For me, the sole issue that has merit in BK's case is that of the right to vote and of the definition of campaigning. As I said above, the right to ban campaigning should be constitutional and a lack of prior enforcement shouldn't necessarily preclude its use here.
When looking at just that issue my question is "Was the SoFE justified in calling the activity of the voters campaigning?" Rpryor actually got the question exactly right: "could those votes reasonably be construed as a direct attempt to influence how future voters cast their ballot."
I'm assuming you mean his constitutional argument had merit but you disagreed nonetheless, if so:
How is anti-campaigning ban constitutional? I agree in principle that campaigning shouldn't be allowed there, but just because you or I think it ought to be that way doesn't mean it's constitutional.
That amendment's exception(s) seem worded entirely to prevent new accounts from voting while leaving open the option to introduce new
activity requirements, such as a user doing a couple things just to show they are invested in Atlasia, or whatever. The amendment as a whole absolutely does
not suggest that you can just call anything activity and then regulate it. That's practically a backdoor, Dereich. You can then use that part at the end about 'activity' to describe just about
anything a person does in Atlasia. What if someone decides a new 'activity' requirement is that all voters in the South must post a picture of their DL
(or write out their info), otherwise they can't vote. Or if a new activity regulation saying if people posted good things about Labor, they can't vote. If you're interpreting that last line to allow a banning on what BRTD/Hash did, then I don't see how you can reasonably say what I just suggested would not be allowed. Your interpretation is casting a wide net, and since it's so ambiguous here, it would allow those things under your interpretation, as they are not fundamentally different at all.
I think the amendment really needs to be re-worded. Right now, depending on what the interpretation of the Supreme Court is, it can be used to effectively invalidate the entire spirit of the amendment, save for the new account hours. Regardless of the SC interpretation, a new court can reverse that and thus this amendment needs a fix posthaste.
