LC 10.4 Lincoln Election Law Act Amendment of 2021

[Sirius_]

I suppose it comes down to whether you oppose offsite recruitment in principle or not. If you believe this proposal is faulty because of potential impact to onsite recruits, I agree with you, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement if Councillors believe that offsite recruitment is an acceptable tactic, wherever the source.

The issue is with taking away the rights of people who were legally eligible to vote 1 week before an election. That's honestly an NC GOP level move. You have to give fair warning before making changes to electoral law. Otherwise I have to question the intentions of this bill.

[Sirius_]

I suppose it comes down to whether you oppose offsite recruitment in principle or not. If you believe this proposal is faulty because of potential impact to onsite recruits, I agree with you, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement if Councillors believe that offsite recruitment is an acceptable tactic, wherever the source.

The issue is with taking away the rights of people who were legally eligible to vote 1 week before an election. That's honestly an NC GOP level move. You have to give fair warning before making changes to electoral law. Otherwise I have to question the intentions of this bill.

I wouldn't know the precise intentions of the author, but from my time working with him we have made a distinction between offsite, and onsite recruits. That's the fundamental question here. We're trying to pass a bill to regulate offsite recruitment, I hope. If we get this right, no onsite recruits would be affected.

I continue to call for good faith suggestions to get this proposal right.

The concern with changing election law before the election extends to on-site recruits though. There were a lot of on-site recruits that would be stripped of their vote this election, and a lot of Laborites too. My good faith suggestion is still to move the effective date back to March 1st. I don't know why that was shot down, I thought that was reasonable. Serious question, why did you oppose that? I don't understand.

[Sirius_]

I suppose it comes down to whether you oppose offsite recruitment in principle or not. If you believe this proposal is faulty because of potential impact to onsite recruits, I agree with you, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement if Councillors believe that offsite recruitment is an acceptable tactic, wherever the source.

The issue is with taking away the rights of people who were legally eligible to vote 1 week before an election. That's honestly an NC GOP level move. You have to give fair warning before making changes to electoral law. Otherwise I have to question the intentions of this bill.

I wouldn't know the precise intentions of the author, but from my time working with him we have made a distinction between offsite, and onsite recruits. That's the fundamental question here. We're trying to pass a bill to regulate offsite recruitment, I hope. If we get this right, no onsite recruits would be affected.

I continue to call for good faith suggestions to get this proposal right.

The concern with changing election law before the election extends to on-site recruits though. There were a lot of on-site recruits that would be stripped of their vote this election, and a lot of Laborites too. My good faith suggestion is still to move the effective date back to March 1st. I don't know why that was shot down, I thought that was reasonable. Serious question, why did you oppose that? I don't understand.

Because that would leave us unable to target offsite recruits in this election, which I think is important.   I support this proposal because I think offsite recruits who contribute nothing and who thrive on spam should be curtailed in this election. The partisan identification of these voters means nothing to me.

I want to regulate offsite recruitment in the coming cycle. I am open, as I have said repeatedly, to proposals to make this proposal more efficient and fair, but it's important we think about the effect of offsite recruits on the coming election.

Well there's a fundamental problem in that. There's a difference in regulating these things for future recruitment and taking away the right to vote from people that already had it. I get that you don't like what happened, a lot of people don't, clearly in all parties. But this bill in its current form would strip people of the right to vote who already have that right who have committed no other crime except violating a regulation that didn't exist when they gained their right to vote. I believe that it is wrong to do that. And that it why my proposal to make it more fair is to change the effective date to March 1st.

[Sirius_]

I suppose it comes down to whether you oppose offsite recruitment in principle or not. If you believe this proposal is faulty because of potential impact to onsite recruits, I agree with you, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement if Councillors believe that offsite recruitment is an acceptable tactic, wherever the source.

The issue is with taking away the rights of people who were legally eligible to vote 1 week before an election. That's honestly an NC GOP level move. You have to give fair warning before making changes to electoral law. Otherwise I have to question the intentions of this bill.

I wouldn't know the precise intentions of the author, but from my time working with him we have made a distinction between offsite, and onsite recruits. That's the fundamental question here. We're trying to pass a bill to regulate offsite recruitment, I hope. If we get this right, no onsite recruits would be affected.

I continue to call for good faith suggestions to get this proposal right.

The concern with changing election law before the election extends to on-site recruits though. There were a lot of on-site recruits that would be stripped of their vote this election, and a lot of Laborites too. My good faith suggestion is still to move the effective date back to March 1st. I don't know why that was shot down, I thought that was reasonable. Serious question, why did you oppose that? I don't understand.

Because that would leave us unable to target offsite recruits in this election, which I think is important.   I support this proposal because I think offsite recruits who contribute nothing and who thrive on spam should be curtailed in this election. The partisan identification of these voters means nothing to me.

I want to regulate offsite recruitment in the coming cycle. I am open, as I have said repeatedly, to proposals to make this proposal more efficient and fair, but it's important we think about the effect of offsite recruits on the coming election.

Well there's a fundamental problem in that. There's a difference in regulating these things for future recruitment and taking away the right to vote from people that already had it. I get that you don't like what happened, a lot of people don't, clearly in all parties. But this bill in its current form would strip people of the right to vote who already have that right who have committed no other crime except violating a regulation that didn't exist when they gained their right to vote. I believe that it is wrong to do that. And that it why my proposal to make it more fair is to change the effective date to March 1st.

Well then we disagree on how urgent the need is to regulate offsite recruitment. And that's fine.

Look, if the legal voting age was changed to 21 effective one week before a US election that would be considered a huge violation of rights. Surely you would think that too? If you've read previous comments made by me you would know that I hate the zombie culture. I introduced legislation to increase voting requirements long before any of this started. But acting to remove specific voters from an upcoming election should not be acceptable in anyone's eyes.

[Sirius_]

I suppose it comes down to whether you oppose offsite recruitment in principle or not. If you believe this proposal is faulty because of potential impact to onsite recruits, I agree with you, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement if Councillors believe that offsite recruitment is an acceptable tactic, wherever the source.

The issue is with taking away the rights of people who were legally eligible to vote 1 week before an election. That's honestly an NC GOP level move. You have to give fair warning before making changes to electoral law. Otherwise I have to question the intentions of this bill.

I wouldn't know the precise intentions of the author, but from my time working with him we have made a distinction between offsite, and onsite recruits. That's the fundamental question here. We're trying to pass a bill to regulate offsite recruitment, I hope. If we get this right, no onsite recruits would be affected.

I continue to call for good faith suggestions to get this proposal right.

The concern with changing election law before the election extends to on-site recruits though. There were a lot of on-site recruits that would be stripped of their vote this election, and a lot of Laborites too. My good faith suggestion is still to move the effective date back to March 1st. I don't know why that was shot down, I thought that was reasonable. Serious question, why did you oppose that? I don't understand.

Because that would leave us unable to target offsite recruits in this election, which I think is important.   I support this proposal because I think offsite recruits who contribute nothing and who thrive on spam should be curtailed in this election. The partisan identification of these voters means nothing to me.

I want to regulate offsite recruitment in the coming cycle. I am open, as I have said repeatedly, to proposals to make this proposal more efficient and fair, but it's important we think about the effect of offsite recruits on the coming election.

Well there's a fundamental problem in that. There's a difference in regulating these things for future recruitment and taking away the right to vote from people that already had it. I get that you don't like what happened, a lot of people don't, clearly in all parties. But this bill in its current form would strip people of the right to vote who already have that right who have committed no other crime except violating a regulation that didn't exist when they gained their right to vote. I believe that it is wrong to do that. And that it why my proposal to make it more fair is to change the effective date to March 1st.

Well then we disagree on how urgent the need is to regulate offsite recruitment. And that's fine.

Look, if the legal voting age was changed to 21 effective one week before a US election that would be considered a huge violation of rights. Surely you would think that too? If you've read previous comments made by me you would know that I hate the zombie culture. I introduced legislation to increase voting requirements long before any of this started. But acting to remove specific voters from an upcoming election should not be acceptable in anyone's eyes.

This isn't really comparable. Unless these 18-20 year olds had been airdropped from Mars right before the election.

I know from your comments elsewhere that you aren't opposed to offsite recruitment as a strategy, and if that's your position we simply disagree. I will be entirely open to further amendments to improve this proposal and I will continue to manage the business of the Council.

It is not a black/white disagreement man. Its gone too far. I've reflected on the past month or so, I've seen how Atlasia has gotten out of hand. And I became charged by partisanship in a way that I don't like to admit. But I have to. My original position was that I believed it was OK for people to come from off-site if they wanted to contribute to the game. That got twisted by partisanship. I want to curb this, I want a smaller game. It just isn't fair to do something that alters the voting demographics one week before the election happens. We still have time to curb the problem before it gets too bad without doing that.

[Sirius_]

I only had ever had 2 that could be said to be "under my command" or whatever, but they did not register.