SB 109-02: Don't Kill People Act (Passed)

[Sestak]

Right. Simplest one first; at least when GERA was passed (and maybe earlier) the “all previous game engine bills are repealed” provision accidentally repealed the ban on GMs killing players. This reinstates that provision and also tries to prevent future repetition of this issue by specifying that it can only be repealed by explicitly naming it or by directly contradicting its statements.

I’ve also tightened up the requirements for a valid consent for GM-canon death. Am fine keeping this as an option since it’s always been there and it could be fun in some circumstances, but I see no issue in further limiting it to prevent abuse.

[Sestak]

Even absent such ban, I don't think the GM had that authority during the crisis.

Even so, we should pass this to ensure clarity.

It's murky but I think there's enough room for a GM to claim the powers that this is basically a necessary sagefuard. The constitution allows the Game Engine "whatever powers the Senate deems necessary"; GERA grants in turn the powers to "simulate the actions of non-playable entities" and "simulate domestic and global events" as well as the final say on what ingame occurences are canon; without the protection this legislation would give it's not hard to argue that this includes events that would kill players.

Now, the Census act does not list canon death as a valid reason to remove a player from the rolls, so presumably if a player is killed they would still be able to vote and be a candidate for office as usual. The Constitution, however, does list "death" as a reason for creation of a vacancy in the Senate or Presidency, so the killed player presumably would still have to forfeit those offices by default (and depending on interpretation might continue to be unable to swear into those offices again even if they could be elected).

So yeah, I think a serious argument could be made on the legal side that the GM right now does have the power to kill players in a manner with clear ingame ramifications.

[Sestak]

[snip]

Yea I'm not discussing what would have happened on the practical end; only what existed on the legal end. The former really has no issues but important to shore up the latter.

[Sestak]

If possible I’d like to hear other members’ thoughts before deciding friendly or not. Don’t care too much about voluntary death myself but it’s stuck around as a legal option for a long time and I assume there probably are some arguments for keeping them? Would like to hear.

[Sestak]

If possible I’d like to hear other members’ thoughts before deciding friendly or not. Don’t care too much about voluntary death myself but it’s stuck around as a legal option for a long time and I assume there probably are some arguments for keeping them? Would like to hear.

If a player "voluntarily dies," wouldn't they be forbidden from coming back without the GM writing a story magically resurrecting them? I could see players using this as a way to deregister "for good" without the temptation of coming back but instead it creates a big issue. We've seen players like Laki/FDB/Ninja leave and rejoin countless amounts of times and I'd imagine most players who consent to the GM killing them off have a similar mindset and might regret their decision a little while later.

Again, this goes to Cao’s point about some inconsistencies. The census act does NOT allow GM actions to dictate voter rolls. So the killed player would stay on the voter rolls and always be allowed to return.

“Death”, however, would forfeit all federal offices held by the killed player as the constitution states death of incumbent is a vacancy. Then we run into the real interpretive problem:

If “death” refers to the singular act of dying, then players would still be free to run for and assume offices after their death.

However, if “death” refers to the state of being, then you could argue they cannot assume office as the seat would automatically become vacant by death of the incumbent.

So I think the consequences in that direction can be dealt with so long as the former (and more obvious option imo) is the interpretation everyone’s going with. Whether or not we want to actually keep this possibility is a separate idea.

[Sestak]

Aye.