| [DISCUSSION] Ban on DM Campaigning |
Hi, fellow Legislators,
I'm sure a lot of you have heard of DM campaigning or other variations of it; maybe some of you have even done it yourselves. It's a nice way to gain an extra edge for a really important election or a bill that will be down to the wire in Ayes or Nays. But recently, I've seen how it is used to cause damage. Here are some quotes from the Legislators Lounge: Concrete Slab Wrote:Not reallly Concrete Slab Wrote:Most gameside is clueless These quotes are coming from a former Local Councillor who has twice been convicted of corruption. As you can see, he admits to "DMing his way to victory" in the LC elections by "noticing" the "clueless gamesiders". And this is the tip of the iceberg. If someone can manipulate voters on Assembly laws and regional elections, it would make couping a very easy task. We want to make couping impossible. That is why I am proposing these measures: Elections Act Wrote: Legislative Procedure Act Wrote: Criminal Code Wrote: Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister
Thank you for your proposal
 I could get behind candidates having to disclose who they have had discussions with privately (in a sort of campaign disclosure alongside the COI one), but I am not convinced that outright banning and criminalising private electoral discussions is the way to go. Perhaps I may change my mind after hearing other people's thoughts. I would consider changing the wording "by means not accessible" to "by communication not accessible" - to me at least, "means" more implies the mode of communication and not the communication itself. That is, everyone can get private messages, so the means is accessible to everyone even if the actual communication is not.
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
(04-05-2019, 07:36 PM)Nat Wrote: Thank you for your proposal Yeah, that could be a good change-i'm not looking to ban basic DMs by candidates during elections, rather want to criminalize ones that intend on changing someone's vote, as those are the ones that can cause damage. Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister
So, what youre saying is, if everyone doesnt have access to it, you cant use it. Like, Telegrams... oh. Or Private Messages... oh.
To run for LC, you have to have a nation in TSP, which, unless youve gravely broken in-game rules, has access to Telegrams. Also, technically speaking, to be a legislator, you need a forum account, which has access to PMs. So, if youre running for an elected position in TSP, or a legislator trying to get a bill passed, have access to both of those things, which are the things youre really trying to get rid of. If we were to go to go down this path, you would need to eliminate the use of TGs or PMs or Discord PMs or even private chans... And thats something you just cant control.
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
I completely agree that it should be banned.
It can be rather intimidating to be DMd about a current legislator vote, and so one can feel pressured to change one's vote. In some ways, to reply to Rebeltopia, DMs on discord are more intimidating than PMs or TGs, as it takes more effort to reply to a TG or PM, and thus, it's easier to ignore. I'm aware that I'm not a legislator at the moment, but I felt as though I should provide my input nonetheless. Guardian of the Cheese, Destroyer of furniture, Scourge of mice.
(04-05-2019, 08:32 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: So, what youre saying is, if everyone doesnt have access to it, you cant use it. Like, Telegrams... oh. Or Private Messages... oh. Yep. Any form of campaigning that can't be seen by every person that is being campaigned to. Again-Don't want to ban DMs, TGs, or PMs; just want to eliminate the, like Felis said, ones that are pressuring you to change a vote. Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister
This seems to be a non-issue tbh.
First of all, concerning the CS sitouation: There are other ways how you could notice someone to vote. Which is how he claims to have achieved electoral victory. Mentioning in a dispatch would be the first thing that comes to mind. Second of all the law seems to overkill the thing. Let's say during a casual discussion amongst two friends the vote of a major law comes fourth and they forget about it. By definition of the proposed change, both are illicit or if it isn't the case it could be yet another easy workaround. Since they have influenced each other. It seems like an authoritarian measure with little result to protect our democracy. Or if it has, it wouldn't be a region I'd enjoy being in. Because it could include private casual discussion under friends under that umbrella. As it stands now, I oppose it unless it has some exceptions to it. EDIT: Such law is also extremly borderline when it comes to freedom of speech granted in the charter Quote:(1) All members of the South Pacific will enjoy the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only by reasonable moderation policies.
Although DM campaigning is a legitimate concern that a lot of us have, we would still have to accept it as a part of our political life. It is very admirable of North Prarie to be raising this issue in the Assembly, however there is little to none that we can do in terms of regulating this. The fact that it takes a lot of time to enforce these rules is not the biggest issue. The biggest issue here is, as Kurnugia mentioned before, that it directly contradicts the rights and freedoms we all have as South Pacificans.
To the best of my knowledge, handing over private messages would involve legal and privacy issues. The only way one can have access to those messages is through a court subpoena, which requires the approval of two Justices (see Section 5, Article 3 of the Judicial Act). Along with that, in order to sue them, you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (probable cause) that they have committed a crime. That is even more difficult as you would have to monitor their actions and those of others for quite a long time so as to discover any suspicious pattern. ![[Image: VCUpXJI.png1]](https://imgur.com/VCUpXJI.png1) BZERNELEG
South Pacifican. Public Servant. Creator. In that order.
Official Thread • Lampshade Broadcasting Company • The Tsunamy Institution of the Law and Public Policy
Considering that Forumside dudes tend to not be clueless, I doubt this would do anything useful Forumside. Gameside, though, this could probably work so we don't have *that* again.
how am i even still a legislator at this point...?
(04-06-2019, 12:14 AM)New Haudenosaunee Confederacy Wrote: Considering that Forumside dudes tend to not be clueless, I doubt this would do anything useful Forumside. Gameside, though, this could probably work so we don't have *that* again. How does the LC plan to regulate if these rules were to be applied to the gameside? Certainly it would be much harder since the population's much larger. BZERNELEG
South Pacifican. Public Servant. Creator. In that order.
Official Thread • Lampshade Broadcasting Company • The Tsunamy Institution of the Law and Public Policy |
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |