SENATE BILL: Reduction of Registration Requirements Amendment (Pass to Regions)

[Marokai Backbeat]

This illusionment certain members of the left are trying to sway that making a slight reduction to our registration requirements would create a zombie invasion is simply untrue. Recently, we've had several new members who had to wait around to meet requirements, and are already making an impact on the game (Cincinnatus, for example). If a member decided to start another zombie invasion, slightly stiffer registration requirements would do nothing to stop it.

This reasoning is easily reversed: If a member really wants to join Atlasia, dicking around with a few days on the requirements and cutting a few posts off the requirements aren't going to actually make anyone say "oh well forget about it then."

Activity requirements are activity requirements. If someone randomly shows up wanting to join Atlasia, they're probably just going to do so as soon as they register and be told to come back later on regardless of what they are. I don't know what this sort of little watering down of requirements does to help activity in any meaningful way.

If you really want to do what you're arguing for, activity for the sake of activity and all that jazz, why don't you just propose an amendment to this that abolishes all requirements for joining entirely? It's the logical extension of all this. I don't know what careful studied eye took a look at our requirements and decided "Hmm, a few days off here and a couple dozen posts removed from there and the activity will flood in!" I just don't know what line you decided we needed to precisely get to and how you made that determination.

All you're arguing against here in the end is the existence of any registration requirements whatsoever. If someone wants to join, any registration requirements at all are going to get in the way at some point, so you may as well just scrap them if that's what you're going for.

I mean, besides that, it sort of ruins the point of registration requirements if you just try to make them so low they're completely meaningless anyway.

And frankly, the only person I see here actively trying to make this a left/right issue is you.

Also this "people are trying to make this an exclusive club of men" thing is just ridiculous. 75 posts and your account being 15 days or older makes Atlasia "exclusive"? Really?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I plan to veto this if this amendment passes. 18 is a completely random number that will make counting back more difficult, and is also too excessive.

I'd enjoy hearing where you think the President has the authority to veto Constitutional Amendments.

[Marokai Backbeat]

And frankly, the only person I see here actively trying to make this a left/right issue is you.

I don't think this is necessarily a left vs. right issue, though it seems conservatives are much more friendly to a newbie friendly game than liberals are, as previous votes have shown.

And you continue to.

Also, you addressed nothing at the heart of what I said. You literally just entirely avoided even quoting 90% of what I said.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I just love how minor and silly all of this is. We've literally arrived at the point that you're debating over removing one day off of the account age requirement. Someone please inform me how that decision will make the activity just flood in.

Unless you abolish these requirements altogether, you're still going to have people have to meet requirements and you're still going to be "shutting people out." If you really want to have activity flood in, try axing the requirements entirely. Otherwise this is the very definition of a teeny tiny purely-for-show effort.

I feel like we're not even on the same page here. One side just wants to whittle away at the activity requirements just for the hell of it while the other side is screaming "what the hell is that going to do, exactly?" while the other side basically has no answer.

Legislating!

[Marokai Backbeat]

@Marokai (I do this to avoid quoting his long post which would trigger my scrolling issue)
Trivializing and condemning isn't going to improve anything. Some people do have legitimate differences and concerns with reducing these at all and I would prefer to do something rather then nothing. If activity were your singular focus, yes this would be insufficient, but some do have long memories and even longer grudges that have yet to be settled, and as such I think there will be a strong push to maintain strict standards for membership for some time to come.

I think trivializing it is a perfectly reasonable approach if it is actually trivial. If the argument on the pro-reduction side is that we need to increase activity by opening up the doors to Atlasia, then you need to actually "open up the doors." It doesn't make sense to me why we would spent time having a great debate over a handful of posts and/or shaving 1 day off the age requirement.

We're not going to see a bunch more people hopping on board from that sort of minor (very minor) change, and if this isn't actually going to have an impact, I don't understand why we would waste our time doing it. What's the point of doing something that isn't really going to matter? All this does is end up in a bullet-point list on someone's election resume that allows them to say "I pushed for lower registration requirements because I newbies! Vote me!". This isn't a serious approach to any sort of problem.

I realize I'm not a Senator, and people can just feel free to ride roughshod over what I'm saying if they so desire. But the issue of activity requirements has always been a touchy one for me, and this just doesn't seem like it has a serious point, it just seems like an effort to have something for people to campaign on later.

Here's an idea: If people want to increase activity in Atlasia and keep people in the game (which I don't really think is the right approach, I don't see the problem with trimming the fat and thinning the ranks of people who don't really do anything, but purely for the sake of discussion..) then reduce the posting requirement for being considered an "active voter." As far as I remember, unless it's been repealed and I just forgot about it, that requirement currently stands at 25 posts in the last 8 weeks before an election. Reduce it to 15.

That is something that could actually have an impact with the least possible downsides.

[Marokai Backbeat]

As far as I know after doing some looking, this is still law: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Anti-Zombie_Act_of_2009

So, an outsider though I am, I would suggest the possibility of axing this current debate altogether, and settling on a compromise of repealing that law and reducing the posting requirement 8-weeks before an election to 15, instead of the current 25.

[Marokai Backbeat]

As far as I know after doing some looking, this is still law: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Anti-Zombie_Act_of_2009

So, an outsider though I am, I would suggest the possibility of axing this current debate altogether, and settling on a compromise of repealing that law and reducing the posting requirement 8-weeks before an election to 15, instead of the current 25.

Marokai, surely you mock us. That would do absolutely nothing except preserve zombie voters that would otherwise be trimmed. Talk about trivilization.

It would certainly have more an impact than knocking a handful of numbers off of registration requirements for absolutely no reason. (No, I don't count "it's what most people support" as a legitimate reason.)

[Marokai Backbeat]

As far as I know after doing some looking, this is still law: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Anti-Zombie_Act_of_2009

So, an outsider though I am, I would suggest the possibility of axing this current debate altogether, and settling on a compromise of repealing that law and reducing the posting requirement 8-weeks before an election to 15, instead of the current 25.

Marokai, surely you mock us. That would do absolutely nothing except preserve zombie voters that would otherwise be trimmed. Talk about trivilization.

It would certainly have more an impact than knocking a handful of numbers off of registration requirements for absolutely no reason. (No, I don't count "it's what most people support" as a legitimate reason.)

You can't pass a bill without 6 votes or 5 votes and the VP, so while it may not be a legitimate reason, it is often the most powerful one.

Fair enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What caused this whole issue to crop up again seems to be the fact that our voting rolls have reduced. Though I think that's a perfectly normal thing and not something to freak out over, my approach actually does more to solve the supposed problem of less people in the voter rolls than this approach does.

There have actually been more cases, that I've noticed, of people who wanted to go vote but then found out they were ineligible to do so because of that requirement, than people who wanted to register, couldn't, and then actually were determined enough to return and register again later. Whether it's 15 posts or 25 posts, it's not a very good metric, IMO, of determining whether or not someone is an "active player" or not. (This differs from the registration requirement issue, because we have absolutely no pattern to judge people by before the actually stick around for a little while. It's safer to reduce these requirements, as opposed to registration requirements.)

Keep in mind though that I personally don't want either to change, but if we're actually looking for measures that can have the most impact of retaining voters and keeping people within the game, the requirements while you're in Atlasia are more important to reduce than the ones to just get you to register.

(Also, as a note, you could pass my approach as a simple bill, while the other approach requires a supermajority and a ratification. If we're arguing over what's the easiest way to pass something, now, mine's still better. )

[Marokai Backbeat]

But what's the point?

I feel like this has been the critical question throughout this entire debate and I haven't seen much in the way of a satisfactory answer (and my carefully explained posts has gone entirely ignored by a certain Senator, despite apparently picking this as a pet cause) but at least the argument by Junkie about getting people involved before being able to vote is somewhat compelling.

Though I still don't see the point in much of this. If you're going to split requirements into two separate sets, you should keep the voting requirement at the same level of the current registration requirement to contrast to a lower requirement just to register. If you're lowering both, aside from the fact that I still do not see what an impact it would have at all, you may as well just keep them as the one same lowered requirement. Otherwise it's just a sneaky way of lowering what you wanted to lower in the first place.

Take a look at the registration thread over the past few months, people. Getting people to register isn't the problem. Keeping people in the game is the actual problem. Treat the right issue.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I guess the best answer I've seen so far is telling someone they can't register hurts their feelings. Maybe I'm just out of touch with the younger generation, but would that really deter someone from participating in threads? At least that is an attempt to provide me with an answer. Thanks, Junkie.

Well, I would say it is a little bit more than just hurt feelings, but what do I know.  I fairly old so I know less than you about the younger generation.  Consider this:

1.) Over on my campaign post I detailed every registration since December 2010.  Ten individuals attempted to register but did not have enough posts.  Only four of them (40%) attempted again when they had the right number.  If that trend continues, that could be a lot potential posters that for some reason decide not to come back.

But here's my concern: If people are that easily dissuaded from joining, are they people that we should have in Atlasia in the first place?

[Marokai Backbeat]

3) While I don't necessarily support eliminating the registration posting requirement altogether, I do support getting rid of any requirement saying you can't register until your account is X days old. Please remember that with Hamilton, he made a bunch of accounts, and often wouldn't start using them until several months later---I don't think this law would have ever been effective in stopping sock accounts and instead just risks discouraging newbies. So put me down as someone who supports no account age requirement, or a very small one at the minimum.

You're not wrong that it's an imperfect measure, but if you axe the age requirement, it makes the entire thing meaningless. Before we had an age requirement people would just encourage their potential recruits to spam and register exactly on the nose. This can of course still happen, but it doesn't happen as often as it used to, and the age requirement also allows us to investigate, if necessary, new posters if they're at all suspicious, to prevent exactly the sort of thing that Hamilton wrought on us.

The account age requirement was conceived as an anchor for the posting requirement. If you remove that requirement, the only requirement to joining Atlasia at that point becomes spamming up to the required number and at that point, you may as well axe all requirements altogether.

These requirements were made to balance each other and complement each other in a way that would prevent as many unsavory cases as possible from joining. It's obviously never going to prevent them all, but it is observably true that they have been effective. The current requirements have been working well for this long, and though not perfect, have been as effective as possible without rising to the level of being destructive or intrusive. If you break them apart you make the requirements meaningless and you may as well just get rid of them entirely. It only makes sense for them to rise or fall together.

And also, for the bajillionth time in this debate: getting people to register isn't the problem in Atlasia. Keeping people in the game and continuing to keep the game as fresh as possible is what the problem is. We have plenty of people continuing to register, and as Junkie's stats actually prove, the requirements serve as a means to weed out those who aren't really that interested in Atlasia in the first place, and those who are willing to come back a second time for realsies. You are all addressing the wrong problem.

*continues grumbling even though everyone aside from Duke is clearly not listening*

[Marokai Backbeat]

Marokai, I am listening.  I agree, the point is we need to keep people active in the game.  I just don't believe that having a registration requirement assists in that at all.  In my opinion, it may only serve to discourage.

In terms of your question of whether they would have been active if we had let them in, we will never know one way or another.  My point is that is we allow them to register and then get their voting requirement within in the game, we are working in activity in the game.

Last week, went to a club.  They would not let me in because I was wearing gym shoes.  I said f that and never went back.  Does that mean that if they had let me in I would have loved it, who knows.  But one thing it does mean is that I will never go there.

You are right, all of this for naught if we cannot keep people active and having fun and discussing the issues.  However, Bgwah is right as well, our current laws did not keep Hamilton from wrecking havoc (or others before him).  Hell, he still can get sock accounts in (as he has within the last year if I remember correctly) and work with others legally in the game to create drama.

We need new people and old people to want to stay.  I believe my proposal is only piece of the puzzle.  It gets new people in, forces them to be active to vote, and hoefully (if we are not all dicks) gets them to like it enough to stay.  Then, comes the issue of keeping them.

Compelling as always, Junkie. I'm willing to concede that pre-registration makes some amount of sense. Like Shua, thinking about it, I'm actually surprised as to why it failed in the first place. It was such a "passing through" proposal I didn't even remember it until Fritz brought it up in another thread.

I still firmly believe that they key issue here is keeping people interested once they're actually in the game, as opposed to just finding out ways to get new people in here and then we bore them to death with the obsession with the status-quo, but I'm starting to believe that, as long the requirement for voting is reasonable, that unrestricted registration, isn't as dangerous as I fear.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm amazed that anyone would think having your account be two weeks old and making 75 posts turns Atlasia into this super exclusive club of a few. That's such a melodramatic way of putting a relatively minor requirement that I doubt you can even seriously believe it.

And Kalwejt and Antonio? Am I invisible?

I'm starting to wonder whether or not you're actually seriously paying attention to this thread at all, considering how many people have started to come around to Junkie's general idea of how we could structure registration and voting eligibility. It's an idea that Antonio is fine with, an idea that Bgwah seems fine with, and an idea that I'm, at least, okay with. But you seem like you haven't even acknowledged that yet which leads me to believe that you're only reading this thread once in awhile, and haphazardly, when you actually do.

[Marokai Backbeat]

We seem to be going in circles here.

A compromise seems to exist here, just no one willing to write it up. I can't really recall any Senate debate in my entire history of interacting with the Senate that got this much stubbornness from its supporters regarding any compromises and also got so many alternative proposals that never actually got anywhere at all.

[Marokai Backbeat]

We seem to be going in circles here.

A compromise seems to exist here, just no one willing to write it up. I can't really recall any Senate debate in my entire history of interacting with the Senate that got this much stubbornness from its supporters regarding any compromises and also got so many alternative proposals that never actually got anywhere at all.

A compromise between what and what? I can't even remember which proposal we're debating at this point.

There's definitely been a ton, which is part of what surprises me about this whole debate. When I was in the Senate I actually dreaded compromises because people were very quick to jump on them and pass it, yet now there's been so many proposals in this discussion and none of them have been grabbed.

I assumed that people were coming around to Junkie's idea. Maybe I was mis-reading the mood, but at least a few people in this discussion that are opposed to reducing registration requirements are open to the idea of making the current registration requirement absolutely nothing, and moving that requirement to a "voting eligibility requirement" instead, making sure that people are free to immediately register and start getting involved in the community of the game before they can actually vote.

At least, Antonio seems open to the idea, and Duke seems to consider it the least offensive of the proposals. There's two Senate votes right there, if anyone around this body actually still bothers to count votes in the background.

It's a perfectly reasonable idea that keeps us cautious folk happy while allowing the pro-reduction side the victory of at least getting the newbies instantly into the game, even if they can't vote. (For anyone who thinks it would actually be too hard on the RG or SoFE, I think you guys drastically underestimate the capability of those two jobs. People check for voting eligibility anyway, and it wouldn't be that hard to check regardless. It causes no extra work worth noting.)

If that's not a compromise you people can agree on then you may as well get this thing voted down and move on.


(There was also my proposal, of course, that was about leaving the registration requirement the same as it is currently, but reducing the voter eligibility post requirement instead, to focus more on retaining voters we already have, but some people here seem to erroneously think we have a recruitment problem, despite the empirical evidence to the contrary.)

[Marokai Backbeat]

As usual on this issue, Duke is completely right.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I could never hate you, Duke.

50:14, I don't think would make any difference whatsoever, is why I think we shouldn't bother, but I don't think it would destroy anything. I just think we should be doing things only if we actually think they could have some sort of benefit, which no supporter of reductions in general has been able to do for any of the reduction proposals.

The reason I'd be willing to give Duke a pass on it is because he and I are on the same page on the issue overall. I condemn people who, I get the sense, just want to reduce them so certain Senators can prattle on and on about how much they newbies instead of actually addressing the real problem, which I don't think reducing any sort of requirements actually does. I just don't like this issue becoming a political football that forces people to get into some sort of "who loves new people the most!" contest.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Jackson
Washington
Jesus Christ Party(AKA EVIL PARTY THAT IS DESTROYING ATLASIA BY WORSHIPING BGWAH)

Retry

This member spammed the forum with 50-some posts in the matter of several hours in order to be eligible to vote (even though the deadline isn't for a couple days). I do believe that this backs my argument that higher posting requirements encourages spamming.

Edge cases exist, but the current rules have, undeniably, worked to protect Atlasia from this sort of thing since we implemented the rules. Even if it can't stop everything, it does make it very easy to spot the people that do this sort of thing to register, though, doesn't it? If there were no registration requirements whatsoever, we couldn't separate the spammers from the more careful ones.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Atlasia is one of the biggest reasons I continue to post on Atlas and all of Atlasia is roughly a half of my entire posting history. There's no denying it can be a huge motivator in getting people to stay, but..

Perhaps Atlasia is becoming stale due to the lack of new blood.

This is objectively false. We're getting new recruits constantly. It never seems to help anything. Atlasia is becoming stale because none of the mechanics of Atlasia have changed in what feels like eons, there are no nationally dividing controversies and third rails like there used to be, and the political party structures in this game are the most powerful they have ever been and have it in their best interest to make sure there is no shaking up of anything. It has nothing to do with getting new people into the game. I'm not saying that it can't help, but it can't solve the bigger problem.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Constant recruiting is also counter to game reform successes, as most of the newbies have absolutely no understanding of the game yet anyway, and no understanding of why the game needs to be changed. Besides, I assure you, if you actually proposed something big and put your weight behind getting it passed, it would generate a lot of discussion.