The Official Constitution Act (Passed)

[bore]

This bill is pretty straightforward

The constitution that the Supreme Court and senate uses is about a year and a half out of date, and more importantly is basically impossible to edit (I know because I've tried) this aims to make things easier.

[bore]

Doesn't the Wiki article for the Third Constitution get updated continuously?

It was last updated when Nix was still president.

[bore]

Then why doesn't the AG just do his job and update it? Why do we need a new bill? I mean, I think it would obviously be great to have an updated constitution readily available as well, but... I guess I'm a little confused.

The format of the constitution, unlike the format of say, the senate rules, is very difficult to edit properly. It involves creating new pages for every amendment passed, linking them into the single page document, striking and unstriking various changed sections, linking various bolded and unbolded pieces of text to other wiki pages, and so on. It's also not particularly easy to read.

[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

[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.