Osiris Fraternal Order

Voting Requirments Amendment to the Rules of the Council of Scribes
The following will be amended into the rules of the Council of Scribes as Section 2, (8) and all other subsections subsequently renumbered:

Amendment text wrote:(8)A citizen may not partake in a vote unless they have been a citizen for 3 days by the time of the start of discussion on the proposal

I would like to present the above proposal for discussion by the Council of Scribes.

I support this, though I would be more alright with 2 days.

Why? Next thing you know 3 days isn't enough. Then 7 days isn't enough. Then 2 weeks isn't enough. I know I'm exaggerating, and I'm doing it on purpose, but the point of this is obviously making sure new citizens don't accidentally mess up a vote they don't understand. However, we're forgetting two things.

1. If a citizen really wants to get involved from the start, they'll have already read through debates and the law Index before voting.
2. If the vote is so close that one citizen can mess it up, perhaps it should have been worked on a bit more.

This was created with what happened in Lazarus in mind, and is intended to prevent last second vote stacking.

Well, it's a good thing we have this Section 1 Part 3 of our Constitution to prevent that.

(3) Citizens admitted to citizenship during or within seven days prior to a scheduled election, or after the initiation of a special election, will not be permitted to vote in that election.

JayDee wrote:Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:46 pmWell, it's a good thing we have this Section 1 Part 3 of our Constitution to prevent that.

(3) Citizens admitted to citizenship during or within seven days prior to a scheduled election, or after the initiation of a special election, will not be permitted to vote in that election.

That is only for elections however last minute votes by brand new imported citizens on crucial and controversial legislation is not prevented by that this amendment will help to prevent that

Of course, I must keep reminding myself that GCRs are so petty that they'll pile in other regions just for legislation. So...this has happened how often exactly?

And what's to say that these people won't just pile in earlier then? As I said before, next thing you know, 3 days isn't enough. My point stands, if legislation is controversial enough that a few votes (which is the most a region could get without looking suspicious) can completely alter the results of a vote then maybe we should take a closer look at it.

Also, if your response is "because they might vote in a way less favorable to Osiris" then you're clearly missing the point of what "controversial" means. The whole point of controversial legislation is that there is no clear consensus on what the right answer is.

Of course, I must keep reminding myself that GCRs are so petty that they'll pile in other regions just for legislation. So...this has happened how often exactly?

It happens a lot, and probably more than we know. Two days seems like an acceptable standard to help prevent that, even if it won't do it 100%. It will certainly make it harder for anyone that may try, Don and whatever plan they had going could be the latest example. I really do not see a slippery slope forming, and we can put language in it now to discourage such a thing and empower Scribes to fight a long extension such as seven days. Furthermore, no one is saying that. Controversial legislation should be kept in the community so a consensus can be reached by people here in Osiris. People don't often know something will turn controversial until it is posted anyway.

I asked if you could provide any proof of interference and I'm still waiting for something more than just your word. If we're going to use Don as an actual example, he never mentioned anything about trying to infiltrate Osiris. No one ever sees a slippery slope forming, but once we agree on something, eventually it simply won't be enough. I've seen it multiple times within NS and without. Controversial legislation is already kept in this community as is. I would also have to disagree with your assertion that people aren't aware that something is controversial. Anyone who has any knowledge of how their region is structured will know what's controversial and what's not.

We are gonna have to agree to disagree.