IDS 2: Stop PMing Me Act

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Pretty straightforward, people should have the option not to be bothered about these elections if they don't want to be.  The restrictions on when a name can be added or removed are necessary to prevent abuse and unintentional violations.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

My only issue, and I'm sure this has been raised, is why is someone participating in the game if you they don't wish to be PMed. I feel like it comes with the territory. Plus we have the option of deregistering.

Nevertheless, I see some merit in having a list like this. I've never been in a zombie voter position because I vote early, but I can imagine how annoying it gets

I've heard from a number of folks that they want to play the game, but they are sick and tired of all the spam PMs and sample ballots, especially when they already know when and how to vote.  This is a great chance for our region to be a laboratory for reform.  If someone wants to know when an election is, that information is pretty easy to find out.  If someone only bothers to vote when someone sends them a PM telling them to do so (often along with a sample ballot), then they're basically a zombie voter. 

I know the parties may have their uses for them, but I've always had a problem with the idea of zombie voters playing a decisive role in so many elections.  It discourages people from running active campaigns and reduces candidates' incentive to take public stances on the issues.  Furthermore, across Atlasia we've seen a trend toward PM-exclusive campaigns.  In these races, we never know what sorts of attacks and empty promises are made to voters behind the scenes and there is almost literally no transparency because a candidate has decided that all they need to win is to pander to the voters as individuals with a bunch of one-on-one PMs. 

More importantly, I fundamentally believe if you don't want to be harassed with PMs, you shouldn't have to choose between getting spammed from all sides whenever there is an election and simply not playing the game at all.  Saying "well they can just deregister" doesn't do anything for those who enjoy the game and just don't like being constantly flooded with unwanted PMs.  Think of this as a Do Not Call list or as giving people the option of unsubscribing from those e-mail lists candidates use to spam their supporters with requests for campaign contributions.  I've heard plenty of folks say things like "I almost want to put DO NOT SEND ME PMs ASKING ME TO VOTE in my signature."  Atlasians shouldn't have to choose between drowning in an ocean of spam PMs and quitting the game. 

The line-drawing is necessary because with something like this, at a practical level, you have to draw the line somewhere if you are going to do anything about the problem, especially if you are going to deal with it in a way that avoids loopholes and minimizes the potential for abuse.  The penalties are necessary so that people will follow this law and not bother the folks on the list.  I don't think a Do Not PM will be effective without severe penalties for those who ignore it.  If there weren't tough penalties, there'd be plenty of candidates would just ignore it along with their supporters.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The enforcement mechanism is hollow. An outsider can spam PM all he wants and no one in region can counter it.

Hmm, good point.  As is the one raised by Cinyc.  I'll have to give this some more thought, but does anyone else have any thoughts on an enforcement mechanism.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

     I once thought about the rules on voting in regional elections (around the time of Cottonfield and Rimjob), and it really does boil down to being registered in the region. I would like to propose an amendment to Section 9:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     The stricken portion refers to the regional elections. I added a few words making it clear that we are talking about regional office in this region. Otherwise, one might interpret this as attempting to ban violators from being Pacific Governor or some such (no implication intended).

The amendment is friendly

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Well, I'll still PM people. If someone doesn't want a message, they can ask me to stop. Interestingly enough, I can't recall anyone actually asking me to.

At least you're being honest about your lack of respect for your region's laws

Fortunately, you'd be able to be prosecuted if you follow through with your promise to break the law and send campaign PMs to folks on the regional do not pm list if this gets passed.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Furthermore, across Atlasia we've seen a trend toward PM-exclusive campaigns.  In these races, we never know what sorts of attacks and empty promises are made to voters behind the scenes and there is almost literally no transparency because a candidate has decided that all they need to win is to pander to the voters as individuals with a bunch of one-on-one PMs.  

Hilarious to see you of all people suddenly concerned about this! Would you kindly point me to your campaign HQ, Mr. Multi-term "Southron" Legislator?

I actually only sent two short campaign PMs this past campaign.  At yes, the final straw came recently, what's your point?  The biggest issue is sending unwanted campaign PMs.

As a True Southron™ and resident in the NE, I will be more than willing to send out PMs to anyone if this law is passed (and will proactively send all sorts of random PMs to anyone who joins this list). Call me Adam Tubman, for I will keep the flow of freedom going (in a general north-south direction)!

I wonder if there is an in-game legal mechanism for extraditing a yankee like yourself the South for trial.  In any event, if you're this fiercely opposed the bill then surely it can't be all bad.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Furthermore, across Atlasia we've seen a trend toward PM-exclusive campaigns.  In these races, we never know what sorts of attacks and empty promises are made to voters behind the scenes and there is almost literally no transparency because a candidate has decided that all they need to win is to pander to the voters as individuals with a bunch of one-on-one PMs.  

Hilarious to see you of all people suddenly concerned about this! Would you kindly point me to your campaign HQ, Mr. Multi-term "Southron" Legislator?

I actually only sent two short campaign PMs this past campaign.  At yes, the final straw came recently, what's your point?  The biggest issue is sending unwanted campaign PMs.

My point is that you're a notorious PM fiend and you've managed to win two elections in the South thus far without so much as opening a campaign thread to campaign publicly. So, did you win based solely on your party carrying you or by running an exclusively private campaign? Either way, tsk tsk, hypocrite, bad for the game, etc etc.

As a True Southron™ and resident in the NE, I will be more than willing to send out PMs to anyone if this law is passed (and will proactively send all sorts of random PMs to anyone who joins this list). Call me Adam Tubman, for I will keep the flow of freedom going (in a general north-south direction)!

I wonder if there is an in-game legal mechanism for extraditing a yankee like yourself the South for trial.  In any event, if you're this fiercely opposed the bill then surely it can't be all bad.

So because you lack anything remotely resembling a legitimate argument, you're gonna wage a smear campaign?  You've been away too long, Senator.  The People of the South are smart enough to see through your baseless lies and personal attacks.  And to answer your question, I won due to the strength of my record as an independent-minded champion of The People.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I mean, you can make a voluntary list if you want, but passing this bill would be foolish. As I said, it has been tried and repealed and it's difficult to limit speech like this. If someone asks you to stop PMing, listen to them, but punishing someone for sending a PM might not be legal.

     That's what I am getting at. One person I know pondered putting it in his sig, but that wouldn't help me since I have had sigs turned off for years. I think that having a voluntary list would be helpful for the sake of providing an easy reference of who doesn't want to receive PMs. If anyone is unscrupulous about it and messages people on the list, we can all take that into account in terms of supporting their future political endeavors.

The problem is that people who get elected due to strategic registration campaigns and zombie hordes or who aren't on the ballot in a given election won't respect the list without an enforcement mechanism.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Lord, y'all are being way too nice about this.

IT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA,
IT'LL NEVER WORK,
IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY PRECEDENT,
AND YOUR JUSTIFICATION FOR IT MAKES YOU A BIG OL' HYPOCRITE,
SO JUST STAHP

It doesn't make me a hypocrite at all since I'm only trying to ban unwanted campaign PMs, but I can't say I expect you to suddenly start caring about facts now.  Btw, you're really not in a position to be calling anyone else a hypocrite.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Furthermore, across Atlasia we've seen a trend toward PM-exclusive campaigns.  In these races, we never know what sorts of attacks and empty promises are made to voters behind the scenes and there is almost literally no transparency because a candidate has decided that all they need to win is to pander to the voters as individuals with a bunch of one-on-one PMs.  

My point is that you're a notorious PM fiend and you've managed to win two elections in the South thus far without so much as opening a campaign thread to campaign publicly. So, did you win based solely on your party carrying you or by running an exclusively private campaign? Either way, tsk tsk, hypocrite, bad for the game, etc etc.

I actually only sent two short campaign PMs this past campaign.  At yes, the final straw came recently, what's your point?  The biggest issue is sending unwanted campaign PMs.

You're a hypocrite. And nobody believes you only sent "two short campaign PMs this past campaign" for your own candidacy; hell, you sent more than that campaigning against me in the at-large Senate special! You justified this bill in part because people supposedly are running behind-the-scenes campaigns in the South, yet you didn't run a public campaign yourself.

If we take you at your (latest) word, then you won because you did nothing and solely because of your name and party affiliation. Roughly 24 hours earlier, however, you did admit to sending PMs. So either:

• you lied about sending PMs (as in, you actually didn't send them), and won because of your name and party affiliation, or
• you lied about winning because of name and party affiliation, and did in fact send the PMs you admitted to sending (which would constitute the entirety of your campaign)

Either way, how shameful!

Also, your whole shtick of "I know you are but what am I!" is really old. I'm using your own words against you; you're making up accusations out of thin air and windjamming.

As I said earlier, I won on the strength of my record as an independent-minded champion of The People.  That doesn't mean just party ID or just name ID.  I don't really care whether you believe me or not about how many PMs I sent, Senator.  The fact is that I did only send two short PMs this past campaign asking for anyone to vote for me.  I'd have liked to have been able to wage a more active campaign and if someone who has actually run one wants to criticize me for that, fair enough.  However, real life issues take precedence for me over fantasyland campaigns.  I am grateful that the voters of the South had enough confidence in me based on my record to re-elect me all the same (and with support from members of multiple parties, no less).  

For the benefit of others who may read this, I will note that yes, I did send far more PMs (never to anyone who requested that I not do so) for a race in which I was not on the ballot than one in which I was.  The fact is that I cared more about the outcome of the At-Large Senate special election than the Southern Assembly race.  While I hoped to win the latter, at the end of the day I was confident that even if I lost, and despite my ideological differences with some of these folks, the South would still be in good hands if the Legislature consisted of Duke, PiT, and SMilo (to say nothing of Governor Flo who has done an excellent job).  Unlike you, I'm not one of those "guys, I have a career in Atlasia!!!" people.  Win or lose, it's just a game and it's hard to get too stirred up about the possibility of losing when you're facing such competent and respectable opponents.

The Senate race, OTOH, was not exclusively a race between folks who would do a good job if elected (putting aside the considerable ideological differences I had with all of the major candidates).  I had some concerns about Foucaulf and he certainly made some troubling mistakes during the campaign (most notably the gaffe about wanting people who voted against him not to vote), but I'm pretty confident he'd at least have been an active and productive Senator had he been elected (plus his campaign had more substance to it than that of anyone else who ran).  The only other candidate with a real chance of winning was Griffin.  I was almost certain that if elected, Griffin would be a rather unproductive Senator with far more interest in hyperbolic bomb-throwing than crafting serious legislation and engaging in substantive debate.  As a result, I cared more about the outcome of that race than my most recent one and guess what?  Since Griffin won, he's proven me right.  One need only look to Senator Griffin's "contributions" to the debate over the energy bill 2.0 police bill to see this.

Btw, you offered literally no evidence whatsoever in your post that I lied.  I guess that makes sense, since I didn't lie about anything.  I was re-elected because of my record and the fact that I've apparently earned the trust of a number of folks in the South after all the time I've spent fighting for The People, not because of the two short campaign PMs I sent (IIRC, at least one of the two individuals I PMed didn't even first preference me ).

I do find it funny that you might actually think I'm making up accusations against you out of thin-air (if so, then that's some serious denial you've got going on).  You constantly give your critics so much ammunition (and at times even seem to take a certain pride in doing so) that I can't really imagine why anyone would ever feel the need to resort to making up an attack against you, even if they did dabble in smear campaigns (which I never have).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

     Forget my previous amendment, here is a new one. It should take care of any legality issues and tighten up wording in a few places.

The Stop PMing Me Act

1. Effective immediately upon the passage of this bill, the government of the South shall establish a Do Not PM list. 

2. Any voters living in the IDS who does not wish to receive campaign PMs may add themselves to the Do Not PM List by signing their username in the list's thread. 

3. Any voters whose names have been added to the list may should not be sent a sample ballot, encouraged to vote for a specific candidate by either a candidate or a candidate's supporters via PM, or sent a PM reminding them to vote in any Gubernatorial, regional legislative, or regional Senate election.

4. The one exception to section three is if the individual who sent the campaign PM or sample ballot can prove with PMs that he did so purely at the direct request of the specific voter who filed a complaint against him and limited his campaign-related PM to the subject the voter PMed him about.  For example, a candidate responding to a voter's unprompted request for information about his position on abortion would not be in violation of section three if he send a PM in response that laid out his views on abortion.  However, said candidate would be violating section three if he sent an unprompted abortion-related pitch to a voter on the Do Not PM list or if he sent a sample ballot in addition to answering the voter's question about his abortion views. 

5. No voters on the Do Not PM List may send campaign-related PMs, sample ballots, etc while on the list.

6. 4. Anyone wishing to be removed from the Do Not PM List may have their name removed by making a post in the list thread requesting that their name be taken of the Do Not PM List.  However, no voter may add or remove himself from the Do Not PM List at any point during either last 48 hours before the voting booth opens in a Southern Gubernatorial, regional legislative, or regional Senate election or while the actual voting in one of the aforementioned types of elections is underway in this region.

7. 5. Any voter adding his name during the period described in section six four shall not be recognized as having added his name to the Do Not PM List until the officially designated close of the election. 

8. Any voter who is convicted of removing his name from the Do Not PM List during the aforementioned period shall receive a minimum sentence a ban on voting in the following regional election.

9. Anyone convicted of violating section three of this law once shall receive a minimum sentence of a six month ban on voting in regional elections or holding regional office (including, but not limited to regional Senate).  A second conviction will lead to the same penalty, as well as a year-long ban on appearing on any ballot in the region in any election for any office.

While I'd like to see something with strong enforcement mechanisms, this may be as good as it'll get for now.  This modified version of the bill has my support, Speaker PiT.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Aye

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

     I'm really ambivalent over this. I think I'll vote aye, because it would be convenient for me and hopefully for other party operatives. I also hope it would be convenient for voters who do not want to be PM'd. The bill will be presented to the Governor for his signature.

I would hope you'd vote aye, given that the I agreed to water down the bill as you proposed under the impression that if that happened then you would vote for it