PMing people who would otherwise not vote

[minionofmidas]

Ah, another ex-roleplayer.
What were you playing?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Ah, another ex-roleplayer.
What were you playing?

Well, I´m still a roleplayer, although I probably reduced my activities. The one I mentioned had to do with Star Trek, played in chatroom not on a board, although the personal vendettas between the members were mostly fought out on the RPG´s message board. The RPG was finally destroyed by an attempted (but failed) "impeachment" against one of the GM´s, because some members thought they were repeatedly and delbaretly treated unfair by him, causing the RPG to split.

[Polkergeist]

And the problem I have is basically that people who are not playing the game are able to influence the game.  This is not like real life where the decisions affect everyone.  It only effects those who play the game.  And when you have people voting who pay little to no attention to what is going on, dont really involve themselves, but are still able to influence it, I find that unfair to those of us who are trying to play fairly.

But if you don't pay attention to the game and just vote then its no fun.  So what's the use of just voting when yor missing out on 99% of the game ?

There is an incentive to keep up with whats going on.

[Blerpiez]

This cycle, I have been contacted by Akno21, True Democrat, Lewis Trondheim, and MAS117, each asking for my vote or for me to help their campaign.

I would not support forcing people to post to be an active voter.  Many people check the fantasy board every day and do not post as much as they need to fulfill proposed activity requirements.

[jokerman]

I disagree with legislation to acomplish these goals. 

[Gabu]

As for Gabu's law, I'm not sure that provision would pass constitutional muster.

Sorry about this last comment...I somehwo got it into my head you might have put a reference to the Elections section in there somewhere.

Given that the law came with a constitutional amendment that basically said that the law was constitutional, the law essentially is constitutional by defintion.

You haven't, and while I still think 25 posts is too high, there is no constitutional issue at hand.

There may be a different problem btw: Since whole threads can be deleted (by the moderator; also by the poster who started the thread in the case of threads in the Salvage Section), it is probably technically impossible for the SoFA to prove a person didn't post 25 times. I noticed this a few days ago when KatieG returned to the Forum for the first time in ages...and her post count had gone down from 29 I think to 17. the 29 posts had included one flame war in the Salvage Section...and that thread is now gone.
(runs away to check on the language in the new Constitution draft...maybe the problem is solved there.)

One suggestion that I made was that the SoFA just jot down how many posts each voter has made at each election and then compare the number of posts each voter has in the next election with those numbers.

I hadn't thought of the issue of post deletion, though... blah, I dunno.  Maybe the guys at the Constitutional Convention can work something out about that or something.