Talk Elections

Sponsor: AHDuke99

This is unnecessary.

This is a long overdue if we are to refuse deregistration.

We already have enough stickied threads...

Look, No-PM list is just a substitute for clear deregistration process. I support deregistration, but won't support such substitute.

De-registration will never get through because it proves a huge headache. This is a substitute, no doubt, but it's probably the best we can get. Right now, missing 2 or however many elections gets you removed from the rolls, which seems to be the system that will remain in place for a while.

All right, Duke, if this is passed, I withdraw my deregistration project. But if, somehow, your bill fails, I'm going to try mine.

I still don't see what's wrong with deregistration. IIRC it only got complicated when the RG was required to put requests on "hold" and the like when the Senate overcomplicated the proposal.

Just allow deregistration, posted in the registration thread, and require a short cooling off period (10-15 days) before someone can reregister.

A no PM list just seems overkill for a small universe as ours. If you're a registered Atlasia voter, just expect a PM or 3 a couple times a year around election time and ignore/delete them as you wish (or once eventually allowed, just deregister and quit).

My only concern is people can be so fickle about things. They quit on impulse and come back and quit again. I just see deregistration as a headache for everyone involved. I do not understand why getting a PM every once and a while about voting is so intrusive, but if it is just put your name on the list and hope people read it. We can do that. We're just creating a mess for everyone if we allow people to quit cold turkey whenever they feel like it. Is it just me? I think the RG feels the same way even if he hates my bill.

I disagree with the bill because it:

1) Unnecessarily creates more "work" for the RG
2) We don't really have the power to regulate PMs, and there isn't even a punishment for disobeying it anyway. And how could we prove it if there was?
3) No more stickied threads please.
4) If people ask me to quit PMing them, I do. We shouldn't need a law to mandate common courtesy.

Um, I disagree, bgwah. It's more like creating a list of people who don't want to get involved anymore and are just waiting to be removed, without being bothered.

I was favorable till I saw the part about a "stickied" thread.


How about require the SoFE maintain it as part of Post #1 of his office thread?

We can amend it for that. Stickying it isn't a priority. :P

I'm against this bill. I really don't see the point. If you PM someone and they tell you not to PM them again, then don't. It's really not that difficult. And for the people whining about receiving PM's, no one is forcing you to read them.

Very reasonable.

We could still run into the problem of multiple people messaging someone who doesn't want to be messaged, not knowing they don't. This would solve that problem as there would be a public list available.

I agree and support Yank's potential amendment on putting this as part of another thread. No more stickies for now, please :)

Then I hope you don't support deregistration... :P


It's not about punishment. It's about providing information to people so they'll know who doesn't want to be bothered. If they choose to do it anyway, people like JJ can't cause a huge outburst again about us not having any system in place.


Fair enough. We can work on Yankee's proposal.


Just because you do is irrelevant. Some people prefer not to have to keep telling people that election after election, and not everyone keeps detailed notes.

Why don't you just have the RG list "Do Not PM" under the "Additional Info" section, instead of a superfluous post?

This is a good idea.

I'd like to offer an Amendment :


Do Not PM List Act

1. Any Atlasian explicitly asking for in the Census Bureau thread shall be registered by the Registrar General in a "Do not PM list".

2. The "Do not PM list" shall be visible in one of the opening posts of the Census Bureau thread.

3. Any Atlasian wishing to campaing through PMs is requested to read the "Do not PM list" before doing.

Very good amendment.

If you're going to make a law, at least make a punishment for not following the law.

There is cause for a law short of punishments, though the point is valid as to "you might as well go ahead while we are at it". 


However, I think the primary purpose is to ensure its maintained and visible in the future and not necessarily for enforcement. I think we should wait and deal with an enforcement issue later if the need shall arise, but refrain from such at the present.

Well, the whole point is not that "PM-ing these people is a crime", but rather "those people are not interested in Atlasia, and they are confirming, they don't want to be bothered".

Beside, how on earth are you going to prove PM-ing? Quotes? It's not impossible to forge a PM.

Exactly the reason this bill is a waste of time.

We're essentially passing a bill saying "We shouldn't bother people." It's common sense and not legislation worthy.

You totally miss the point of this law. We don't want to force people not to send PMs, what we want is that people know better who to PM and who not to PM.

Besides that, someone who PMs someone despite knowing he is in the no-PM list would be a total moron, as it's evident that he won't be able to convince him.

So, sponsor, do you accept my Amendment or not ?

Senator Duke?

I ACCEPT

Senators have 24 hours to object to the amendment and request a recorded vote.

I will do that.

Where would citizens go to ask to be on this list?

Census Bureau thread.

It's written clearly.

LOL Rowan. It looks like you only job in the Senate is to object to every Amendment just for the sake of complicating everything.

I'm endorsing Jake Matthews next time :P

No, the first sentence will need to be rewritten to be more clear grammatically, but I see now what was meant.

It could read:

1. Any Atlasian who makes an explicit request in the Census Bureau thread to be placed on a "Do not PM list" will be registered in such a list by the Registrar General.

When I objected to the amendment for the Feline bill, it ended up being voted down. If I had not spoken up, we would have passed an amendment that did not have majority support.

It was going to be further amended by Duke's amendment either way. Your "objection" ultimately didn't do anything.

...besides uselessly slowing the process.

Why the need to rush things?

Why the need to oppose everything just for the sake of "not rushing things" ?

I called for a vote for two things, relax. It's not the end of the world.

I have a strange feeling Rowan is going to object everything he can just to piss us off.

A final vote is now open on Senate Amendement 1 to the Do Not PM List Act. Senators, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Nay

And if this passes I would like to amend part three to fix the spelling error.

nay

yea

Well, after some thought, I see some unclearities here.

Nay.

*facepalm*

Aye

Aye

Nay

Senator Rowan, you have already voted. Do you know what happens when a Senator tries to vote twice? >:D

()

Do I win a prize?

The vote is currently tied
Ayes (3): Antonio, NC Yankee, Shua
Nays (3): bgwah, Kalwejt and RowanBrandon



Abstain (4): Duke the Happy Oak Guy.

I'm desperately trying to understand the "nay" votes.

aye

The amendment has been passed since the 20th. :P

Does that mean it's too late to change my vote?

I've been thinking I really like people able to go right to the census bureau and see quickly what the latest census numbers are. I'm afraid if people are posting DNPM in the census thread, the actual census data is going to be less accessible.  Maybe we could change it to the new register thread. I'm generally wondering how many people are going to be using this option, because that would make a difference in how the forum is impacted by it.

Good.

shua, I don't think you can. Senators have 24 hours to change their vote.

I will note that my following of the rules regarding amendment votes has been more then lax. In fact the 24 hour thing may not even actually exist for amendments. :P

I would like to amend the bill to read:

Do Not PM List Act

1.  Any Atlasian who makes an explicit request in the New Register Thread to be placed on a "Do not PM list" will be registered in such a list by the Registrar General.

2. The "Do not PM list" shall be visible in one of the opening posts of the Census Bureau thread.

3. Any Atlasian wishing to campaing through PMs is requested to read the "Do not PM list" before doing so.

Does the sponsor see the amendment as friendly or hostile?

Wow. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I think I proposed this 5 or 6 years ago.

We have actually had one since December by administrative fiat. :P This is to firmly establish it and ensure it gets maintained and has a stronger process.


SPONSOR????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Motion to table!

A motion to table has been entered. These things should require a second. :P


A vote is now open on the said motion. Senators have 48 hours to vote with 2/3rds voting in the affirmative for the bill to be tabled.

---

Nay

aye

Not sure if this would change any minds, but I plan to stick to my campaign promise that I would sign a deregistration law if it came across my desk.

Abstain.

Aye

I change my vote to aye.

what is the reason for tabling this?

It's a bad bill and the sponsor doesn't seem to care about it.

Aye to table.

this issue is going to keep coming up again until we find a solution so

nay

Yeah, okay, we'll sort something out eventually. Aye to table.

What the hell ? ???

Nay

Vote on tabling of the Do Not PM List Bill:

Ayes (5): bgwah, Kalwejt, Oakvale, RowanBrandon Snowguy
Nays (3): Antonio V, NC Yankee, Shua
Abstain (0):


Didn't vote (2): Duke's Happy feet


With 2/3rd's of the Senate, duly choosen and sworn, having not voted in the affirmative the motion to table IS NOT adopted.

I have sent private communiques to the sponsor requesting an answer regarding the amendment.

nayyyy

Vote is long over, Duke. :P The rules call for a strict 48 hours.


Now do you accept the amendment (a page or two back thanks to bgwah's shannigans) as friendly or hostile?

Sorry. I've been tied up recently with some things pertaining to the girlfriend. I accept his amendment, if only I could find it. That said, he's being hostile and this is the last time I'll accept anything from him.

??? what did I do to you?

Bgwah....not you. I'm kidding around. :p

I really don't see the point of this. What was wrong with deregistration exactly? I feel like someone said it was a bad idea and overnight everyone changed their minds on it and we all moved on without any argument. This is certainly not a decent substitute. If someone really doesn't want to be involved in Atlasia again are they really going to have a breakdown if PM'ed once or twice before they fall off the rolls? Bgwah's objections to this thing are on the money.

our RG said if we passed a deregistration bill he would resign. the problem as I understand it is that it is supposed to be impossible to keep track of changes in status that occurred before a person was deregistered when the person decided to register again, so you could have people deregistering and then registering again so that they could change regions or escape penalties. however I do not know if actually this problem is insurmountable or not.

Good Lord almighty, that is what halted a deregistration bill? Just write around that requiring a cooldown period before reregistration, or make all current restrictions continue to apply regardless of registration status. Why wouldn't they? There's only one legal hiccup I see and it can easily be argued around.

And to be frank, though I love Hans, if you have an official who refuses to actually do what is asked of him because he just doesn't feel like doing it, you get a new official. There's honestly not that much work to the RG position to begin with. I know it's not "nice" but it gets the job done.

This current bill lacks any point unless you put some force into it. As in "if anyone on the do-not-PM list receives a PM with the intent to sway the individual to vote or vote for a specific candidate, the sender shall be banned from voting in said election" or something. Otherwise this is just make-work that has no teeth.

I'm actually having to agree with Marokai here. We're creating a list of people who don't want to be bothered. Yet there is no sort of enforcement to make sure those people are bothered. All this piece of legislation does is ask Atlasians not to message those people. Consequences? Nada.

As I stated in my campaign and earlier in this thread, I'd welcome deregistration, as long as there is a short waiting period before the deregistration take effect, as well as a "punishment" of waiting an allotted amount of time before you can re-enter.

The problem with that is that I doubt you'll get many people on your side since that could potentially hurt PMing GOTV efforts. :P Though yes, if this is going to be done, that's the only way to make it worthwhile.

also there would need to be a seperate deregistered list. it might actually have been specific aspects of Kalwejt's bill that Hans objected to.

looking back at the deregistration bill that Fritz vetoed I was wondering, bgwah, what made you change your mind about the DNPM idea?

To end the perpetual confusion machine, this is the amendment to which I was inquiring about its reception from the underlying bill's sponsor.

Senators have 24 hours to object and request a vote.

You insult the professional machine party politicians. I don't know about what RPP candidates have done, but I have always been sure to avoid pming those on the official PM list and I always handle the official RPP GOTV machine.

One more thing to note is that this and the Deregistration nonesense are not a one or the other deal, folks. :P

For the record, I would also prefer deregistration by far.

Do we really want Hans to retire? I think that's the real question here. A vote for deregistration is a vote against Hans.

With all my respect for Hans, one Atlasian, even such great as Hans, can't held us a hostage.

I suppose no love for the idea of having "Do Not PM" under "Additional Info"...?

If people are combing the voter rolls to find voters it's rather inconceivable that would be missed. There's no need to create a whole separate post and further clutter the Census Bureau.

The dye is cast.

There's nothing in the bill right now that specifies exactly how it would be done, just that it is in one of the opening posts, so if the RG wants to do it that way they can.

Alright. Can a Senator sponsor something along these lines, then? (as an amendment)

What does it exactly change to the current bill ?

There is no superfluous "extra post" for the "Do Not PM List."

I don't know that it would even be possible to insert an extra post at the beginning of the thread, and this legislation as it stands wouldn't require that. however, in order to make it more specific I'll put forward this as an amendment:

The bill doesn't mandate for an extra post.

Yes, there is not such mandated post in the current text. Just that it be posted in his first post. It can include anything else in that post at his discretion.

I sure would love to know what our friends in the Populares are using. I am pretty sure it is "more then the occasional beer here".

His first post is A-J on the voter rolls though. Would a do not PM list and A-J fit in that post?

I added a few words to the amendment I was proposing.

This has been passed since the first and is thus the current text. Atleast I think so. I think the Registrar should be given some latitude as to where and how exactly it is placed, just so long as he is in fact mandated to place it somewhere in the open.

Sponsor, how do ye receive the amendment from Shua?

This Amendment is, as I said, unnecessary.

Let's vote on it. I'm not sure its necessary either.

Senators a vote is now occuring on the following amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

---

Nay

Aye

Nay.

nay

Nay

I haven't got any massive objection to the amendment, but I doubt it's really necessary. *shrug*

Nay.

Nay

Nay

Vote on amendment 13 to the Do Not PM List Act


Aye (1): Shua
Nays (7): AHDuke99, Antonio V, bgwah, Kalwejt, Oakvale, NC Yankee, and Snowguy716
Abstain (0):

Failed to vote (2): HappyWarrior and RowanBrandon

The amendment has failed.


Final passage tonight.

:D

This bill is now at final vote, please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain.

---

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

Heh... aye.

Deregistration would be much better but I'm relucant to make Duke sad by voting nay :P

Nope

:D

It's not the best solution, but I prefer it to the status quo. Aye.

Beside, bgwah was mean to me.

Nay! This seems like a pretty clear violation of freedom of speech.

Nay.  As if getting a PM now and then is really going to kill you.

This bill has enough votes to pass, Senators have 24 hours change their votes.

Vote on Final Passage of the "Do Not PM List" Act.

Aye (6): AHDuke99, Antonio V, Kalwejt, NC Yankee, Oakvale, and Shua
Nay (3): bgwah, RowanBrandon, and Snowguy
Abstain (0):


Didn't Vote (1): HappyWarrior


This bill has passed and is presented to the President for his signature or veto. 

Meh. This has no teeth and subsequently is entirely useless. This is really the only alternative we have to formalized deregistration? The "We Would Appreciate it if You Don't PM These People" list?

X President Tmthforu94

Not an enthusiastic signing, though, and I seriously considered vetoeing it. I don't see this act being extremely successful, but it's a step up from what we have now.

I'm disappointed that the president signed this needless legislation.

I doubt this assault on freedom of speech could hold up in court anyway.

Then sue, I am sure Spade and the boys would love you for it. For about 10 seconds. :P

"assault on freedom of speech" ? LOL... ::)

Oh I don't think I'd go that far. It's probably the fact that there's no teeth to this at all that it would hold up in court since there's no actual penalty.

Although, I think even if it had a penalty, you could lump it in to election-related political advertising bans that already exists in the voting booth specifically. If one argued that a PM-ban is unconstitutional because it infringes on free speech, you're just a hop skip and jump away from saying that bans on political campaigning in the voting booth are also unconstitutional.

Then again, the law is as the Justices make it. It's really all up to whatever Opebo and Ebowed decide.

Well, the bill have no teeths anyway.

I honestly don't see how you can imagine to penalize a PM, which in theory shouldn't even made public. What could constitute a "proof" of infraction ? One can always put up a fake PM and pretend he has been "illegally PMed". No, that definitely makes no sense. Especially because, provided that campaigners acknowledge the no-PM-list, they would have no reason to PM those people, who probably will not even vote.