SENATE BILL: Reduction of Registration Requirements Amendment (Pass to Regions)

[bgwah]

I thought the 18 post requirement back in the day was fun.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

My only concern with eliminating the post requirement completely is, we'll have more and more members join and subsequently leave, as well as the possibility someone could simply get all his friends to join, wait two weeks, and have them vote in elections with 1-2 posts to their name. I think 50 posts over 2 weeks, something like 3.5 posts per day, is very fair for someone to meet. Making 3 thoughtful posts a day isn't asking too much from new members. While I understand what the President wants to do with this bill, we must understand that people will inevitably exploit this and our game will suffer from mass delusion. I think the step from 75 -> 50 is a good one, but not from 75 -> 0.

[tmthforu94]

My only concern with eliminating the post requirement completely is, we'll have more and more members join and subsequently leave, as well as the possibility someone could simply get all his friends to join, wait two weeks, and have them vote in elections with 1-2 posts to their name. I think 50 posts over 2 weeks, something like 3.5 posts per day, is very fair for someone to meet. Making 3 thoughtful posts a day isn't asking too much from new members. While I understand what the President wants to do with this bill, we must understand that people will inevitably exploit this and our game will suffer from mass delusion. I think the step from 75 -> 50 is a good one, but not from 75 -> 0.

In this instance, I'd also go with 50. 25 would be more acceptable to me, but I have to think of a somewhat compromisable number that could also perhaps get passed at the regional vote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sponsor, do you deem the above amendment friendly or unfriendly?

Whatever he does, I will object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

50:14 or fight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How is this then?

Which reminds me, we need to figure out the numbering system if my tracker is continued.

How does the sponsor regard this amendment, since it was offered before Snowguy's.

I thought Minnesotan's were nice, now they are budging in line.

[Associate Justice PiT]

My only concern with eliminating the post requirement completely is, we'll have more and more members join and subsequently leave, as well as the possibility someone could simply get all his friends to join, wait two weeks, and have them vote in elections with 1-2 posts to their name. I think 50 posts over 2 weeks, something like 3.5 posts per day, is very fair for someone to meet. Making 3 thoughtful posts a day isn't asking too much from new members. While I understand what the President wants to do with this bill, we must understand that people will inevitably exploit this and our game will suffer from mass delusion. I think the step from 75 -> 50 is a good one, but not from 75 -> 0.

     If I may step in, you would still have activity requirements, so people would still need to have made 25 posts in the last 8 weeks in order to vote in elections. As such, people voting with 1-2 posts to their credit still wouldn't happen.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Fair enough, but then we'd just create more work for our RG. I think asking new members to make 50 posts over a spanish of 2 weeks is reasonable. 50:14 or fight!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Submit your best angry PM for me to send to HappyWarrior. I'll take the winning entry and put it to good use.

[HappyWarrior]

Approved.  Sorry I forgot this was under my sponsorship since it is an administration bill lol.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I just love how minor and silly all of this is. We've literally arrived at the point that you're debating over removing one day off of the account age requirement. Someone please inform me how that decision will make the activity just flood in.

Unless you abolish these requirements altogether, you're still going to have people have to meet requirements and you're still going to be "shutting people out." If you really want to have activity flood in, try axing the requirements entirely. Otherwise this is the very definition of a teeny tiny purely-for-show effort.

I feel like we're not even on the same page here. One side just wants to whittle away at the activity requirements just for the hell of it while the other side is screaming "what the hell is that going to do, exactly?" while the other side basically has no answer.

Legislating!

[Ban my account ffs!]

A waiting period will be more effective at screening out spam posters who want to jump in the fight.  I think you all overestimate the patience of these types.

Some people want to join Atlas mainly to be involved in Atlasia... which is a GOOD THING!  A two week waiting period where they write only 15 posts should not make them any less qualified to join the ranks of Atlasia.

Please vote yes on the amended bill.  I will gladly write a new bill strengthening requirements should things go south.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Approved.  Sorry I forgot this was under my sponsorship since it is an administration bill lol.

Senators have 24 hours to object to Amendment 1.


@Marokai (I do this to avoid quoting his long post which would trigger my scrolling issue)
Trivializing and condemning isn't going to improve anything. Some people do have legitimate differences and concerns with reducing these at all and I would prefer to do something rather then nothing. If activity were your singular focus, yes this would be insufficient, but some do have long memories and even longer grudges that have yet to be settled, and as such I think there will be a strong push to maintain strict standards for membership for some time to come.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I just love how minor and silly all of this is. We've literally arrived at the point that you're debating over removing one day off of the account age requirement. Someone please inform me how that decision will make the activity just flood in.

Unless you abolish these requirements altogether, you're still going to have people have to meet requirements and you're still going to be "shutting people out." If you really want to have activity flood in, try axing the requirements entirely. Otherwise this is the very definition of a teeny tiny purely-for-show effort.

I feel like we're not even on the same page here. One side just wants to whittle away at the activity requirements just for the hell of it while the other side is screaming "what the hell is that going to do, exactly?" while the other side basically has no answer.

Legislating!

We're extremely sorry we can't reach Marokai's greatness as Senator. Oh, if he only didn't run from active Atlasia politics sometimes ago... I guess we didn't beg him enough to stay and led our tiny brains to the better future.

The Senate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A waiting period will be more effective at screening out spam posters who want to jump in the fight.  I think you all overestimate the patience of these types.

Some people want to join Atlas mainly to be involved in Atlasia... which is a GOOD THING!  A two week waiting period where they write only 15 posts should not make them any less qualified to join the ranks of Atlasia.

Please vote yes on the amended bill.  I will gladly write a new bill strengthening requirements should things go south.

I'm sorry the only amendments I see have 50 (mine currently under consideration) and no post requirement (Yours which is next for consideration), what had 15 in it?

[Marokai Backbeat]

@Marokai (I do this to avoid quoting his long post which would trigger my scrolling issue)
Trivializing and condemning isn't going to improve anything. Some people do have legitimate differences and concerns with reducing these at all and I would prefer to do something rather then nothing. If activity were your singular focus, yes this would be insufficient, but some do have long memories and even longer grudges that have yet to be settled, and as such I think there will be a strong push to maintain strict standards for membership for some time to come.

I think trivializing it is a perfectly reasonable approach if it is actually trivial. If the argument on the pro-reduction side is that we need to increase activity by opening up the doors to Atlasia, then you need to actually "open up the doors." It doesn't make sense to me why we would spent time having a great debate over a handful of posts and/or shaving 1 day off the age requirement.

We're not going to see a bunch more people hopping on board from that sort of minor (very minor) change, and if this isn't actually going to have an impact, I don't understand why we would waste our time doing it. What's the point of doing something that isn't really going to matter? All this does is end up in a bullet-point list on someone's election resume that allows them to say "I pushed for lower registration requirements because I newbies! Vote me!". This isn't a serious approach to any sort of problem.

I realize I'm not a Senator, and people can just feel free to ride roughshod over what I'm saying if they so desire. But the issue of activity requirements has always been a touchy one for me, and this just doesn't seem like it has a serious point, it just seems like an effort to have something for people to campaign on later.

Here's an idea: If people want to increase activity in Atlasia and keep people in the game (which I don't really think is the right approach, I don't see the problem with trimming the fat and thinning the ranks of people who don't really do anything, but purely for the sake of discussion..) then reduce the posting requirement for being considered an "active voter." As far as I remember, unless it's been repealed and I just forgot about it, that requirement currently stands at 25 posts in the last 8 weeks before an election. Reduce it to 15.

That is something that could actually have an impact with the least possible downsides.

[Marokai Backbeat]

As far as I know after doing some looking, this is still law: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Anti-Zombie_Act_of_2009

So, an outsider though I am, I would suggest the possibility of axing this current debate altogether, and settling on a compromise of repealing that law and reducing the posting requirement 8-weeks before an election to 15, instead of the current 25.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why do you dwell on this "shaving 1 day" thing. The underlying bill reduces it to 7, that clearly doesn't have the votes to pass from the course of the debate. 50:14 seemed to have the most support from people. Some support fourteen because its easier to count out then 15. Whatever the case, idea to lower the number of days very drastically has been rejected. So what are we supposed to do. Toss the bill and do nothing?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As far as I know after doing some looking, this is still law: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Anti-Zombie_Act_of_2009

So, an outsider though I am, I would suggest the possibility of axing this current debate altogether, and settling on a compromise of repealing that law and reducing the posting requirement 8-weeks before an election to 15, instead of the current 25.

Marokai, surely you mock us. That would do absolutely nothing except preserve zombie voters that would otherwise be trimmed. Talk about trivilization.

[Marokai Backbeat]

As far as I know after doing some looking, this is still law: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Anti-Zombie_Act_of_2009

So, an outsider though I am, I would suggest the possibility of axing this current debate altogether, and settling on a compromise of repealing that law and reducing the posting requirement 8-weeks before an election to 15, instead of the current 25.

Marokai, surely you mock us. That would do absolutely nothing except preserve zombie voters that would otherwise be trimmed. Talk about trivilization.

It would certainly have more an impact than knocking a handful of numbers off of registration requirements for absolutely no reason. (No, I don't count "it's what most people support" as a legitimate reason.)

[Ban my account ffs!]

A waiting period will be more effective at screening out spam posters who want to jump in the fight.  I think you all overestimate the patience of these types.

Some people want to join Atlas mainly to be involved in Atlasia... which is a GOOD THING!  A two week waiting period where they write only 15 posts should not make them any less qualified to join the ranks of Atlasia.

Please vote yes on the amended bill.  I will gladly write a new bill strengthening requirements should things go south.

I'm sorry the only amendments I see have 50 (mine currently under consideration) and no post requirement (Yours which is next for consideration), what had 15 in it?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As far as I know after doing some looking, this is still law: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Anti-Zombie_Act_of_2009

So, an outsider though I am, I would suggest the possibility of axing this current debate altogether, and settling on a compromise of repealing that law and reducing the posting requirement 8-weeks before an election to 15, instead of the current 25.

Marokai, surely you mock us. That would do absolutely nothing except preserve zombie voters that would otherwise be trimmed. Talk about trivilization.

It would certainly have more an impact than knocking a handful of numbers off of registration requirements for absolutely no reason. (No, I don't count "it's what most people support" as a legitimate reason.)

You can't pass a bill without 6 votes or 5 votes and the VP, so while it may not be a legitimate reason, it is often the most powerful one.

You are going to have to explain how that does more because I just fail to see it at this present time.

[Marokai Backbeat]

As far as I know after doing some looking, this is still law: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Anti-Zombie_Act_of_2009

So, an outsider though I am, I would suggest the possibility of axing this current debate altogether, and settling on a compromise of repealing that law and reducing the posting requirement 8-weeks before an election to 15, instead of the current 25.

Marokai, surely you mock us. That would do absolutely nothing except preserve zombie voters that would otherwise be trimmed. Talk about trivilization.

It would certainly have more an impact than knocking a handful of numbers off of registration requirements for absolutely no reason. (No, I don't count "it's what most people support" as a legitimate reason.)

You can't pass a bill without 6 votes or 5 votes and the VP, so while it may not be a legitimate reason, it is often the most powerful one.

Fair enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What caused this whole issue to crop up again seems to be the fact that our voting rolls have reduced. Though I think that's a perfectly normal thing and not something to freak out over, my approach actually does more to solve the supposed problem of less people in the voter rolls than this approach does.

There have actually been more cases, that I've noticed, of people who wanted to go vote but then found out they were ineligible to do so because of that requirement, than people who wanted to register, couldn't, and then actually were determined enough to return and register again later. Whether it's 15 posts or 25 posts, it's not a very good metric, IMO, of determining whether or not someone is an "active player" or not. (This differs from the registration requirement issue, because we have absolutely no pattern to judge people by before the actually stick around for a little while. It's safer to reduce these requirements, as opposed to registration requirements.)

Keep in mind though that I personally don't want either to change, but if we're actually looking for measures that can have the most impact of retaining voters and keeping people within the game, the requirements while you're in Atlasia are more important to reduce than the ones to just get you to register.

(Also, as a note, you could pass my approach as a simple bill, while the other approach requires a supermajority and a ratification. If we're arguing over what's the easiest way to pass something, now, mine's still better. )

[Antonio the Sixth]

Approved.  Sorry I forgot this was under my sponsorship since it is an administration bill lol.

Senators have 24 hours to object to Amendment 1.

Is this the Amendment striking down post requirements entirely ? If it's, I object.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Approved.  Sorry I forgot this was under my sponsorship since it is an administration bill lol.

Senators have 24 hours to object to Amendment 1.

Is this the Amendment striking down post requirements entirely ? If it's, I object.

It does not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyways, since twenty four hours has well passed, the Amendment is amended as such.