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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:31:21 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 3153 times)
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 #25 on: April 25, 2015, 10:45:03 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.

Again, I've just shown an example above where - in regards to the law requiring something explicitly has to be said in order to constitute a violation of the law - evidence can be forged and the accused has no way of proving his or her innocence. Why are we suddenly worried about the burden of keeping evidence on hand when it has always been possible to frame someone even when we require "proof" of something being done (as opposed to something not being done) or where we think we have evidence proving our innocence (by not doing something)?

In reality, people are not going to move ahead with such a public affair if they do not feel there is substantial evidence that they were tricked. If this weren't the case, the example I used above in addition to other "loopholes" in the way the game works with regards to evidence would be chronically up for abuse. Only the most sick and twisted sociopaths would do such a thing (and considering this is Atlasia and that this has not happened yet, that's saying something).

Yeah, I'll never understand why people want to log their interactions if they don't have something going on in this game. More often than not, I use it to reference past convos when someone has said that I've said this, that or the other and my memory doesn't recall such an interpretation.



As far as all of the demands for a witch-hunt, I'm more than willing to disclose names who have done this historically and are not active in the game - which does transcend partisan lines, in addition to myself - but naming current and active members in the game who are doing this serves no purpose but to further antagonize this discussion. Here's why:

1) Because it is the absence of a statement (as so many are willing to point out here), those specified will simply claim that there is no bad intent behind said action and that their (lack of) words are being misinterpreted. They'll say it's about attacking them rather than being about what it is: fixing a loophole.

2) If I have to start extracting specific PMs from people (admittedly, this is based in part off of historically what has been admitted and known to be a tactic, and in part what I've observed as of late from publicly-viewable movements/whispers from off-site; it's really something that should have been addressed long ago and only because the frequency of moving new players has increased lately has it come to my mind once again), then I'm going to start racking up death points by posting them. There's no way I can post PMs here and not accumulate DPs - obtained by the accused reporting my posts, as they bloody well would - and I only prefer to accumulate DPs from leaking PMs when it is explicitly undeniable that someone said or did something illegal.

3) It's more or less been touched on, but because this isn't currently required and because many do not mention registration lockdowns (most don't just because it may not cross their mind to do so; in some cases, it is done with intent), the majority of recruitment and relocation-related PMs would suffice as 'evidence' in this case.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2015, 11:08:26 AM »

What this debate is showing, though, is that the issue here is so muddy that it's not worth codifying in law. While I agree that "pressure to invalidate" is also murky territory, I think the Vice President has demonstrated that it is at least less murky than what we're proposing here.

Either way, the point of the law is less to actually convict people and more to set in stone exactly what unacceptable behaviour is. In that case, you might ask yourself why not just include the proposed language. The trouble with the current proposal is that, like the Vice President, I'm not entirely sure it even makes sense to include. As I've said, the act of asking someone to move is not always malicious or self-serving, but the failure to include the disclaimer could still result in a person's conviction. The act of invalidation or intimidation is always malicious. Maybe we can patch up the language a bit, but the end of the day, I don't think this clause belongs in this bill, alongside these much more serious offences.

Sorry...
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 25, 2015, 12:39:14 PM »

Ignoring for a moment the rights and wrongs of the bill in principle, the practicalities here seem nightmarish; could this bill be enforced? Would the DoJ have much chance of securing a conviction using it? There are strong reasons to suspect that this would be dead letter as soon as it became law.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 25, 2015, 07:01:05 PM »

There is no way to make it constitutional or whatever?

Because truly, it is becoming more and more a problem. There are several newbies who have been fooled by that, most recently in the the IDS election.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 26, 2015, 12:46:35 PM »

The biggest problem isn't constitutionality so much as practicality.
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 #30 on: April 26, 2015, 08:13:13 PM »

The biggest problem isn't constitutionality so much as practicality.

Indeed. It seems to me that the provision would require proof that someone didn't do something, as opposed to proof being required that someone did. Which is pretty much counter to the way criminal justice is meant to work. Putting that to one side, the burden of evidence in such scenarios does appear to be pretty much unworkable in a significant portion of such scenarios.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2015, 02:56:05 PM »

So how should we proceed?
Logged
Talleyrand
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,517


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 27, 2015, 04:53:47 PM »

The best idea I can see for this is getting rid of the one free move loophole in the Constitution; that would solve the problem Griffin describes and assist us if the Electoral Reform Bill makes it through the regions.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 28, 2015, 08:47:48 AM »

Assuming, for the sake of argument that this is a problem- and I can definitely believe that some unscrupulous people manipulate newbies like this- abolishing the free move would still be disproportionate. Currently most newbies have the option of changing regions if they don't like it, apart from those who don't because they've been lied to, but changing the free move means that no newbie is allowed to change their region, which seems, if anything, worse.

Maybe we could supply people with an unlimited, (or maybe 2 or 3 to stop trolls) amount of moves in the first week instead?
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 28, 2015, 10:51:28 AM »

Does the free move ever expire? We could set something like a four-month cap on it if not.

Unlimited free moves in the first week could also be abused, and I don't think a week is long enough for people to get an idea of whether or not they made a smart choice.
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: April 28, 2015, 12:06:31 PM »

Does the free move ever expire? We could set something like a four-month cap on it if not.

I guess it just becomes obsolete once the move-time deadline is reached; and I would think this would work just as well as a cap than four months or whichever other number.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: April 28, 2015, 02:03:24 PM »

I support a cap of say 2-3 months, it's easy for people to join and make an honest mistake about which region they want to be in. I mean I picked Taxachusettes because I'm a liberal hack
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: April 28, 2015, 02:27:05 PM »

Does the free move ever expire? We could set something like a four-month cap on it if not.

I guess it just becomes obsolete once the move-time deadline is reached; and I would think this would work just as well as a cap than four months or whichever other number.

Are you sure it becomes obsolete, though? What the letter of the law says really matters here. If the free move is guaranteed, it's guaranteed. Since I've never used a free move and have certainly passed the move-time deadline, have I "banked" two moves, or just one?
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: April 29, 2015, 12:29:21 PM »

Does the free move ever expire? We could set something like a four-month cap on it if not.

I guess it just becomes obsolete once the move-time deadline is reached; and I would think this would work just as well as a cap than four months or whichever other number.

Are you sure it becomes obsolete, though? What the letter of the law says really matters here. If the free move is guaranteed, it's guaranteed. Since I've never used a free move and have certainly passed the move-time deadline, have I "banked" two moves, or just one?

If I recall right, the letter of the law is something on the likes of that the initial registration does not count as move, not that you have one special free move. If that's the case, it does become obsolete, though not by the law of the land but by the law of time.
Logged
Talleyrand
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,517


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: April 29, 2015, 02:27:11 PM »

If the electoral reform amendment passes, it might be a good idea to get rid of one free move regardless of whatever merits it has now. It would simply limit some of the manipulation that might occur with the redistricting process.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: April 29, 2015, 05:35:16 PM »

If the electoral reform amendment passes, it might be a good idea to get rid of one free move regardless of whatever merits it has now. It would simply limit some of the manipulation that might occur with the redistricting process.
You mean forcing people to stay in the same region forever???
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: April 30, 2015, 02:23:27 AM »

If the Electoral Reform Amendment will pass the regions, persons will be able to change their state of registration once every six months. I think that six months is ok.
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 #42 on: April 30, 2015, 04:10:53 AM »

There was a debate I think Fritz and I had at one point - as well as another with homely and a bunch of people - over the whole concept of the free move, whether or point it expires and seemingly, whether or not it even existed after a certain point. It seems like at one point, I recall there being a precedent that you only had a free move for one week after joining; if you didn't use it, then you lost it.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=165155.0

I think in the debate Fritz and I had, I just gave up. I remember when I came back and registered in the NE, he told me that I didn't get a free move as a new citizen because I was in the South previously and that de-registering apparently didn't "reset" the clock, which I still disagree with. 

I think getting rid of the free move is absolutely a bad idea and really runs contrary to what the spirit of this was about: people being stuck somewhere where they otherwise wouldn't choose to be if they knew anything about the game. By locking down people upon joining, you're basically trying to fix a larger problem at the expense of the individual; "the regions that are bad might be more active if no one can leave them for six months when they first join". I don't think it will work.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: May 06, 2015, 09:43:54 PM »

Senators?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: May 07, 2015, 09:22:09 PM »

I support a cap of say 2-3 months, it's easy for people to join and make an honest mistake about which region they want to be in. I mean I picked Taxachusettes because I'm a liberal hack

That does bring up a concern for me that foreigners may be disproportionally impacted by the removal of the free move. Someone in the US could be reasonably expected to default to their home region, whereas foreigners don't even have that to fall back on and have either a whimsical choice or the recommendations of someone asking them to join to go on in terms of joining a region.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2015, 05:09:41 PM »

Well, I motion for a final vote.

And senators have 24 hours to object.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2015, 07:21:55 PM »

Do we want to do something about the free move? Now is the time. If someone else is interested, I'll pursue it and significantly change this bill.

Otherwise I'm assuming we'll just vote it down and be done with it, which I'm okay with too. Thoughts?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: May 11, 2015, 03:21:23 AM »

I would be game for possibilty changing the free move situation, were it not for the problems it creates for foreign players, I worry it would be disproportionate in its effects and therefore I would have to oppose it for the same reason I opposed reducing the vote change period (standing up for the poor dial up user Wink).

Anyway, I am also leary of having two different policies one for the domestic players and one for the fereners so I am at a loss as to how to proceed at this time.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: May 11, 2015, 08:46:35 AM »

Well, we could make the free move expire after a year.
Logged
Talleyrand
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,517


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: May 11, 2015, 09:08:27 PM »

After six months have passed from initial registration, the one free move is basically like a traditional region change. At this point, I think it's best not to touch it.
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 0.05 seconds with 12 queries.