SB 120-03: Let There Be Duels Amendment - Failed

[PPT Spiral]

Senate Resolution

To amend the Constitution to permit the practice of dueling and subsequent effects between mutually consenting Atlasians.

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

Let There Be Duels Amendment

The following Section is to be incorporated under Article VI of the Fifth Constitution:

Section 2. Dueling

1. Should there be a mutual agreement, any two Atlasians may engage in a duel.

2. Duels shall take place in a single match of any online game agreed upon by the participants, so long as the game can be fully recorded for independent verification.

3. A replay of the game must be saved and shared with others to confirm the duel happened and who won and who lost.

4. Whoever loses the duel shall be removed as a registered voter and prohibited from re-registering for a period of one week to two months, whichever the duelers mutually decide. Duelists may also agree to different terms provided that the agreement is made in public before the time of the duel. No citizen may be prohibited from re-registering for a period of longer than two months as the result of a duel.

This Constitutional Amendment enshrines the right for two Atlasians to mutually agree to a duel between each other. Such duels are to take place under a single match, of which the result shall be independently verified. The losing participant in a duel shall automatically be deregistered for a mutually agreed period of at least one week but no more than two months. Upon the conclusion of said period, the losing duelist may re-register at personal whim.

Sponsor: Pyro

Debate has commenced and the Senator is recognized.

[PPT Spiral]

Already my favorite bill of this Senate, I just know it.

[Adam Griffin]

Enthusiastically endorsed!

[Pyro]

This Constitutional Amendment, originally sponsored last year by Senator Spiral, would re-authorize the practice of simulated duels to Atlasia. More information about dueling itself is listed in the Amendment Explanation section. Such duels require a mutual agreement, thereby all actions are consensual and in the spirit of fun. Would highly recommend this pass if we are looking to increase activity levels.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

it's worth a shot, at least

[Poirot]

I feel the Atlasian society has evolved and doesn't need duels as a way to solve conflicts between players.
A duel result in a deregistration. The game will lose a player. It's not good for activity, it doesn't help it. 

[Joseph Cao]

One, section 2.4 was struck down in court a while back.

Two, unless it's to get around point one, I don't see the need for this to be a constitutional amendment when the original dueling provision was an ordinary bill.

Three, my own personal position on dueling (for what it's worth) is I wouldn't initiate or take one up myself but anyone in favor of banning the practice – as several people tried recently – are certified wet wipes. As long as you people come up with something that complies with what Poirot and the Supreme Court are saying, I don't mind what it is.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

One, section 2.4 was struck down in court a while back.

Two, unless it's to get around point one, I don't see the need for this to be a constitutional amendment when the original dueling provision was an ordinary bill.

Three, my own personal position on dueling (for what it's worth) is I wouldn't initiate or take one up myself but anyone in favor of banning the practice – as several people tried recently – are certified wet wipes. As long as you people come up with something that complies with what Poirot and the Supreme Court are saying, I don't mind what it is.

the thing is without deregistration, I'm not sure what stakes there would be, which is kinda the point. Hence why there's been no duels since the bill passed.

[Joseph Cao]

One, section 2.4 was struck down in court a while back.

Two, unless it's to get around point one, I don't see the need for this to be a constitutional amendment when the original dueling provision was an ordinary bill.

Three, my own personal position on dueling (for what it's worth) is I wouldn't initiate or take one up myself but anyone in favor of banning the practice – as several people tried recently – are certified wet wipes. As long as you people come up with something that complies with what Poirot and the Supreme Court are saying, I don't mind what it is.

the thing is without deregistration, I'm not sure what stakes there would be, which is kinda the point. Hence why there's been no duels since the bill passed.

Mutual agreement to aim your pistols at the sky?

[Pyro]

One, section 2.4 was struck down in court a while back.

Two, unless it's to get around point one, I don't see the need for this to be a constitutional amendment when the original dueling provision was an ordinary bill.

Three, my own personal position on dueling (for what it's worth) is I wouldn't initiate or take one up myself but anyone in favor of banning the practice – as several people tried recently – are certified wet wipes. As long as you people come up with something that complies with what Poirot and the Supreme Court are saying, I don't mind what it is.

I thoroughly support enshrining the Right to Duel into the Constitution. The opinion of the Court as stated in Tack v. Atlasia, that the practice of voluntary dueling somehow interferes with one's right to de-register, is, in my own view, rather flimsy. Yet this decision has made it so the only method to re-authorize Atlasian dueling as it once was is a Constitutional Amendment.

Passing this will allow citizens the freedom to exercise their right to take part in this harmless endeavor as they so choose. Let me emphasize that no Atlasian can be forced or coerced into engaging in a duel - it must only be conducted through a mutual contract. The penalty for losing a duel, as cited in the proposal's text, is temporary. No player will be lost without said player opting against re-registering.

[Adam Griffin]

As the modern originator of this bill-turned-amendment (bgwah was the progenitor of this in 2011 during the Third Constitution; I opened the first viable duel/dereg option via my Dueling House in 2013 and secured its revival at the beginning of the statute reset/Fourth Constitution) I am of course in support. I do not believe it will cause any random outbursts of rage-quitting beyond what is already allowed by law today; in fact, it could reduce them by giving a fun outlet for two combatants to formally consider/agree upon that provides entertainment for all of us.

It's an "all fun, no harm" restoration to our long, storied history of the game.

[Pyro]

Motion for a final vote.

[PPT Spiral]

A final vote shall now commence for the next 96 hours. Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

aye

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Nay

Nothing personal tho.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Aye

[Pyro]

Aye

[Dr. MB]

Nay

[nerd73]

Aye

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Nay

[PPT Spiral]

Aye

[reagente]

Aye

[PPT Spiral]

Aye - 6 (WB, LT, Pyro, Nerd, Spiral, Reagente)
Nay - 3 (Laki, MB, Razze)

Although the bill received a majority of support among voting members present, it has not satisfied the 2/3rds approval of the whole body required for constitutional amendments. Thus, the bill fails.