Disenfranchising of Voters

Hello. I'm happy to address you on this very important issue: Voter Disenfranchisement. Ahem. "It's bad." Now that I've done my part, I'll turn you over to the administrator who can deal with all the grubby details which bore me to happiness.

Thank you, dear Baron.
The point of the game is voting. Denying someone the ability to vote goes against that point. It makes the game less fun. Rules that deny someone the ability to vote are generally just a bad idea.

"Aha," you say, "didn't the Baron himself post a rule that prevents players from voting No if they have Frag exceeding their QI'yaH?"

Yes, he did. But that rule also provided multiple ways out of it:

1. If you never edit your posts, you'll never get Frag.
2. If you post Bills that get passed, you'll gain QI'yaH and eventually exceed your Frag.
3. Certain titled positions also generate QI'yaH.
4. If your QI'yaH instead goes negative, it can still exceed your Frag because the rule specified "absolute value" of your QI'yaH. And since anyone can voluntarily lower their QI'yaH by purchasing Swords on credit, this escape clause is open to all players at all times. Just buy Swords till your negative QI'yah exceeds your positive Frag.
5. If Amy's Bill #26 passed, the Frag bill would be suspended.
   
6. If any other Bill named #26 ever passed, the Frag bill would be suspended.
   
7. Even if they fail to realize any of those escape strategies, a player can still chose whether to vote yes or to abstain. They still have a choice which is capable of having impact on the bill, though it is a limited choice.
   

What's more, the Baron's bill was a parody of how wordy and ridiculous our bills had gotten. It was a joke. He'd been gone the weekend and figured it was too late to get a real bill passed. So he posted a joke non-bill. Look! More chickens!

And they make me happy. I'm a big fan of rubber chickens, jokes, and Frag.

The Baron may think that's amusing and stupidly happifying, but the Administrator thinks this is dangerous territory.

A bill that requires someone to vote 48 hours in advance of the end of the week effectively disenfranchises that person. Any bills that come up (after that deadline) they will be unable to vote for or against. Which means 1 less potential "no" vote, so there's no reason to ever post before that persons deadline unless you're certain the disenfranchised person would support your vote. If we allow this sort of thing, I fear fair Nomiblog will become a far less friendly place.

I, on the other hand, fear nothing. I'm too happy for fear. Life is wonderful.

Your nomiblog needs you.
Please vote "No" on Bill #106.

This post is not a bill, not a rule, not even an administrative summary. It is at best a statement of philosophy, at worst unbridled lobbying.