LC 10.4 Lincoln Election Law Act Amendment of 2021

[KaiserDave]

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.

[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.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If the Speaker was truly fair to on site voters he would oppose this bill, which will impact on siters in any form if applied to this election. Both parties frequently tell forum recruits who have not been active for some time that all they have to do is make 8 posts and then vote. Now those same forum recruits will need to post a far greater number of times.

[KaiserDave]

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.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Going to put this forth as well:

Section 2; Amendment
1. The following section is added to of the Consolidated Lincoln Election Law Act-
"[New section]-Validity requirements
1. A registered voter shall only be eligible to vote in elections and referendums within Lincoln if their account was established at least five hundred and eighty-eight hours (3.5 weeks) prior to the opening of voting, along with the voter having met all other federal validity requirements."
2. This regulation shall not apply to posters with over 75 30 posts or more, provided that they meet the federal requirements for voting

[KaiserDave]

The Amendment will be considered at the same time of the previous one, further Amendments will also be considered at that time.

[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.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The Amendment will be considered at the same time of the previous one, further Amendments will also be considered at that time.

Understood.

[OBD]

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.

These are surprisingly admirable sentiments here. But, they don't mean much until you put your money where your mouth is. If what you say is true and the Council does not have the power to stop this offsite onslaught, then the ball is unequivocally in your court.

Ask your offsite recruits not to participate in this election. At this point in the process, by your definition, it's too late to do anything else. We're willing to come to the table on this but you need to do your part, too. If you truly care about making the game smaller and ensuring that offsite recruiting never becomes a condoned practice, show it with action.

After all, the rest of us can only sit and watch.

[KaiserDave]

I second OBD’s words. If Ninja earnestly opposes off-site recruitments he should call them all off. I think that would render this bill unnecessary for this cycle. He and his allies hopefully have the power to do that.

[Sirius_]

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

[Continential]

I second OBD’s words. If Ninja earnestly opposes off-site recruitments he should call them all off.

Well, as far as I know, Ninja isn't YT and has no power over those off-site recruits.

[Continential]

Ask your offsite recruits not to participate in this election.

Ninja isn't YT and has no power over those off-site recruits.

[OBD]

Then ask YT to disarm. God knows you have influence with him.

C'mon guys, it's not that hard

[KaiserDave]

Seconding OBD again!
If you want to stop this, do something about it

Anyhow, this is beginning to interfere with the order of the Council

[Continential]

Then ask YT to disarm. God knows you have influence with him.

Let's say that Ninja asks YT to get his off-siters to not vote, would he do so? I highly doubt so.

If you want to stop this, do something about it

What do you mean by doing something about it, as far as I know, Ninja doesn't have any influence over the off-siters and I already listed what would happen if Ninja asked YT.

[KaiserDave]

Paging IBNU....

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I will not be supporting any legislation that applies to the February 19-21 Elections.

My position is similar.

[KaiserDave]

Moving to a vote on Wulfric's Amendment

1. Moving implementation post election

2. Reducing post threshold to 30

[S019]

I move to declare a motion for a final vote following the conclusion of the 24 hours of voting on these amendments (so in essence, the vote would begin 48 hours after this statement, or slightly less than 48 hours)

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Moving to a vote on Wulfric's Amendment

1. Moving implementation post election AYE

2. Reducing post threshold to 30 AYE

[S019]

1. Moving implementation post election

NAY

2. Reducing post threshold to 30

NAY

[Brother Jonathan]

1. Moving implementation post election
Nay

2. Reducing post threshold to 30
Aye

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I move to declare a motion for a final vote following the conclusion of the 24 hours of voting on these amendments (so in essence, the vote would begin 48 hours after this statement, or slightly less than 48 hours)

No Objection.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Moving to a vote on Wulfric's Amendment

1. Moving implementation post election

2. Reducing post threshold to 30

1. Aye
2. Aye