Talk Elections

Sponsor: NC Yankee for a Constituent

This was requested by a constituent who requested to remain secret at the time. I personally find it a bit excessive, but the motivation is obviously to cut down on the irrelevant posting in the registration thread.

Would the Senators be interested in this in an altered form?

I wont sign this attack on free speech in any form. Sorry.

Yeah, I won't be voting for anything like this.

The clutter from spam in the thread in question is getting irritating - especially since posters took to ignoring repeated instructions to send their messages via PM. I will support this legislation but only if the punishment is toned down considerably or, perhaps as a better alternative, any of the inappropriate new posts placed in the registration thread would be subject to immediate deletion by someone with the ability to do so.

It would have to be Gustaf and he might object to his role as MG being expanded.

Could another person be given moderating powers provided they use them in no other threads?

I thought I'd just pop in to say I support this bill. Imagine the following, you are sitting in your office and trying to process through your paperwork, but a crap load of it is just random notes saying "Hello!" or "Welcome!" making your job tougher.

This is not attacking free speech but simply making Homely's job easier. They can still welcome them, but not in that thread. Homely himself has asked people to welcome them somewhere else, only for the EXACT SAME PEOPLE to ignore his requests and do it again. And the then Homely kindly repeats his request, and then the same people ignore him again. This is not attacking free speech as no one is entitled to what equated to written terrorism of the the Register General's office.

Amendment:

No, that is simply not possible under the software and only Dave can create new Moderators. And well he see he prefers not to have to bother with this forum much, and we prefer it that way and thus prefer not bother him to bother with it, if possible. In summary, it would be too much of a bother. :P

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

I support this and also the amendment proposed by Scott. Sure, this could be construed as an attack on free speech but I am looking at it practically. Homely has a pretty tough job and we should try and make it easier for him. Anyone who wants to welcome people, or argue, can use the other thread and let Homely do his job efficiently. Also maybe we should give have a grace period where we educate the populace or give everyone a waiver for their first couple of violations. Many people don't pay attention to the Senate and they might not know this law was passed.

If it makes it any better, I PMed Gustaf to ask him to unsticky my and 20RP12's threads.

If the punishments are lowered significantly I could potentially support this.... but denying some one the right to vote for any amount of time is too heavy handed for this

It'd be a sad day if this bill were passed or signed into law. We can't seriously be debating barring players from holding office and voting when our activity levels are at historic lows. The Midwest is suffering through an activity-crisis, the Pacific is still struggling and we're debating whether or not we should be punishing players for being kind? I get that it's irritating and clutters up the threads, but this cannot be the response to it. There's got to be a different way to approach this issue.

A couple things:
1. The penalties are way too drastic. I'm surprised anyone could actually support it in its original form, considering how it much it could hinder activity.
2. Welcoming folks to the game is the first step to getting them to stay active. While I'd agree that having 20 empty quotes welcoming one person to the game is ridiculous, if one or two folks welcome someone, I don't see the harm in that.
3. This is an attack on free speech, threatening to punish someone for welcoming another person to the game.
4. Even if you don't like the first three points, this shouldn't be passed unless MG Gustaf comments on it.

Perhaps we should just remove the penalties and make this bill a condemnation of posting greetings in the New Register Thread?  I know that's probably not what the author of this bill had intended for, but I agree that the penalties in this bill are a little too harsh.  A "welcome wagon" thread should suffice.


It doesn't necessarily have to be stickied.

The punishment for violating this act is probably a bit too severe, but we should at least condemn the act of cluttering the "New Register Thread". There were people in that thread who flat out ignored homely's and other people's repeated request not to post "Hi, welcome to the game" messages anymore. First of all, the same rules apply to everyone. Secondly, this was disrespectful towards homely, who is doing a great job both as Registrar General and election administrator, and we should make sure that this doesn't occur in the future anymore as long as homely or any other future RG does not want such messages to be posted.

Keep in mind that such penalties are used to discourage sock voting and other activites that are barred by Atlasia law.


What punishments would be more agreeable?

The amendment has passed.




Technically I am the author because I wrote the text out and even the title is my creation, but the terms were dictated to me. I personally wouldn't have a problem turning this into a Resolution of condmentation, but I would have to consult with the constituent as to whether I could accept it as friendly or not, since the terms are of his desire currently.

Yes, but there's a difference between someone from sock voting or holding multiples offices with socks than barring someone from voting and holding office simply because they said 'welcome :)' or something along those lines. Like I said, I understand it clutters up the thread, but we can't be discouraging activity at a time like this.

The goal of the bill shouldn't be to actually to catch people doing this and punishing them, but rather discouraging the behavior. Perhaps the penalties are too severe but what is the alternative? If it's just an admonition, I don't think it is going to work because these same people ignored Homely's request. People just need to learn to be more respectful and understand the tough and thankless job Homely has and if he asks you to make his job a little easier, you damn well better do it.

My silent constitutent has given us quite some latitude, including even turning this into a resolution if necessary with no penalties.

Another esteemed constituent of mine has requested that whatever we do for punishments, that we extend it to include the Declaration Thread, also.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

Due note that we aren't addressing the punishment issue with this, just expanding it to include the Candidate Declaration thread. So please only object, if you oppose that expansion.

The amendment from yesterday adding the Candidate declaration thread has passed.

So is there consensus on a reduced penalty act? If not, then I will offer the text changing this is into a resolution as a amendment when I come on tomorrow.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

I can support the amended resolution.

The amendment has passed.


Senators this is now at final vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Nay.

Nay


I understand that greetings in the registration thread may seem to constitute clutter and may make Homely's job a little bit more difficult. He certainly has the power to ask that we refrain from posting such comments.

But I'm of the mind that those greetings have more positives than negatives. I think it would be a bit of an overreach to condemn behaviour that could be construed as positive. It shouldn't be our job to deal with issues like this one.

That being said, I respect Homely and will not be posting in his registration thread unless I have to. You'll notice that most people seem to be following his request anyway. I urge others to do the same.

Nay

Aye

Nay

Aye

Could we get some more votes here. It is 3-4, with 3 not voting.

Don't Make Me Come Over There!!! ;)

Aye

We need either NVTownsend to brake this tie one way or the other, or we wait till the 22nd and have Nathan do the honors.

This will run out of time soon. I may not be on to end it at that time though. It will need a VP tie breaker unless NVTownsend votes before then.

This is such a silly thing to pass. We really need another stickied thread that people will barely use on the general Atlasia board? Really guys?

The senate needs The People back. Desperately.

Vote on Final Passage of the Shut Yo Face Resolution:

Aye (5): Bacon King, NC Yankee, NVTownsend, sbane and Scott
Nay (4): Ben, HagridoftheDeep, Marokai Blue and Redalgo
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Clarence (was still Senator at the time it started)

With time having expired, the Shut Yo Face Resolution has passed the Senate.

What a weird set of vote combinations up there. :P

My silent constituent is very pleased. >:D

Only on the No side - a conservative, a moderate, a liberal, and a socialist lunatic.

We should see if there's a way to set the Atlas Election Board to where when you click on it, it automatically goes to the second page. Because at the rate we're going, that's where you going to have to go to see any unstickied threads. ;)

This bill has no power, and I find it pretty useless. Ever since Homely brought the hammer down in the NRT, there have been almost no "extra" posts in it. I don't see the purpose in this.

VETO

:D  Hooray!

Actually, I take that veto back after re-reading the text. It says "recommend", so it is a resolution and not a bill. That is what I get for trusting Marokai's post. :P

Still, my administration will not pursue these recommendations.

I didn't expect the vote to carry over to another page. :P

Well the Ayes are almost all Liberal party members, on something opposed by a President of their party. I would say it is a weird result all around. :P

I oppose the creation of a formal welcome thread, but I don't oppose the sentiment expressed. I had opposed the penalties however. This isn't a very big deal to me.

Shame this isn't veto-able. I was really happy with Napoleon for a post. :P


Which one am I? >:(

The liberal, good sir.

On second thought, this is within my power to veto, and is hereby vetoed.

Wait, so if the President can veto resolutions, does that mean none of the Senate committees should basically exist because the resolutions that created them were never signed into law? ???

No because those are specific to the rules of the Senate.

The Constitution states that in order for the Resolution to become law, it had to be signed by the President. So if a piece of this resolution contained something seeking to be entered as a law, then the whole thing would need his signature. However, this entire resolution merely states recommendations by the legislative branch, and doesn't seek to become law, therefore it wasn't transmitted to the President for that reason.

I guess if the the Constitution says he can veto, he can, but it has no practical affect at all because you can't stop a bill from becoming law, unless it was aimed at becoming so in the first place.

Yeah I don't think it really matters either way at this point- I think the clear opinion among Atlasians is that a welcome thread would be unnecessary and redundant.

I am not to favorable to having another stickied thread either, but I was willing to bend certainly for the overall thing to pass, which is what the constituent was most concerned about.