SR 110-07: The Don't Violate the Terms of Service Amendment (Failed)

[Mr. Reactionary]

This seems unnecessary.

[Mr. Reactionary]

If we are going to fix a cutoff date, it should be prospective not retrospective. January 1, 2023 would be more appropriate. I object to retroactively going back to January 1, 2022 but I will withdraw my objection if the date in the amendment is January 1, 2023.

[Mr. Reactionary]

If we are going to fix a cutoff date, it should be prospective not retrospective. January 1, 2023 would be more appropriate. I object to retroactively going back to January 1, 2022 but I will withdraw my objection if the date in the amendment is January 1, 2023.

I don't see the need to go through waiting another few months, Mr. R. I'd be pleased to set the date at June 1, 2022 if you would support that.

But the goal should be to avoid ex post facto situations. How about instead of a calendar date we say something like any law passed after the ratification of the amendment. That means once 2 regions ratify it would take effect immediately but not violate ex post facto. I think thats fair.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I get the ex post facto problem and agree with it from a purely philosophical point of view but in view of the gentleman from Hawaii's original motivation for the bill which, if I recall previous convos correctly, was in response to bills that were proposed fairly recently, I think the cutoff of June 1 is fine if we have to settle for retroactive enforcement.

Anyhow, the PPT or Deputy should be informed that the objection is still on the floor.

There were 2 southern laws in question that were modded. Weve addressed 1 in a subsequent bill and have a pending bill that repeals the 2nd. It will be a dead issue in a week or so, so Im against arbitrarily declaring that like a hundred existing laws could hypothetically still be cancelled based on unforeseen partisan chicanery. There is no legitimate reason in my mind to make this retroactive even a day other than to target the South ex post facto and encourage false reporting by hacks. Poor Yankee shouldnt have to go back in time a hundred laws based on late reports by hacks who couldnt be bothered to read bills when they were on the floor and now want to pout by making dumb reports. June is extremely arbitrary and I think having it apply once ratified rather than months prior is fair and reasonable.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye on the motion to table. Any retroactive amendment is unacceptable.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Due to the controversial nature of this bill and its impracticality, I motion to table this legislation.

As there may be posts in this thread that I haven't seen for laggy laptop reasons, would anyone like to fill me in on whether the tabling motion has been seconded? Would be a shame to have started this vote for nothing.

Mr. Reactionary added an ‘Aye’ on the motion to table before the vote began. Presumably he was seconding Spark’s motion?

Yes. I'll say second in the future to avoid confusion.

Aye on tabling.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nay, as this unfairly applies ex post facto and risks overloading Yankee with hundreds of frivolous reports of old content.