The Official Constitution Act (Passed)

[windjammer]

The result of the votes:
Aye(7): Windjammer, Griffin, Lief, TNF, Cris, Polnut, Talleyrand
Abstain (1): Hagrid
Non voting: (2): SWE (too late), Cranberry


This bill has passed the senate and is now sent to the president.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I abstained.

[windjammer]

My apology Hagrid,
This has been fixed.

[bore]

Treason, rebellion, wiki edits. I mean, it really screams out as belonging there.

So like we are going to ban people from ever holding an office in a fantasy game because of wiki edits? I realize the Sirnick thing and all that, but isn't just a little nuts?

It's a maximum sentence, not a minimum one, and the court would have discretion, as it does in all cases.

But atlasia can only work if we know what previous laws are, someone maliciously editing the constitution to make it easier for them to serve in an office, or win a trial is an incredibly serious offence and should be dealt with appropriately.


Anyway, I am proud to sign this bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

X bore

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Treason, rebellion, wiki edits. I mean, it really screams out as belonging there.

So like we are going to ban people from ever holding an office in a fantasy game because of wiki edits? I realize the Sirnick thing and all that, but isn't just a little nuts?

Considering the wiki is essentially our National Archive, "editing with malicious intent" would be the equivalent of running into the Library of Congress with a torch. Attacking our governing documents is a serious crime and should be treated as such.

I applaud the president for signing this bill: it will make understanding our Constitution much easier, especially for newcomers like myself. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Treason, rebellion, wiki edits. I mean, it really screams out as belonging there.

So like we are going to ban people from ever holding an office in a fantasy game because of wiki edits? I realize the Sirnick thing and all that, but isn't just a little nuts?

Considering the wiki is essentially our National Archive, "editing with malicious intent" would be the equivalent of running into the Library of Congress with a torch. Attacking our governing documents is a serious crime and should be treated as such.

I applaud the president for signing this bill: it will make understanding our Constitution much easier, especially for newcomers like myself. 

Good point and what do you imagine the likely punishment for that is? Five years? ten years maybe? A life time ban on holding office is virtually a death sentence in this game or at the very least life in prison.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr. President, how is that any different then registering a sock to vote to win an election?

Does that carry a potential lifetime ban on holding office? I think the maximum is a tad lower than that.

Also the last instance where sock voting affecting an election outcome was Winston versus Barnes, Feb 2010 in the NE. When was the last time any case of malicious editing was found? There may have been one in 2009 but I cannot remember and hence my point. Yes, you need a stiff penalty, but if deterance is what you want then surely the demand for such should govern the extent and in this case, I see no such equivalent demand for deterance to justify a life time ban on holding office.

[bore]

Mr. President, how is that any different then registering a sock to vote to win an election?

Does that carry a potential lifetime ban on holding office? I think the maximum is a tad lower than that.

Also the last instance where sock voting affecting an election outcome was Winston versus Barnes, Feb 2010 in the NE. When was the last time any case of malicious editing was found? There may have been one in 2009 but I cannot remember and hence my point. Yes, you need a stiff penalty, but if deterance is what you want then surely the demand for such should govern the extent and in this case, I see no such equivalent demand for deterance to justify a life time ban on holding office.

Just because a crime is rarely committed doesn't mean it shouldn't be punished. Besides, and this bares repeating, it is a maximum penalty, there would be very few cases where this maximum was enforced. Also, as long as the president has the ability to issue pardons even life time bans don't really exist because sooner or later a president will come along who gives the person another chance.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr. President, how is that any different then registering a sock to vote to win an election?

Does that carry a potential lifetime ban on holding office? I think the maximum is a tad lower than that.

Also the last instance where sock voting affecting an election outcome was Winston versus Barnes, Feb 2010 in the NE. When was the last time any case of malicious editing was found? There may have been one in 2009 but I cannot remember and hence my point. Yes, you need a stiff penalty, but if deterance is what you want then surely the demand for such should govern the extent and in this case, I see no such equivalent demand for deterance to justify a life time ban on holding office.

Just because a crime is rarely committed doesn't mean it shouldn't be punished. Besides, and this bares repeating, it is a maximum penalty, there would be very few cases where this maximum was enforced. Also, as long as the president has the ability to issue pardons even life time bans don't really exist because sooner or later a president will come along who gives the person another chance.

I never said it shouldn't be punished. I just said the one justification for such an extreme maximum, that of a widespread outbreak, is not present.

Sooner or later a president comes along...sounds rather arbitrary.

What is the maximum sentence for sock voting? Its long but not indefinite.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Treason, rebellion, wiki edits. I mean, it really screams out as belonging there.

So like we are going to ban people from ever holding an office in a fantasy game because of wiki edits? I realize the Sirnick thing and all that, but isn't just a little nuts?

Considering the wiki is essentially our National Archive, "editing with malicious intent" would be the equivalent of running into the Library of Congress with a torch. Attacking our governing documents is a serious crime and should be treated as such.

I applaud the president for signing this bill: it will make understanding our Constitution much easier, especially for newcomers like myself. 

Good point and what do you imagine the likely punishment for that is? Five years? ten years maybe? A life time ban on holding office is virtually a death sentence in this game or at the very least life in prison.

The question here is not "should every case be punished with a lifetime ban?" but "is a lifetime ban justifiable in certain situations?" While I agree that 99 out of 100 cases of wiki vandalism do not deserve so serious a sentence, there have been instances in the past (the SirNick incident, for example) that were severe enough to merit a lifetime ban.

Like Bore said, this is only a maximum sentence, and it's hard to imagine the court handing down a life ban for minor vandalism. Ultimately, though, in the event of a truly severe assault on our governing documents, it's only prudent to allow the judiciary to fit the punishment to the crime.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Treason, rebellion, wiki edits. I mean, it really screams out as belonging there.

So like we are going to ban people from ever holding an office in a fantasy game because of wiki edits? I realize the Sirnick thing and all that, but isn't just a little nuts?

Considering the wiki is essentially our National Archive, "editing with malicious intent" would be the equivalent of running into the Library of Congress with a torch. Attacking our governing documents is a serious crime and should be treated as such.

I applaud the president for signing this bill: it will make understanding our Constitution much easier, especially for newcomers like myself. 

Good point and what do you imagine the likely punishment for that is? Five years? ten years maybe? A life time ban on holding office is virtually a death sentence in this game or at the very least life in prison.

The question here is not "should every case be punished with a lifetime ban?" but "is a lifetime ban justifiable in certain situations?" While I agree that 99 out of 100 cases of wiki vandalism do not deserve so serious a sentence, there have been instances in the past (the SirNick incident, for example) that were severe enough to merit a lifetime ban.

Like Bore said, this is only a maximum sentence, and it's hard to imagine the court handing down a life ban for minor vandalism. Ultimately, though, in the event of a truly severe assault on our governing documents, it's only prudent to allow the judiciary to fit the punishment to the crime.

The Sirnick incident wasn't on the wiki though.

I don't think Sirnick's actions justify a lifetime ban, but then frankly I don't think anythng justifies a lifetime ban from an online game. Though destructive actions that do take the fun out of the game fo others because someone is pissed off or just cannot get their way, that is certainly something that should received two to three years (The maxmimum for sock voting by the way is two years, shame no one bothered to guess more or less look it up ).