Let's Stop Tricking the Newbies Act (Debating)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:32:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Let's Stop Tricking the Newbies Act (Debating)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Let's Stop Tricking the Newbies Act (Debating)  (Read 3156 times)
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 24, 2015, 06:34:01 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Introduced by RG Griffin
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2015, 07:40:07 AM »

This looks pretty straight forward and it has my support.
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2015, 08:59:11 AM »

How would a lack of "disclosure" be proven?
Yes. I was about to ask the same thing.
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2015, 12:04:53 PM »

This seems indeed quite hardly workable for me in practice, but I am ready to see myself be proven otherwise.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2015, 12:24:25 PM »

At what point does this become "excessively regulating conversation" though? I understand the intentions, but suggesting that someone change regions is not blasphemous, and expecting the suggestion to always be followed by some sort of qualifier seems unrealistic... At some point people are just going to have to look out for themselves. Not everything needs a law.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2015, 12:38:16 PM »

As I mentioned in the Electoral Reform Amendment discussion, surely the simpler way to do this would just be to remove the "free move" from the Constitution?
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2015, 12:50:09 PM »

As I mentioned in the Electoral Reform Amendment discussion, surely the simpler way to do this would just be to remove the "free move" from the Constitution?
I don't think it's a good idea forcing people not to change region and stay in the same region even if they do not want to stay there.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2015, 01:39:31 PM »

Currently the Department of Justice is working on a wholesale revision of the Criminal Law that will be placed before the Senate in due course (i.e. in the next few days, God willing). The reforms are largely of a technical nature, but they will entail the repeal of the Re-Consolidated Criminal Justice Act.

One specific point now: we have decided to broaden the concept of Intimidation to that of the application of 'undue pressure' rather than the much narrower definitions given in the current Act. This could easily be extended further from the act of voting (perhaps) including also the issue of registration. We are also proposing a new crime of Electoral Fraud which would prohibit all attempts to fraudulently alter election results (current law is deficient in this area, to say the least).
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2015, 11:54:33 PM »

How would a lack of "disclosure" be proven?

The same way "intimidation of a voter" is proven via the same section of RCCJA, and it has been proven and/or prosecuted on multiple occasions.

At what point does this become "excessively regulating conversation" though? I understand the intentions, but suggesting that someone change regions is not blasphemous, and expecting the suggestion to always be followed by some sort of qualifier seems unrealistic... At some point people are just going to have to look out for themselves. Not everything needs a law.

Again, this isn't groundbreaking or revolutionary by any means. We clearly and already "regulate conversation" and speech by telling individuals that they cannot do the following in the same section of the bill:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Furthermore (and excluding my own), I've seen all sorts of PMs sent out by various individuals in their quest to recruit to the game, recruit to new regions, persuade newer individuals to support them over this, that and the other...hyperlinks, drawn-out paragraphs, elaborately-woven weaves of the truth: it is impossible to say after all of that, that disclosing "You will not be able to move anywhere else for 6 months if you choose to relocate to this region/state" (the latter of which would be applicable if this electoral amendment passes) is a bridge too far or "unrealistic". Maybe it's just me, but I've generally always disclosed this information to voters anyway; for those who haven't, I promise that it is not a Herculean task.

As I mentioned in the Electoral Reform Amendment discussion, surely the simpler way to do this would just be to remove the "free move" from the Constitution?
I don't think it's a good idea forcing people not to change region and stay in the same region even if they do not want to stay there.

I do not think there is inherently anything wrong with allowing someone brand new - who likely doesn't understand any of the rules or regulations regarding residence - the ability to reverse a potentially bad mistake. Likewise, I don't think it's inherently wrong to lobby people to join a different region once they join. To try to convince someone who may not be happy where they are - in large part, due to ignorance about where they registered - to make bad another decision - again, largely due to ignorance and the lack of disclosure - has undoubtedly affected the attitudes and perceptions of newer players to this game, and their desire to interact with it. The approach above would be equivalent to "Well, if the deceivers and liars by omission are being 'punished', then we'll do the same to the new players". Also, this is objectively "simpler" because AFAIK, this would be statute and not a constitutional amendment.

Currently the Department of Justice is working on a wholesale revision of the Criminal Law that will be placed before the Senate in due course (i.e. in the next few days, God willing). The reforms are largely of a technical nature, but they will entail the repeal of the Re-Consolidated Criminal Justice Act.

One specific point now: we have decided to broaden the concept of Intimidation to that of the application of 'undue pressure' rather than the much narrower definitions given in the current Act. This could easily be extended further from the act of voting (perhaps) including also the issue of registration. We are also proposing a new crime of Electoral Fraud which would prohibit all attempts to fraudulently alter election results (current law is deficient in this area, to say the least).

It is good to hear that additional measures are being considered. There is a lot of this "lack of information" messaging that goes on and has went on for years (if people think I'm trying to be a holy saint above the rest of the game, then they have the wrong impression), which I consider to be parallel to disinformation or a lie by omission. If someone is attempting to get a player amenable to their beliefs to move to their region (knowing that they won't be able to move for at least six months) or even a player that is antithetical to their beliefs to move out of their region without disclosing them of the consequences they're surely aware, then it's a lie. Unlike other lies, it's the type of lie that tangibly impacts the elections process (like lying about when a voting booth closes or how long you have to edit your ballot, which are crimes in the game). And yes, I understand there is a difference between an active booth and the ongoing dynamic of the game, but all of these actions are much more tangible in nature in terms of effect.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2015, 12:19:06 AM »

How would a lack of "disclosure" be proven?

The same way "intimidation of a voter" is proven via the same section of RCCJA, and it has been proven and/or prosecuted on multiple occasions.

There's a marked difference between proving that someone has done something and proving that someone has not done something. I asked because I don't know how the latter would work in this context.

I guess I'm not seeing much of a difference in regards to the mechanics (I guess you're making the argument from the perspective of jurisprudence?). With respect to PMs, it's rather simple: a PM is furnished upon follow-up in a suspicious situation that shows (or doesn't show) that the content in question has (or hasn't) been said. I'm not sure if you or anyone else might be alluding to fraud, but theoretically, it's just as easy to add something to a PM that somebody didn't say as it is to take something out that they did say.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2015, 12:38:32 AM »

My concern goes a bit further. How would we know that disclosure wasn't provided in another PM, or by some other means?

I guess to borrow Hagrid's phrase, "at some point people are just going to have to look out for themselves"...? Tongue I'd much prefer to foist that burden on the ones engaging in the behavior proactively than requiring the burden be on those who generally know no better at the time, which is the status quo and the alternative.

Any recruitment done on-site will either be done in public or via PMs. In the former, there'll be a paper trail and in the latter case, there can easily be one if somebody has enabled saved PMs (I personally would find it very shocking and of bad form for someone who does this sort of thing not to have outbox message saving enabled).

With regards to recruitment done outside of the game, again, there are multiple ways to cover one's tracks. Let's be realistic: if this thing were to occur outside of the forum, it's going to be in IRC, and IRC has automatic chat logging available. In addition, there are always screenshots. We also know that this type of evidence is admissible in court.

So I guess that my personal take is that someone who is going to engage in recruitment behavior will (and should) be a step above the average Atlasian player. They're aware of what all can happen in this game. You can have practically all of your bases covered by literally checking two simple boxes, and practically everyone who does has already done this.

So it is not as straightforward in every case as we would like, but neither is the game-play for all involved in this activity. My general argument is that this is not a "burden" on those who it would affect (the recruiters) when considering the combined weight of their interaction with the game. Everybody needs an alibi.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2015, 01:36:23 AM »

I suppose the way I'm seeing it is that pressuring someone to invalidate their vote is always going to be a negative, conniving thing. Asking someone to change regions, however, could be done with quite positive intentions if it's done by someone who's taking a newbie under his or her wing. Failure to include a disclaimer would now be a criminal offense, however. Even though the original act of suggesting that the person move isn't that bad at all. I don't know. I'm just not really seeing it. I've suggested to some friends in jest that they come to the South, and I certainly never provided the disclaimer. We're on good terms now, but if something happens down the line, my innocent suggestion could now be used to tank my career. All over something that's not necessarily a big deal.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2015, 02:04:47 AM »
« Edited: April 25, 2015, 02:07:08 AM by RG Griff »

I suppose the way I'm seeing it is that pressuring someone to invalidate their vote is always going to be a negative, conniving thing. Asking someone to change regions, however, could be done with quite positive intentions if it's done by someone who's taking a newbie under his or her wing. Failure to include a disclaimer would now be a criminal offense, however. Even though the original act of suggesting that the person move isn't that bad at all. I don't know. I'm just not really seeing it. I've suggested to some friends in jest that they come to the South, and I certainly never provided the disclaimer. We're on good terms now, but if something happens down the line, my innocent suggestion could now be used to tank my career. All over something that's not necessarily a big deal.

Well, I think you're operating under the assumption that anyone who is asked to move is going to automatically report the activity as some sort of illegal activity, or that they'd wish to proceed along those lines. The reality is that no one is going to want to move forward with such action unless they are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were tricked.

I'd be perfectly fine with offering in exchange of this the ability for a player to "reverse" their decision (if this is their first move/consumption of the "free move") within 24 hours or something to their previous region so that they have at the very least a choice. They wouldn't get their free move back or anything, but it'd be a remedy to the trickery and solve most of what I perceive to be the problem (of course I think that'd move it from statute to amendment territory). We could also amend it to where the victim is the only person who can proceed with the action against the accused, so that the mere sharing of the PM doesn't result in prosecution over technical violations. Statute of limitations could be added to prevent this from applying after a certain point (to cover people who made a passing reference to moving weeks or months ago, which didn't actually lead to the move but who could be prosecuted, like you referenced).

I feel like all of these considerations can be taken into account and addressed while still eliminating this nefarious behavior, but only if we're willing to do so. If the majority of the Senate is already dead-set against this because they themselves engage in the behavior or they have a genuine opposition to the idea, then obviously it won't go anywhere and I'm just flapping my gums.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2015, 02:17:13 AM »

All over something that's not necessarily a big deal.

I'll just say that it is something that seems to be happening more than in the past. Yes, the motivation for me to sit down and propose this occurred because someone I knew who was new was "convinced" to do this, but as of late, it has been going on more so across the board and it has been something I have witnessed (and admittedly, taken part in) in the past. I don't really want to start politicizing this by naming names and pointing fingers for the examples, because that's a sure-fire way to tank this.

Usually it comes in the form of convincing a half-engaged player, but it's also used on newer people - who might have more opportunities to engage in the game where they are - to get them to favor one entity or another's agenda elsewhere. I don't see how - if you separate the agenda of the "power-players" (our own, elder and bitter experiences) from the equation and put yourselves in a neutral position - anyone can say that it's not a problem when newer players are in some cases being screwed out of short-term engagement with an easier difficulty level by being dragged to regions where they have no chance of genuinely doing anything other than being someone else's voter.
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2015, 04:22:42 AM »

I will not attempt to jump into this vivid debate, but I guess we can assume that in multiple of those mentioned scenarios/problems the courts will work on their common sense discretion?

Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2015, 09:06:24 AM »

Actually, Griffin, it would be nice if you could name some names.

I really do wonder who this is targeted against. Unless this is purely altruistic. Roll Eyes
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2015, 09:22:24 AM »

Actually, Griffin, it would be nice if you could name some names.

I really do wonder who this is targeted against. Unless this is purely altruistic. Roll Eyes

Surely you're not admitting to anything, Simfan? If so, then perhaps you can provide a rebuttal as to why my plan is a bad idea in its substance and why we should maintain the status quo. Otherwise, I'm not sure you'd have all that much to add unless you are a supporter and want to echo my sentiments.

As I said, I won't turn this debate into a personal or political attack-fest where specific people feel the need to politicize it (or vote one way or another) based on who has or hasn't engaged in this behavior, especially when it is a long-term behavior that transcends partisan lines.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2015, 09:32:33 AM »

Couldn't you have one newbie asking another newbie to move, they both being unaware of the laws on this?
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2015, 09:36:26 AM »

My concern goes a bit further. How would we know that disclosure wasn't provided in another PM, or by some other means?

I guess to borrow Hagrid's phrase, "at some point people are just going to have to look out for themselves"...? Tongue I'd much prefer to foist that burden on the ones engaging in the behavior proactively than requiring the burden be on those who generally know no better at the time, which is the status quo and the alternative.

Any recruitment done on-site will either be done in public or via PMs. In the former, there'll be a paper trail and in the latter case, there can easily be one if somebody has enabled saved PMs (I personally would find it very shocking and of bad form for someone who does this sort of thing not to have outbox message saving enabled).

With regards to recruitment done outside of the game, again, there are multiple ways to cover one's tracks. Let's be realistic: if this thing were to occur outside of the forum, it's going to be in IRC, and IRC has automatic chat logging available. In addition, there are always screenshots. We also know that this type of evidence is admissible in court.

So I guess that my personal take is that someone who is going to engage in recruitment behavior will (and should) be a step above the average Atlasian player. They're aware of what all can happen in this game. You can have practically all of your bases covered by literally checking two simple boxes, and practically everyone who does has already done this.

So it is not as straightforward in every case as we would like, but neither is the game-play for all involved in this activity. My general argument is that this is not a "burden" on those who it would affect (the recruiters) when considering the combined weight of their interaction with the game. Everybody needs an alibi.

Demanding that everyone keep a strict record of every conversation they have is not much of an answer.

Moreover, I don't see this behavior as nefarious, or even problematic, in the first place.

A "strict record" is a complete and total over-statement, and I think you know that. It's par for the course among anyone who does this and exercises common sense.

You don't see purposefully misleading new players (lying to them) to be nefarious or problematic (again, for the actual players: it's obviously not problematic for the people doing it to them)?
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2015, 09:38:31 AM »

Couldn't you have one newbie asking another newbie to move, they both being unaware of the laws on this?

Theoretically and in the current form, yes, you could. Thankfully, this can be amended to reflect any sort of exception that is deemed necessary. I will just say that in addition, newbies aren't known for their recruitment and strategic registration interaction with the game, and as with some of the other issues I mentioned above that could be addressed, wouldn't be a problem with those scenarios addressed.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2015, 10:01:27 AM »

A "strict record" is a complete and total over-statement, and I think you know that. It's par for the course among anyone who does this and exercises common sense.

Suggesting that everyone needs to save his or her off-forum correspondence with Atlasians is completely over the top. What evidence do we have that this is an actual problem?

Maybe having off-forum correspondence with Atlasians about Atlasia...is over the top in its own regard? Again, you're blowing it out of proportion for whatever reason. Similarly easy functions exist for whatever other medium you might wish to deflect to next. You're acting as if doing so would require hiring a full-time stenographer and installing a secondary hard drive.

If Lebron can be prosecuted successfully using this sort of off-forum correspondence under the same law and section, then obviously extending various regulations to said venue is not unacceptable.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2015, 10:11:47 AM »
« Edited: April 25, 2015, 10:16:04 AM by Senator Polnut »

Again... a touch alarming that people bother to save IRC correspondence ... kinda scary that people need a paper trail.

But without thinking too much on this... I think the requirements are pretty onerous to justify how this section is proven, especially for a voluntary game.

It seems to require someone to say, yeah move, it's good. Then another piece of information saying "yeah, it means he can't vote hahaha". Or it requires someone to prove a negative.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 25, 2015, 10:19:22 AM »

Let's just touch briefly on the whole sentiment here of (presumably) worry that someone will be accused of not doing something they explicitly did do (or doing something in passing that didn't affect the situation, because both of these scenarios have been brought up) because they don't have evidence. That dynamic already exists.

Case in point: I, as a new voter, can cast a vote in an election. I can then proceed to edit my ballot after the allowed edit time has elapsed. Let's say in this case that I voted on Friday and edited on Sunday. As a new voter, I can make the claim that someone tricked me into invalidating my ballot. One person who may have sent me a PM during that timeframe can have their innocent and unrelated PM edited to say whatever I, as a new voter, wish it to say, and make the claim that someone else sent it to me. I can then post this to the forum publicly - with the timestamp that matches the period - with my claims. The accused will have no way to prove that they did not send that. After all, they could have deleted their PM if they were to allow someone to login to their account to "prove" they didn't, and Dave/Nym aren't going to involve themselves in such trivial affairs (I'm not even sure they can see or verify such an occurrence). Since no PM from that person to the accuser exists, there is no conflict of evidence, only the absent to absolve guilt. As a new voter, it is my word and proof against theirs, and there is literally no way they can prove the contrary definitively.

I'm a silly, silly goose and I have invalidated no fewer than 20 n00b ballots in my existence.

This has literally never happened to my knowledge. So, in conclusion, this whole worry about being accused of doing something you realistically didn't do is deflection in my opinion and it would seem some people just like the current system.

Again... a touch alarming that people bother to save IRC correspondence ... kinda scary that people need a paper trail.

But without thinking too much on this... I think the requirements are pretty onerous to justify how this section is proven, especially for a voluntary game.

It seems to require someone to say, yeah move, it's good. Then another piece of information saying "yeah, it means he can't vote hahaha". Or it requires someone to prove a negative.

A good chunk of the people in there do. What's really creepy are the people who save IRC conversations and who don't play this game; I only keep tabs for memory purposes (and so I can effectively write my memoirs one day).
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2015, 10:25:37 AM »

I also realize that these circumstances are different and there is emphasis being placed on "doing something" versus "not doing something"; saying something explicit versus the absence thereof. My point here was to show that even with the existing laws regarding illegal behavior that require something be said (as opposed to the absence of something being said), evidence can be lacking to prove innocence if accused.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2015, 10:26:38 AM »

My objection is not that it's difficult to record every conversation that I have over the internet. My objection is that it's creepy and overbearing.

That's the key distinction between the laws that we already have - about what you can't say - and this proposal - which governs what you must say. It's easy to prove that I said something; it's almost impossible to prove that I did not. The law would be unenforceable, unless you're suggesting that we move to a standard of presumed guilt.

Again, what evidence do we have that this is even a problem?

Quite frankly, these are my issues in a nutshell.

1. It seems remarkably obsessive and indeed overbearing for a voluntary activity. As I said, I don't keep records of what I say and to whom... I don't intend to start now. I think outside of a few, it would not be the norm.

2. The amendment is loaded with subjectivity both in language and implied actions that I can't see a universal application of this law and would require both a standard of evidence and a degree of interpretation that seems highly problematic.

AG - FTR, yes, I do understand why some retain chat logs. But just for s***s and giggles? That's flat out scary.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.074 seconds with 12 queries.