SB 2016-024: Bugger Off Act of 2016 (Failed)

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Scott

72 hours for debate.

[tmthforu94]

My thought: either put some teeth into the bill (invalidate the vote of anyone who sends a PM to someone on this list) or don't have it at all. We tried having a "Do Not PM" list in the past and it was repealed soon after because there was no consequence for sending PMs.

Personally, I think it is undemocratic to invalidate the vote of someone who is simply urging others to vote. This is largely an elections simulation - if you don't want PMs, either vote early or don't be involved in the game. It's just part of the nature of the game. I'm fine with bringing back deregistration, but I can't support this legislation.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I drafted this bill in response to demands made by the Harambe Freedom Party, one of its key tenets being the reintroduction of a "Do Not PM" list.  I don't necessarily believe that there ought to be a penalty for mere campaigning, but respecting the wishes of those who don't want to be harassed every two months should be common courtesy, and a freely available database of those people would save time and inbox space for them as well as candidates determining which voters to appeal to.

[tmthforu94]

I understand what you're saying, but as I said before, what is the point of doing this if it has no teeth? Let them make it known that they don't want to be PMed and hope that people respect that, but if we're not going to have consequences, I don't see the point of spending congressional time on putting this in the statue.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I understand what you're saying, but as I said before, what is the point of doing this if it has no teeth? Let them make it known that they don't want to be PMed and hope that people respect that, but if we're not going to have consequences, I don't see the point of spending congressional time on putting this in the statue.

The point is just to inform.  I assume that most people who do GOTV operations (as I have) use the Census list to look for voters.  Even putting an asterisk next to people on that list who don't want to be contacted would be sufficient.  Would you support that?

[Blair]

I'm leaning to support this, but have the concern that it would reduce the amount of campaigning. I know people often complain of GOTV type campaigns with mass PM's but by doing this you could have a group of voters cut themselves off from campaigns, but still get contacted by friends and allies.

I mean if I saw someone I'd been on good terms with in Atlasia, served with, contacted before etc you'd still be likely to send them a PM saying 'I've known you for x amount, can you help me out'?

[tmthforu94]

Blair brings up another good point. The people who would hypothetically sign up for this list are old-timers. That puts old-timers in the game, like myself, at an unfair advantage because we're going to have personal connections with some of these people and will be able to send them a quick "Will ya help me out?" PM to them and not have to worry about getting publicly shamed for PMing someone on the "Do Not PM List" (because as it stands, the only consequence to breaking this law is public humiliation). Cuts off newer members who may be running excited campaigns and want to share their ideas with voters. While campaign threads are great, not all voters read through them, and getting PMs from multiple sides allows them to hear from different points before casting a vote, rather than just helping out a friend.

[Blair]

I'd like to hear what other people outside the Senate think about this (I'll open a thread) because I'm always happy to receive PM's about voting- even if I know I'm not going to vote that way

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I just want to reiterate that penalizing or shaming people is not the aim of this bill, it's only to make people think twice before they send out potentially unwanted campaign messages.  There are already people who've indicated that they would not like to receive these messages.

[Blair]

I just want to reiterate that penalizing or shaming people is not the aim of this bill, it's only to make people think twice before they send out potentially unwanted campaign messages.  There are already people who've indicated that they would not like to receive these messages.

In that case I'm happy to support it; it seems better than nothing

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

Again, I reiterate, what is the point of mandating something if we are not going to enforce it? The government is here to make laws, not suggestions. I would be curious to hear input from other senators/Atlasians on this.

[Senator Cris]

The goal of the bill is to reduce the number of not desiderated PMs from candidates during campaigns. This might be a good idea. But at the same time, Tmthforu makes a good point. What's the point of having this if there isn't a sanction or something if this is not respected?

Also... let's suppose that there are two candidates (Candidate A and Candidate B). Candidate A respects this bill and doesn't contact those with the asterisk on the voters list. Candidate B doesn't respect the bill and contacts those with the asterisk on the list, so these voters, even if they wanted to be part of the Do Not PM list, can still hear what Candidate B has to say and might be led to vote for him over Candidate A.

[tmthforu94]

^^^Another solid repercussion to this bill, in addition to the fact that it gives candidates who have been around longer another edge over those with less experience.

[Prince of Salem]

I concur with what Tmth says. If there's no enforcement for this bill, there's no point. Plus, the edge that it would give to old-timers over new people isn't convenient either.

[Blair]

but let's not pretend that this doesn't already exist Senators.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The goal of the bill is to reduce the number of not desiderated PMs from candidates during campaigns. This might be a good idea. But at the same time, Tmthforu makes a good point. What's the point of having this if there isn't a sanction or something if this is not respected?

Also... let's suppose that there are two candidates (Candidate A and Candidate B). Candidate A respects this bill and doesn't contact those with the asterisk on the voters list. Candidate B doesn't respect the bill and contacts those with the asterisk on the list, so these voters, even if they wanted to be part of the Do Not PM list, can still hear what Candidate B has to say and might be led to vote for him over Candidate A.

I don't see how voters would be won over by people who contacted them when they specifically requested not to be contacted.

Once again, the purpose of the list is to inform people.  Why should we tell all the people who ask not to be PMed that their wishes don't matter?

[tmthforu94]

I considered writing an amendment creating a consequence just so the Senate would be able to vote on it, but it's so hard to even prove that someone did it considering you can't post personal message on the board. The only way you could actually create a consequence would be if the person admitted to doing it...

I've already made my arguments and nothing has really been said to alleviate my concerns with this bill. This has been on the floor for over a week. Unless there are any amendments, I will plan to open a final vote tomorrow on this bill.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'd like to request some additional debate time in case a representative for the Harambe Freedom Party would like to speak on behalf of this bill.

[Leinad]

I'll need convincing to sign this.

Everyone in Atlasia joined because they want to play in an elections game, correct? Or is there some ulterior motive why some people are here? I'll give the members of the Harambe Freedom Party the benefit of the doubt and assume that, indeed, everyone who has joined this elections game wants to play in an elections game.

Now, wouldn't one presume that, in an elections game, some people run in elections? And since not everyone reads the boards every day like all of us federally elected officeholders no doubt do, that many infrequent players may not know he difference between a "Peebs," a "Santander," and a "dfwlibertylover?" While I love campaign threads and am not a fan of campaigns without one, PMs are the best way to tell inactive Atlasians who you are, what you think about the issues, and what you want to do if you win, and thus level the playing field between new players and established ones.

So, basically, why would anyone remain in Atlasia if they get so bothered by a few PMs every month or two?

[tmthforu94]

Senators, this bill is now at a final vote. Please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.


Nay

I understand the reasoning behind this bill, but I think the negatives raised by President Leinad, Senator Cris and myself far outweigh the positives of this bill.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Jesus wept.

Aye.

[Prince of Salem]

Nay

[Pingvin]

Abstain

[Blair]

Aye