as there are only a few people we could, in theory, nominate. Also, would we want to give all the power to just one mod, or have several of them look over the voters and verify they voted from a legit IP? I'm thinking the latter.

[cinyc]

Why don't you just have it so you can ask any Mod? We're currently creating an IP list anyways so it would make this whole thing much easier with a private list already in place that just needs to be verified.

Your papers, please!  If the forum moderators are tracking IP addresses for no good reason, don't know if I want to post here any more.  Innocent posters who want to keep their anonymity intact neither deserve nor warrant having their IP addresses tracked for no legitimate reason.  I also wonder whether maintaining such a list violates the terms of service of this website.

This bill is unworkable.  Proxy is ill defined.  What is or isn't a "legitimate IP address" is going to be left to unelected moderators, and extremely subject to abuse for political reasons.  DSL providers (i.e. the telephone companies) don't provide static IP addresses to their customers.  Is someone's vote illegitimate because the DSL provider just happens to assign a poster an IP address that's on somebody's spam list because someone else spammed from that IP address?  That was the crux of the charge claiming Libertas was some sort of IP transgressor - and it's bizarre.

Banning voting or registering by cell phone is idiotic and serves absolutely no purpose.  Some cell phone web browsers legitimately route traffic through their servers in order to speed up the web browsing process.   There's nothing illegitimate about using one of those cell phone browsers to post on this forum or to vote, regardless of whether you're away from your computer.

By requiring IP checks, this bill treats us all voters as guilty until proven innocent - which is extremely abusive.

[segwaystyle2012]

I'm not even sure this legislation would be Constitutional (assuming our court wasn't stacked with liberal activists- the work of long time liberal domination of the Presidency and Senate).

[Marokai Backbeat]

Why don't you just have it so you can ask any Mod? We're currently creating an IP list anyways so it would make this whole thing much easier with a private list already in place that just needs to be verified.

Your papers, please!  If the forum moderators are tracking IP addresses for no good reason, don't know if I want to post here any more.  Innocent posters who want to keep their anonymity intact neither deserve nor warrant having their IP addresses tracked for no legitimate reason.  I also wonder whether maintaining such a list violates the terms of service of this website.

This bill is unworkable.  Proxy is ill defined.  What is or isn't a "legitimate IP address" is going to be left to unelected moderators, and extremely subject to abuse for political reasons.  DSL providers (i.e. the telephone companies) don't provide static IP addresses to their customers.  Is someone's vote illegitimate because the DSL provider just happens to assign a poster an IP address that's on somebody's spam list because someone else spammed from that IP address?  That was the crux of the charge claiming Libertas was some sort of IP transgressor - and it's bizarre.

Banning voting or registering by cell phone is idiotic and serves absolutely no purpose.  Some cell phone web browsers legitimately route traffic through their servers in order to speed up the web browsing process.   There's nothing illegitimate about using one of those cell phone browsers to post on this forum or to vote, regardless of whether you're away from your computer.

By requiring IP checks, this bill treats us all voters as guilty until proven innocent - which is extremely abusive.

If you don't want your IP known to people, I advise you to shut down your computer, unplug your router, and never operate an electronic device connected to the internet again.

Otherwise, deal.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Why don't you just have it so you can ask any Mod? We're currently creating an IP list anyways so it would make this whole thing much easier with a private list already in place that just needs to be verified.

Your papers, please!  If the forum moderators are tracking IP addresses for no good reason, don't know if I want to post here any more.  Innocent posters who want to keep their anonymity intact neither deserve nor warrant having their IP addresses tracked for no legitimate reason.  I also wonder whether maintaining such a list violates the terms of service of this website.

This bill is unworkable.  Proxy is ill defined.  What is or isn't a "legitimate IP address" is going to be left to unelected moderators, and extremely subject to abuse for political reasons.  DSL providers (i.e. the telephone companies) don't provide static IP addresses to their customers.  Is someone's vote illegitimate because the DSL provider just happens to assign a poster an IP address that's on somebody's spam list because someone else spammed from that IP address?  That was the crux of the charge claiming Libertas was some sort of IP transgressor - and it's bizarre.

Banning voting or registering by cell phone is idiotic and serves absolutely no purpose.  Some cell phone web browsers legitimately route traffic through their servers in order to speed up the web browsing process.   There's nothing illegitimate about using one of those cell phone browsers to post on this forum or to vote, regardless of whether you're away from your computer.

By requiring IP checks, this bill treats us all voters as guilty until proven innocent - which is extremely abusive.

cinyc,

I think we defined a legitimate IP address - one that is not routed through a proxy - a no ISP assigns their users a IP that is a proxy. If they do, please provide evidence to support that. The cell phone issue is one that is still a concern even to me, but perhaps we can allow cell phone voting if the IP is a from a legitimate proxy like Opera, AT&T or Verizon.

Otherwise, what do you propose? We do nothing? We just found out that six voters in the NE Senate election were posting either from proxies or the same IP address as another poster. This does cast a shadow over the legitimacy of the results, and it will only get worse if we allow it to go unchecked. The game becomes a game of how many socks you can sign up and vote rather than anything else. If it does come to that, people will quit playing.

[dead0man]

Your papers, please!  If the forum moderators are tracking IP addresses for no good reason, don't know if I want to post here any more.  Innocent posters who want to keep their anonymity intact neither deserve nor warrant having their IP addresses tracked for no legitimate reason.  I also wonder whether maintaining such a list violates the terms of service of this website.

The internet gives you an illusion of privacy.  In reality it's as if you are walking around with your home address tattooed on your forehead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's exactly like asking a real voter for his name and address before they vote.  It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

[Badger]

Your papers, please!  If the forum moderators are tracking IP addresses for no good reason, don't know if I want to post here any more.  Innocent posters who want to keep their anonymity intact neither deserve nor warrant having their IP addresses tracked for no legitimate reason.  I also wonder whether maintaining such a list violates the terms of service of this website.

The internet gives you an illusion of privacy.  In reality it's as if you are walking around with your home address tattooed on your forehead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's exactly like asking a real voter for his name and address before they vote.  It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

^^^^^ this, FWIW.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Your papers, please!  If the forum moderators are tracking IP addresses for no good reason, don't know if I want to post here any more.  Innocent posters who want to keep their anonymity intact neither deserve nor warrant having their IP addresses tracked for no legitimate reason.  I also wonder whether maintaining such a list violates the terms of service of this website.

The internet gives you an illusion of privacy.  In reality it's as if you are walking around with your home address tattooed on your forehead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's exactly like asking a real voter for his name and address before they vote.  It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

Exactly. What is going on right now would be equivalent to registering multiple times at different locations to vote and then voting there with no proof of Social Security, citizenship, or anything else. We simply must pass something. We can't sit back and let things continue as they are. There's no way it can be unconstitutional to require someone to prove they are a legitimate human being.

[California8429]

I see the point for this, but I don't think cell phones should be banned for voting. As stated before, people use them more often on weekends when they are away from computers

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm not a fan of banning cell phone voting either, but if it's allowed, them it can be the new way to game the system, since one could justify voters having the same IP address because they were using a cell phone to vote.

If we do ban cell phone voting, we will also extend the absentee voting period so everyone would have ample time to vote.

[Badger]

I'm not a fan of banning cell phone voting either, but if it's allowed, them it can be the new way to game the system, since one could justify voters having the same IP address because they were using a cell phone to vote.

If we do ban cell phone voting, we will also extend the absentee voting period so everyone would have ample time to vote.

But isn't the major problem those who chronically post from a proxy or other illegitimate IP/ISP sources and are subsequently discovered to be socks? Is there truly much danger to voting integrity if the first two paragraphs of this bill are passed without the third? It seems that the chronic proxy posters are the ones most likely to be socks and illegitimate voters rather than a reputable identifiable poster who votes by cell phone when they're out of town for the weekend.

I readily admit to not being the most tech savvy guy around so feel free to edumacaze me here.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm not a fan of banning cell phone voting either, but if it's allowed, them it can be the new way to game the system, since one could justify voters having the same IP address because they were using a cell phone to vote.

If we do ban cell phone voting, we will also extend the absentee voting period so everyone would have ample time to vote.

But isn't the major problem those who chronically post from a proxy or other illegitimate IP/ISP sources and are subsequently discovered to be socks? Is there truly much danger to voting integrity if the first two paragraphs of this bill are passed without the third? It seems that the chronic proxy posters are the ones most likely to be socks and illegitimate voters rather than a reputable identifiable poster who votes by cell phone when they're out of town for the weekend.

I readily admit to not being the most tech savvy guy around so feel free to edumacaze me here.

Yes, of course, to your first point. The ambiguity that comes into place is, whether the catalysts behind the socks have cell phones and, if they do, are they the kind that you can vote on. If they are, let me pose this scenario to you.

Hamilton has 3 sock accounts, all of which he posts via proxies. We pass this bill which bans them from being able to vote on the forum. He also has a cell phone that allows him to access the internet. He votes using his cell phone, which routes through an Opera, Verizon or any other providers proxy. All three of his socks have voted through the cell phone's proxy, and all can claim they are different people because all phones use the same IP address, depending on the tower in which they are located (I believe).

Now, we can pass this bill without banning cell phones, and if we come to that problem later on, where these questionable posters all vote via a proxy on a cell tower, then we can examine and pass further legislation, or we can go ahead and pass it banning it. If we want to strike the third paragraph, then I'm in favor of such a move and we can see what happens when people like segway and other Hamilton socks vote, and if they all end up voting from a cell phone proxy, we can go from there.

Anyway, I urge all senators to move on this bill so we can at least restore some legitimacy to the voting around here. Elections are coming, and it would be a travesty if a Senator got elected on the heels of 6-8 sock accounts that all voted from proxies.

Additionally, if we do chose to ban cell phones, we should probably extend the absentee voting or regular voting period. I'm not sure if that requires a constitutional amendment.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

We could strike the first point in the bill and use this bill as a trial run. If we do see susepcted socks vote from cell phones, and they have never voted before using them, then we can begin to work on an alternative.

I will admit that if we do decide to ban cell phones, this bill will need to be amended a great deal more to extend the voting period and could force a constitutional amendment to pass. Are we taking on too much and one time? Perhaps we can keep it simple for now. But when I see 6 sock accounts voted in the Northeast Senate election, which was decided by a few votes, I want to do something.

BADGER: See my previous post for my response to your post.

[Bacon King]

Senators, we are now voting on the following amendment. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

Amendment:

1.  Responsibility for enforcement of this law shall be vested in a Moderator General.  The Moderator General shall be a Cabinet position, requiring nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate.  The Moderator General must be a moderator on the Atlas Forum.

2.  The Moderator General shall publicly announce violations of this law, in the thread maintained by the Department of Forum Affairs.

[Bacon King]

Abstain

[segwaystyle2012]

But when I see 6 sock accounts voted in the Northeast Senate election, which was decided by a few votes, I want to do something.

Names?

[tmthforu94]

Abstain, for now