SB 28-23: Increasing Requirements Act (Passed)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Increasing Requirements Act

Section 3, Part 8, of the Census Act of 2019 is amended as follows

Section 3. Registration
8.In order to be eligible to register, a poster’s Atlas Forum account must have been registered for at least one hundred and sixty-eight hours and must have accumulated at least forty posts.

Section 4, Part 2, of the Federal Electoral Act of 2019 is amended as follows

Section 4. Voter Eligibility.
2. A registered voter shall only be eligible to vote in a federal election if they have made at least eight posts from their account in the fifty six days (eight weeks) immediately prior to the commencement of the election and if their account is at least thirty (30) days old.

With a vote tally of 5-3-0-1, this bill passes the House.
X SevenEleven

Sponsor: NC Yankee
Status: Debating

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I motion to assume sponsorship.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

24 hours for objections.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hearing no objection, Yankee is recognized as sponsor.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This bill is obviously designed to curtail offsite recruitment and work to try and on site players of the game a little bit before they join. My objective here is to ensure that we strike the best balance possible between curtailing offsite, while at the same ensuring that we aren't going back to the over restrictive days 2010. I am generally supportive of the combination here, but I do have two concerns that I would like to try and address during the course of the debate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I realize you will be leaving soon Scott, but I just noticed the House vote isn't hyperlinked.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The two biggest concerns that I have pertain to the last minute additions via amendment of the 40 and 30 days. If the 30 day requirement is to be done, I think that should be applied to registration not to the actual voting itself. While this might have been done to mirror regional efforts, it is important to remember regions cannot restrict registration only eligibility. Therefore since we have the ability to be more discerning, we should place it there. The main reason I think this should be the case is that doing it the other creates a pool of people who have joined, but delays their first vote and this can have a crippling effect on long term involvement.

I did not see much discussion on the reasons for placement of the 30 day requirement on the voting eligibility as opposed to registration after the amendment was made in the house. Perhaps it was early in the thread and I missed it, but I would like to here some feedback from YE and from Windjammer since the administration was referenced in this regards (I have PMed both to expedite their responses).

I will refrain from seeking alterations until I hear the reasoning behind this placement.

[windjammer]

I'm personally opposed to increase the voting requirements. The bigger the voting base is, the better it is.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm personally opposed to increase the voting requirements. The bigger the voting base is, the better it is.

Says the guy who just declined the redraft pen.

[Senator-elect Spark]

I support this legislation as written.

[SevenEleven]

I support this legislation as written.

I agree!

[Sestak]

I am in favor of the posting requirement, but opposed to the time requirement in general. 40 posts is enough to demonstrate a genuine interest in the forum itself, and the long time requirement only serves as a hard barrier that keeps even potentially active players out of the game if they are too new to the site.

[Pericles]

I think we need to contain the offsite recruitment situation, so that it doesn't get out of hand on both sides and result in an inflated game population that is very difficult for us to play with.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think we need to contain the offsite recruitment situation, so that it doesn't get out of hand on both sides and result in an inflated game population that is very difficult for us to play with.

Look know one has suffered more than me from game inflation, when it comes to the devastating realization that communicating with 80 people effectively and trying to keep them motivated is so much more daunting compared to the days when Dereich and I could split 40 people between us and send out prepared PMs in two groups of ten.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am in favor of the posting requirement, but opposed to the time requirement in general. 40 posts is enough to demonstrate a genuine interest in the forum itself, and the long time requirement only serves as a hard barrier that keeps even potentially active players out of the game if they are too new to the site.

I want to thank the President for stating where he stands in the debate. It certainly helps to frame such when the administration position is outwardly stated and stated right in the debate thread.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I asked YE to post in here and he said he would but it might end up being tomorrow (Saturday) at this point.

[YE]

First off, my administration comment was in response to Sestak feeling 45 days old to be valid was too long rather than 30.

My original intent with the account age validity requirement was to stop a situation of someone running for president and deciding to get desperate and bring people in from offsite just so that they somewhat selfishly be elected. Considering most people who create accounts rarely post on Atlas immediately (I myself did not for 10 months), I don't see how this closes the game much. I guess I could see the argument this deters self-recruits as well but those are historically fairly rare and aren't worth the risk of the game eventually turning into an off site recruiting arms race and honestly if anything the 40 post provision discourages that more (which even then is lower than the 50 from 2010 and worth noting than outside of the suspected YT offsiters, almost none of the recent recruits have fewer than that many posts).

As for why account age is tied to validity, there are two reasons. First, so this can be achieved without a constitutional amendment. Second, I don't have an issue with people taking office with a relatively new account as the people interested in such are much less likely to be brought in from off-site (though the 40 post requirement admittedly makes that somewhat more difficult).

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

First off, my administration comment was in response to Sestak feeling 45 days old to be valid was too long rather than 30.

My original intent with the account age validity requirement was to stop a situation of someone running for president and deciding to get desperate and bring people in from offsite just so that they somewhat selfishly be elected. Considering most people who create accounts rarely post on Atlas immediately (I myself did not for 10 months), I don't see how this closes the game much. I guess I could see the argument this deters self-recruits as well but those are historically fairly rare and aren't worth the risk of the game eventually turning into an off site recruiting arms race and honestly if anything the 40 post provision discourages that more (which even then is lower than the 50 from 2010 and worth noting than outside of the suspected YT offsiters, almost none of the recent recruits have fewer than that many posts).

As for why account age is tied to validity, there are two reasons. First, so this can be achieved without a constitutional amendment. Second, I don't have an issue with people taking office with a relatively new account as the people interested in such are much less likely to be brought in from off-site (though the 40 post requirement admittedly makes that somewhat more difficult).

So now you want to ban it out of a selfish desire to not let Labor ever lose.  Just admit to me that YT hurt your feelings too much as a glorified Labor zombie that doesn't hold office.

It isn't a good premise to make policy that affects the game long term when you're scared. Lots of bad judgement from those I see here!

WHINE WHINE WHINE.

[YE]

First off, my administration comment was in response to Sestak feeling 45 days old to be valid was too long rather than 30.

My original intent with the account age validity requirement was to stop a situation of someone running for president and deciding to get desperate and bring people in from offsite just so that they somewhat selfishly be elected. Considering most people who create accounts rarely post on Atlas immediately (I myself did not for 10 months), I don't see how this closes the game much. I guess I could see the argument this deters self-recruits as well but those are historically fairly rare and aren't worth the risk of the game eventually turning into an off site recruiting arms race and honestly if anything the 40 post provision discourages that more (which even then is lower than the 50 from 2010 and worth noting than outside of the suspected YT offsiters, almost none of the recent recruits have fewer than that many posts).

As for why account age is tied to validity, there are two reasons. First, so this can be achieved without a constitutional amendment. Second, I don't have an issue with people taking office with a relatively new account as the people interested in such are much less likely to be brought in from off-site (though the 40 post requirement admittedly makes that somewhat more difficult).

So now you want to ban it out of a selfish desire to not let Labor ever lose. 

That same situation could easily apply to Labor at some point down the road. I should elaborate that I’m not a fan of using recruiting as a tool to elect solely one person or solely for one election, which to the extent that this will make a difference, is more likely to happen with users of such low post count on the electorate regardless on whether they were brought in offsite.

[YE]

First off, my administration comment was in response to Sestak feeling 45 days old to be valid was too long rather than 30.

My original intent with the account age validity requirement was to stop a situation of someone running for president and deciding to get desperate and bring people in from offsite just so that they somewhat selfishly be elected. Considering most people who create accounts rarely post on Atlas immediately (I myself did not for 10 months), I don't see how this closes the game much. I guess I could see the argument this deters self-recruits as well but those are historically fairly rare and aren't worth the risk of the game eventually turning into an off site recruiting arms race and honestly if anything the 40 post provision discourages that more (which even then is lower than the 50 from 2010 and worth noting than outside of the suspected YT offsiters, almost none of the recent recruits have fewer than that many posts).

As for why account age is tied to validity, there are two reasons. First, so this can be achieved without a constitutional amendment. Second, I don't have an issue with people taking office with a relatively new account as the people interested in such are much less likely to be brought in from off-site (though the 40 post requirement admittedly makes that somewhat more difficult).

So now you want to ban it out of a selfish desire to not let Labor ever lose.  Just admit to me that YT hurt your feelings too much as a glorified Labor zombie that doesn't hold office.

It isn't a good premise to make policy that affects the game long term when you're scared. Lots of bad judgement from those I see here!

WHINE WHINE WHINE.

Dude I’m a Fremont MP and I was from before YT even re-registered.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I support this reform, but given it does have a 30 day account age requirement, it does seem to run afoul of the ruling in Ninja0428 vs Region of Lincoln. See the bolded:

Opinion of the Court.

(Justice ilikeverin delivered the opinion of the Court)

After consideration of the submitted briefs and the facts of the case, the Court has come to a unanimous decision. The Lincoln Election Law Amendment Act of 2021 violates the constitution of Atlasia. Amendment V of the 4th Constitution, and our previous rulings in Evergreen v. Rpryor and Cinyc v. Northern Region are clear: the only permissible restriction as a result of account age in either a regional or federal election is the 168 hour requirement. We, as well as (it appears) the Region of Lincoln itself, find no constitutional basis for this law.

The Supreme Court would like to thank Ninja and Truman for their cooperation.

And the offending bill text, bolded for emphasis:

Section 4, Part 2, of the Federal Electoral Act of 2019 is amended as follows

Section 4. Voter Eligibility.
2. A registered voter shall only be eligible to vote in a federal election if they have made at least eight posts from their account in the fifty six days (eight weeks) immediately prior to the commencement of the election and if their account is at least thirty (30) days old.

This is not in bad faith and I will be happy to vote for this at the ballot box as a constitutional amendment. Just noting that it seems that we will have to move forward in that form for this to stand and so encourage the Senate to shift there.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will be offering an amendment when I get home.

[YE]

^that case had to do with a regional law so that statement by IKV seems poorly worded unless I’m missing something.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

^that case had to do with a regional law so that statement by IKV seems poorly worded unless I’m missing something.

It's not unheard of for courts to rule beyond the confines of the present case in a ruling.

I will review the text of the ruling before offering my amendment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Assuming I am reading the ruling right we have two options here. We can split this off into two separate texts contained in the same resolution one being a law the other being a proposed amendment an upon passage the Vice President would split the text as the directions in the text indicate with the appropriate portion going to Sestak and the other portion to the regions. I have done this before, it just requires proper structure and formatting for it to work. To not run afoul of the constitution the passage threshold would necessarily have to be that of the highest requirement for any portion therein (2/3rds).

The other option would be to just remove the account age from this text and proceed with that completely standalone as a proposed amendment.