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

[Senator-elect Spark]

Senate Resolution

To amend the Constitution to solve the constitutional question regarding legislation that is removed for violations of the Terms of Service.

Be it Resolved in the Atlasian Senate Assembled, that upon ratification by 2/3rds of the Regions, the constitution shall be amended as follows:

The Don't Violate the Terms of Service Amendment

Article VIII, Section 2, shall read as follows:

Section 4. Supremacy of the Atlas Forum
1. Actions taken by Administrators or Moderators of the Atlas Forum are separate and distinct from their actions as citizens of Atlasia and they shall not be restricted, nor obstructed by Atlasian constitutional or statutory provision, in their enforcement of the Terms of Service by Atlasian constitutional or statutory provision.
2. Nothing in this section shall be construed as to provide immunity to moderators who violate any statutory provision that does not conflict with or obstruct enforcement of the terms of service.
3. Any federal or regional legislation that has been removed from the forum by a moderator due to violations of the Terms of Service or other forum policies shall be considered unenforceable.

This constitutional Amendment addresses the Constitutional question that has arisen by Senator Yankee, this board's moderator, needing to moderate the content of two pieces of legislation. Law is commonly defined as a corpus, a body, and laws cannot be enforced if the corpus is not fully accessible to the people. There is no solution that will successfully allow bills that go against the Terms of Service to be hosted or linked to on the forum, and it is not ever addressed in the Fifth Constitution. This Amendment makes it clear that if a bill cannot be posted on the forum, it cannot exist in our corpus of laws.

People's and Region's Senate
---

Sponsor: rpryor
Status: Debating

The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.

[Utah Neolib]

How would this effect GM canon if it effects federal or regional legislation?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Discordification is bad enough at is, with so much of the game being pushed offsite into unseen echo chambers, from which has been the source of so much of our recent troubles.

The last thing we need is a similar thing being done to our statutes where access is only accessible to an exclusive few. This has my support at least in general terms

My only concern here is, people digging up really old stuff they don't like and spam reporting them in the hopes of repeal by the moderation staff. The moderation staff should not be placed in a position to vet the legitimacy of every last bill or constitutional provision.

Perhaps a cutoff with the enactment of the present constitution as a way to head this off at the pass?

[Senator-elect Spark]

Yeah, I have to agree with gentleman Yankee here. This bill could overload the moderating team with every frivolous piece of legislation. I see the motivation and premise of this legislation but I believe it will be challenged in its practicality.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This seems unnecessary.

[rpryor03]

The one night I go to sleep early...

Law is a corpus, a body. If that body isn't visible to all whom it effects, can it be law? Can it be something that people know to live by? The Gentleman from North Carolina's point is well taken, and, as such, I move to amend this resolution as follows:

3. Any federal or regional legislation enacted after the date of January 1, 2022 that has been removed from the forum by a moderator due to violations of the Terms of Service or other forum policies shall be considered unenforceable.

[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.

[rpryor03]

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.

[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.

[Joseph Cao]

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.

[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.

[Joseph Cao]

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.

Yeah, if it’s about to become a dead issue (and certainly will be by the time this gets out of the Senate) I maintain the position where I was previously absent the extraordinary circumstances that pryor alluded to. Then again I don’t get a vote here.

[Dr. MB]

Objection, no mods no masters

[Senator-elect Spark]

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

[S019]

I object to the motion, and I move for a final vote

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

[Senator-elect Spark]

Motion to table this bill is open for 96 hours.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Nay, I don't agree with the retroactive enforcement but I'd like to change this to be any bill after the amendment is ratified.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Aye

[West_Midlander]

Aye

[rpryor03]

Nay

[S019]

Nay

[WD]

Nay

[Devout Centrist]

Nay

[Utah Neolib]

Aye