You're Less Important then NPCs - The Senate

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

2012 - The Senate passes a Constitutional Amendment banning the death penalty, ratified by regions (only affects non-playable masses).


2015 - Senate votes to maintain the functional equivalent of the death penalty for undesirable Atlasian Players (affects you the players of this game)?


Actually the second one hasn't happened yet, but from the statements I am seeing, I seem to be the only one standing up against this.

Where the hell has the civil liberties crowd gone?

[free my dawg]

SAVE A PLAYER, HANG THE PAEDOS

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Considering that for many years treason was never charged, these recent developments are deeply disturbing and damaging to the future of Atlasia. If we are unable to take the common sense step of doing away with lifetime bans in Atlasia, then I do not think that we are responsible enough to be entrusted with the ability to determine treason.

[Blair]

This is about game issues, you can't be allowed to completely delete for example the whole government thread and then come back to the game in two years.

This isn't a death penalty, Yankee is just fear mongering

[Associate Justice PiT]

This is about game issues, you can't be allowed to completely delete for example the whole government thread and then come back to the game in two years.

This isn't a death penalty, Yankee is just fear mongering

      Oh please. Let's not tell ourselves that only super-serious things are subject to this penalty. Make-believe rebellion of the sorts that has been permissible for many years can cause a lifetime ban. Lest Al should forget, the Reality or Nothing shtick he was working with years ago can result in a lifetime ban. Saying a certain bad phrase, which I shall not elaborate on should someone see fit to prosecute me, can end in a lifetime ban.

     All of this is patently absurd. The idea that a lifetime ban should even be on the table for any of these "crimes" is far more problematic than those acts themselves. Also problematic is that members of our government would condone a system that permanently excludes productive members over trivial matters.

     You may please yourself to ignore me, because I am not a Senator. You may also please yourself to ignore me once I am a Senator. I know it won't make a difference to you.

[Blair]

This is about game issues, you can't be allowed to completely delete for example the whole government thread and then come back to the game in two years.

This isn't a death penalty, Yankee is just fear mongering

      Oh please. Let's not tell ourselves that only super-serious things are subject to this penalty. Make-believe rebellion of the sorts that has been permissible for many years can cause a lifetime ban. Lest Al should forget, the Reality or Nothing shtick he was working with years ago can result in a lifetime ban. Saying a certain bad phrase, which I shall not elaborate on should someone see fit to prosecute me, can end in a lifetime ban.

     All of this is patently absurd. The idea that a lifetime ban should even be on the table for any of these "crimes" is far more problematic than those acts themselves. Also problematic is that members of our government would condone a system that permanently excludes productive members over trivial matters.

     You may please yourself to ignore me, because I am not a Senator. You may also please yourself to ignore me once I am a Senator. I know it won't make a difference to you.

Christ calm down mate, I'm not going to ingore you. When did I ever say that? Why is there so much hostility towards me? Really what have I done to offend you so deeply?

[Associate Justice PiT]

This is about game issues, you can't be allowed to completely delete for example the whole government thread and then come back to the game in two years.

This isn't a death penalty, Yankee is just fear mongering

      Oh please. Let's not tell ourselves that only super-serious things are subject to this penalty. Make-believe rebellion of the sorts that has been permissible for many years can cause a lifetime ban. Lest Al should forget, the Reality or Nothing shtick he was working with years ago can result in a lifetime ban. Saying a certain bad phrase, which I shall not elaborate on should someone see fit to prosecute me, can end in a lifetime ban.

     All of this is patently absurd. The idea that a lifetime ban should even be on the table for any of these "crimes" is far more problematic than those acts themselves. Also problematic is that members of our government would condone a system that permanently excludes productive members over trivial matters.

     You may please yourself to ignore me, because I am not a Senator. You may also please yourself to ignore me once I am a Senator. I know it won't make a difference to you.

Christ calm down mate, I'm not going to ingore you. When did I ever say that? Why is there so much hostility towards me? Really what have I done to offend you so deeply?

     I'm hostile towards a dangerous school of thought that you are enabling, if not outright endorsing. I intend no hostility towards yourself.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm not a fan of ultimate punishments and permanent ban of voting and holding office is almost an ultimate punishment in this game, with the only exception one can always be pardoned. Therefore I consider current provisions more like "a lifetime banishment" than "death". Still, I'm not comfortable with such definitive sanctions. This is still a goddamn game.

[Leinad]

This is about game issues, you can't be allowed to completely delete for example the whole government thread and then come back to the game in two years.

Just like with the real death penalty, those in favor of it use the worst-case scenario as a strawman.

To take an example from the realm of real life, I wouldn't spare the life of McVeigh or Tsarnaev because I think they're good people, or don't deserve to die (not that I consider myself in a position to decide who deserves to live or not, but that's not the point of this thread), but because I don't want to give the government the authority to do that.

Excerpt of the bill currently on the Senate floor:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless I missed something in reading and subsequently skimming the thread, that's still in there. Senator Yankee tried to shorten it to 3 years. The fact is that "treason" is loosely defined and highly subject to subjective decisions, and I think that government needs to be as objective as possible.

Here's something Yankee said regarding the bill:

If you want to amend the new text back on this specific deletion issue then fine. But why reverse the whole of my amendment under the cover of keeping Sirnick out when that is but a small portion of the amendment's impacts?

I would also suggest possibly creating a specific sentencing clause for the Sirnick style deletion crime or tacking it onto the treason one.  

Why the heck not? Differentiating between more malicious and more benign "treason" with objective standards is a great idea that the Senate needs to implement in this bill.

No one's saying that serious crimes don't deserve similarly serious punishment. Maybe some people, like Sirnick, do deserve to be banned for an extremely long time. But the text in this bill is wildly dangerous, as Speaker/Senator-Elect PiT points out pretty well, especially in those two paragraphs that Senator Blair conveniently ignored.

[Blair]

Well I don't support making it 3 years, and I believe Yankee tried to make it 2 years. That's simply too short an amount of time, and I don't think we should shoot ourselves  in the foot by capping the maximum sentence. This is nothing to do with a death penalty, since we don't have the power to ban accounts from the forum.

If you want to use real life examples lets look at what happened in 2004 in the UK when the European judges tried to strike down our life sentences that had been put on dangerous criminals for a reason. I'm opposed to Yankee's amendment because 3 years is too short, I'm not in favour of a death penalty-I'm just not going to completely capitulate. As a Senator I voted against the amendment because it handicapped the ability to deal with 'SirNick' style cases, look at this for example

3. The maximum sentence for all Crimes Against Atlasia other than Identity Theft or Electoral Intimidation shall be of two years one year in length.
.

That's why I voted against the amendment.

Sure let's have the debate, but rhetoric isn't going to solve it

[bore]

Let's be clear what's actually happening here, because Yankee doesn't seem to know and his spectacularily over the top sensationalism might be giving people the wrong idea.

Firstly comparing the rules for the game of atlasia to the death penalty shows a complete lack of perspective (Because I sure hope that atlasia is no one's life) an ignorance, intentional or not, of the fact that unlimited pardons are an integral part of the criminal justice system and a conflation of the two types of atlasian law, those about the game and those about the country, which should never be mixed.

Secondly, although I don't blame anyone for not noticing because it's such a convoluted mess, these sentences are almost exactly the same as the current ones, and, as Al pointed out and everyone seemed to ignore, by changing procedural rules they make it far more difficult to secure a conviction. Which begs the question why Yankee has not been so outraged about this before.

Thirdly, there is a massive difference between a maximum sentence and the expected sentence. The maximum sentence only refers to the very worst instances of each crime, so would not be a regular occurence.

Finally, I consider myself a liberal guy, but people who engage in massive voter fraud and intimidation or delete records shouldn't come back. They don't deserve or have the right to play this game. It is a private game on a private website and no one is entitled to return.

[Blair]

Adding to what Bore said, the decision is made by a Judge in the end. Likewise if the Judge makes the 'wrong decision' then the President has the power to issue a pardon. There's clearly checks and balances with this

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I guess we can all agree that SirNick was nothing short of a malicious douche and him ever going back to this game wouldn't be OK. So right, let's keep a "lifetime ban" provision for the most severe cases like his. But I really don't think using a very broad definition of "treason" or "terrorism" is good or fair. Atlasia had experienced many uprisings and a number of us did participate in these rebelions, myself including. But only Snowstalker, of all people, was permanently banned from this game. That was extremely severe, given his "rebelion" wasn't much worse than, let's say, some of Al's adventures, as well as extremely arbitrary, since nothing happened to the others. Now, both Turkisblau and Ebowed are possibly facing a life ban from voting and holding office if convicted for treason. Do we really think they deserve an ultimate punishment in what's just a damn game?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I guess we can all agree that SirNick was nothing short of a malicious douche and him ever going back to this game wouldn't be OK. So right, let's keep a "lifetime ban" provision for the most severe cases like his. But I really don't think using a very broad definition of "treason" or "terrorism" is good or fair. Atlasia had experienced many uprisings and a number of us did participate in these rebelions, myself including. But only Snowstalker, of all people, was permanently banned from this game. That was extremely severe, given his "rebelion" wasn't much worse than, let's say, some of Al's adventures, as well as extremely arbitrary, since nothing happened to the others. Now, both Turkisblau and Ebowed are possibly facing a life ban from voting and holding office if convicted for treason. Do we really think they deserve an ultimate punishment in what's just a damn game?

Hear hear

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Al is prosecuting treason?  I feel like he led serious rebellions every few months for years.

[The Dowager Mod]

Al is prosecuting treason?  I feel like he led serious rebellions every few months for years.

hypocrisy? here? no way!

[Boston Bread]

It's the maximum sentence, so it's not like we need to apply it every time there is treason. I think having an "ultimate punishment" makes the game more exciting if anything.

[Leinad]

I guess we can all agree that SirNick was nothing short of a malicious douche and him ever going back to this game wouldn't be OK. So right, let's keep a "lifetime ban" provision for the most severe cases like his. But I really don't think using a very broad definition of "treason" or "terrorism" is good or fair. Atlasia had experienced many uprisings and a number of us did participate in these rebelions, myself including. But only Snowstalker, of all people, was permanently banned from this game. That was extremely severe, given his "rebelion" wasn't much worse than, let's say, some of Al's adventures, as well as extremely arbitrary, since nothing happened to the others. Now, both Turkisblau and Ebowed are possibly facing a life ban from voting and holding office if convicted for treason. Do we really think they deserve an ultimate punishment in what's just a damn game?

I believe this sums it up, in addition to PiT's first two paragraphs that have still gone unanswered.

I'm opposed to Yankee's amendment because 3 years is too short, I'm not in favour of a death penalty-I'm just not going to completely capitulate. As a Senator I voted against the amendment because it handicapped the ability to deal with 'SirNick' style cases.

Alright, then you should put through an amendment to make objectively more malicious crimes punishable by a longer sentence. Don't you realize Kal's argument, that some people are getting punished arbitrarily fo "rebellions"? It's far too much subjectivity.

Secondly, although I don't blame anyone for not noticing because it's such a convoluted mess, these sentences are almost exactly the same as the current ones, and, as Al pointed out and everyone seemed to ignore, by changing procedural rules they make it far more difficult to secure a conviction. Which begs the question why Yankee has not been so outraged about this before.

Surely, Mr. President, you aren't using a "this should be how it is because it's how it's been" argument? And I suppose Yankee hasn't been outraged about this before because it hasn't come up. Now's his time to get outraged, because it's an issue being discussed. Surely you'll forgive the Senator for not getting outraged about everything all at once?

Thirdly, there is a massive difference between a maximum sentence and the expected sentence. The maximum sentence only refers to the very worst instances of each crime, so would not be a regular occurence.

Very true. That's why we need to make it clear when the maximum sentence should be used by including objectivity in the law, or a judge could very easily issue someone a maximum sentence if they don't like them, or a lower sentence if they do. Subjectivity in government does nothing but open the door for confusion and corruption, and I'd rather we leave that door closed.

Finally, I consider myself a liberal guy, but people who engage in massive voter fraud and intimidation or delete records shouldn't come back. They don't deserve or have the right to play this game. It is a private game on a private website and no one is entitled to return.

Yes, of course, but we need objectivity so that people who do have the right to play the game don't get punished excessively.

Adding to what Bore said, the decision is made by a Judge in the end. Likewise if the Judge makes the 'wrong decision' then the President has the power to issue a pardon. There's clearly checks and balances with this

And you don't think that maybe at some point judge will take advantage of the subjectivity and banish someone for life without much cause, and a president who's similarly corrupt will go along with it?

If the choice is between making the law more clear, fair, and objective or a system where we rely on executive pardons to fix errors in the legal system, I think the answer is obviously the former, for the Senate to make this necessary law better by amending it.

[Blair]

Okay, again I'll take the reins on this.

I believe this sums it up, in addition to PiT's first two paragraphs that have still gone unanswered

 I'd be happy to clear them up

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I wasn't here when the incident happened, if your referring to the civil war and all that stuff that went one. I'll let Al talk about that, but I'm really not in a position to say anything on it since I've got a rather checked idea of it.

And I fundamentally disagree, a lifetime ban should be on the table-both Yankee and Kal to a certain extend argue that there needs to be some sort of measure (although they disagree on what shape it should be) We need a failsafe if someone basically tries to go nuclear on the game, and delete everything. I don't think productivity should be an issue-the law is the law. I'd hope that we don't give preference to more experienced players if they delete records or something.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well it's not as simple as simply putting forward an amendment-I need to make sure it's a workable amendment-I don't want to rush into it, but as I said before I'll always want their to be checks and balances in place for this kind of system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any judge worth their salt would already do that-Judges already do that, and I trust them to do that. I'm not going to be trying to codify something into law that says judges should make balanced decisions because it already exists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 I have faith in the courts of Atlasia to make the right decision. Likewise if Judges do an absolutely awful job if |I recall the Senate has the power to impeach them. And no I honestly don't think so-your using the death penalty arguments against prison sentences if you get me? You argument doesn't make sense to this situation because you seem to assume that we have an out of control judiciary when we quite frankly don't. I'm not asking to rely on the executive-I'm saying that we have the back-up's if the system fails. Again I'm not going to vote for an amendment that I don't support, especially if the amendment is weak on voter fraud and intimation-I'm not voting to cut the punishments for that

A President's who's corrupt? If that's the case let the Senate impeach them, let the votes vote them out of office, let the Justices overrule them? We've got plenty of options and methods to stop an out of control executive branch-look at what's happened in the Pacific as an example of how government checks from the Judicary, people and Federal level manages to promote change.

Even in your worst case scenario, which quite frankly is fear mongering then it's not an issue. If the Justice did use this method to issue a lifetime ban then well A) Public backing would be needed, as we've seen a public thread can have a certain amount of power in Atlasia B) The Senate could impeach the Judge if they've made a clearly personal decision that's unlawful C) The President could issue a Pardon D) The President could be defeated in the next election, new President issues pardon E)

Your seeing this through the wrong lenses, it's not about judical abuse-it's about that ensuring that the Judiciary have the tools they need to protect the game. This argument thread is about a single amendment that failed to pass because it not only weakened the punishment for treason but because it also weakened the punishment for voter fraud and imitation from 1 to 2 years. I'm not going to vote for that

[DemPGH]

Longterm bans from participation need to be on the books, IMO, but not handed down for every instance of effing around. "Death penalty" is an exaggeration at best. "Benched" or "banished" is more like it, and once in a while someone needs it. A person's intent along with their "crimes" need to be considered, and longterm bans should be handed out for only the worst - people who are really trying to create a negative experience. Enough serious people enjoy the basic premise of the game enough that we really should be able to do that.

[Adam Griffin]

I'm more important than everyone

Also ban lifetime sentences IMO

[Leinad]

And I fundamentally disagree, a lifetime ban should be on the table-both Yankee and Kal to a certain extend argue that there needs to be some sort of measure (although they disagree on what shape it should be) We need a failsafe if someone basically tries to go nuclear on the game, and delete everything. I don't think productivity should be an issue-the law is the law. I'd hope that we don't give preference to more experienced players if they delete records or something.

Alright, I suppose I'll concede that life-banishment might be needed for some serious offences. But there needs to be limitations so that only malicious Sirnick-style crimes are eligible to be punished like that. Under the letter of the current law, Turkisblau and Ebowed could get that sentence, which is absurd. Even if the judges are perfect, the law shouldn't allow for things such as that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any judge worth their salt would already do that-Judges already do that, and I trust them to do that. I'm not going to be trying to codify something into law that says judges should make balanced decisions because it already exists.

We shouldn't put more confusion and chance for corruption in the law if we can avoid it. Draw clearer lines so that only Sirnick-style crimes are punished like this. I'm not against punishment or a failsafe for the worst offenders, I'm just in favor of clarity and objectivity in the law, because even a good judge, president, or senator has a hard time not being at least a little subjective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 I have faith in the courts of Atlasia to make the right decision. Likewise if Judges do an absolutely awful job if |I recall the Senate has the power to impeach them. And no I honestly don't think so-your using the death penalty arguments against prison sentences if you get me? You argument doesn't make sense to this situation because you seem to assume that we have an out of control judiciary when we quite frankly don't. I'm not asking to rely on the executive-I'm saying that we have the back-up's if the system fails. Again I'm not going to vote for an amendment that I don't support, especially if the amendment is weak on voter fraud and intimation-I'm not voting to cut the punishments for that

A President's who's corrupt? If that's the case let the Senate impeach them, let the votes vote them out of office, let the Justices overrule them? We've got plenty of options and methods to stop an out of control executive branch-look at what's happened in the Pacific as an example of how government checks from the Judicary, people and Federal level manages to promote change.

Even in your worst case scenario, which quite frankly is fear mongering then it's not an issue. If the Justice did use this method to issue a lifetime ban then well A) Public backing would be needed, as we've seen a public thread can have a certain amount of power in Atlasia B) The Senate could impeach the Judge if they've made a clearly personal decision that's unlawful C) The President could issue a Pardon D) The President could be defeated in the next election, new President issues pardon E)

Your seeing this through the wrong lenses, it's not about judical abuse-it's about that ensuring that the Judiciary have the tools they need to protect the game. This argument thread is about a single amendment that failed to pass because it not only weakened the punishment for treason but because it also weakened the punishment for voter fraud and imitation from 1 to 2 years. I'm not going to vote for that

I'm not saying that we do have an out-of-control judiciary, or that the entire government makes Nixon look like a model of integrity, or even that it's possible for those things to happen. I'm just saying that it's human nature to make decisions that are at least slightly subjective. And even outside of that, it's easier to determine how long a sentence should be if the law specifies the expected sentences for that specific crime, not just broad types like "treason."

It's not that I'm fear-mongering, I just don't see why you shouldn't limit the government as much as possible. Not to make it less effective, or even necessarily smaller, but in fact more effective and more efficient.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I wasn't here when the incident happened, if your referring to the civil war and all that stuff that went one. I'll let Al talk about that, but I'm really not in a position to say anything on it since I've got a rather checked idea of it.

And I fundamentally disagree, a lifetime ban should be on the table-both Yankee and Kal to a certain extend argue that there needs to be some sort of measure (although they disagree on what shape it should be) We need a failsafe if someone basically tries to go nuclear on the game, and delete everything. I don't think productivity should be an issue-the law is the law. I'd hope that we don't give preference to more experienced players if they delete records or something.

     The problem is, you are creating equivalence that I believe should not exist. Something that is highly destructive, like deleting the voting booth, is meritorious of serious punishment. Something that holds little potential for real damage and can be quickly rectified by GM or judicial fiat, such as a region rebelling, should not be cause for such long-term bans. We are talking about excluding productive members for reasons that will be largely forgotten within the month.

     My suggestion would be that we retain a maximum of lifetime ban for treason, but recategorize many of the current actions that fall under the umbrella of treason, so that it only covers genuinely destructive acts that irrevocably damage the enjoyment of the game for others. I don't think we should be in the business of putting people away for every rebellion that comes up.

     Also, reiterating this in a separate paragraph so hopefully this is seen, but the law as written allows for a lifetime ban as result of making a certain statement. The fact that nobody seems to have noticed this is disquieting to me.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

@President Bore

1. You'll forgive the hyperbole, I wanted to get people's attention and this seemed like the most effective way to do it. I am not conflating anything, I am merely drawing attention to the matter of ultimate sentencing as Kal called it and the fact that litteraly no one else is concerned about these matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, If this is meant to be some kind of sick dogwhistle on the issue of my sanity, it is completely transparent bore.

Also, since you mention pardons being such an integral aspect of protecting people becuase obviously it is outrageous for us to limit these sentences? What is the schedule for Snowstalker? The election is over, why not liberal a fellow laborite? Therein lies the point, you could waste away waiting for a sympathetic President to toss a pardon your way. I don't consider it an adequate protection.

2. Yes, a lot of this is current law, hence the need for the underlying bill. Something I have said repeateldy over and over again. I am bringing this up now because we have a bill, before the Seante NOW on these issues. You keep harping on this "Oh this is current law, pass the bill without changes and then fix these matters later. Why when the bill is before us now, should we wait? This bill will be passed, quit getting your panties in a wad over the fate of the underlying bill.

3. Yea, a difference whose application can also be rather arbitrary.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Okay, again I'll take the reins on this.

I believe this sums it up, in addition to PiT's first two paragraphs that have still gone unanswered

 I'd be happy to clear them up

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I wasn't here when the incident happened, if your referring to the civil war and all that stuff that went one. I'll let Al talk about that, but I'm really not in a position to say anything on it since I've got a rather checked idea of it.

In 2010, he posted an ordinance of rebellion and tried to take over the Senate and Atlasian Gov't, declaring it overthrown. He ran amok until he got tired, he was never prosecuted and his buddies buried it under a guise of "it was years ago". I frankly don't know what happeend in Oct either because of my lack of internet access, I do know I find it difficult to differentiate what Turk did and what Al did and then claimed "wasn't him" during that time, but like I said my knowledge of it is limited as to the exact specifics.