Let's Stop Tricking the Newbies Act (Debating)

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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...

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So how should we proceed?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, we could make the free move expire after a year.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay