[NSG Senate] Lobby-ing a Scimitar

[Tectonix]

I withdraw my resolution so that we can move on to discussing the nation itself.

In turn, I move that we take resolutions for regions now.

I second the motion.

[Arkolon]

Nay

---

The regions suggestion seems really interesting, although I've to say this probably complicates the senate far too much even when you just have five regions since effectively you have six separate RPs, with their own threads going on; plus in the main RP there'd just be five individuals from each of the regions (if I understood the description properly) which doesn't really leave much room for activity surges. I'd far more favor the elector suggestion - that way we still have the singular RP thus avoiding fragmentation while rewarding parties who are actually involved in RP rather than just as contact list for zombie senators and enabling strategic politics.

We already tend to have more than 1 RP going on: whether it's organised crime, separatists, terrorists, street protests or sex scandals. We also have bars, cafés, party and coalition threads. These vary in activity but we've easily managed to keep track of things. The most reliably active thread is the Senate thread, and having regions would simply create multiple Senates instead of one. We could have policy that moves quicker and ideas that flow across regions - for instance one region's decision to, say, introduce a carbon tax could make other regions follow suit - as well as reactions, against what other regions pass and against what the federal government enforces.

It would also give parties something to do apart from bicker (or worse, stay quiet): plan and coordinate the presence of members across the regions. So in this respect it is conducive to activity surge, since political parties would have a new axis on which to strategise instead of the linear gameplay of vote-collecting we have had until now.

The elector idea only reinforces the objective of getting as many sleeper voters as possible as it only makes electors useful at election time: a small group of senators would actually play the game, and everyone else just watches. That doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me.

[Great Nepal]

Nay

---

The regions suggestion seems really interesting, although I've to say this probably complicates the senate far too much even when you just have five regions since effectively you have six separate RPs, with their own threads going on; plus in the main RP there'd just be five individuals from each of the regions (if I understood the description properly) which doesn't really leave much room for activity surges. I'd far more favor the elector suggestion - that way we still have the singular RP thus avoiding fragmentation while rewarding parties who are actually involved in RP rather than just as contact list for zombie senators and enabling strategic politics.

We already tend to have more than 1 RP going on: whether it's organised crime, separatists, terrorists, street protests or sex scandals. We also have bars, cafés, party and coalition threads. These vary in activity but we've easily managed to keep track of things.

Yeah but most of that trends to be flavor stuff rather than core gameplay threads; we do have government thread and a coalition one in addition but its not strictly necessary to be regularly updated there unless you've government positions either whereas with regions you'd actually need to keep track of bills in your region, the chamber of your region, the coffee shop for the nation and the national chamber - plus the executive branches of those; and ideally have semi-regular updates from the other four regions so you've an idea of what's actually going on.
At the very least this doubles the active thread count, while increasing the total threads to do with government by five times.

The most reliably active thread is the Senate thread, and having regions would simply create multiple Senates instead of one. We could have policy that moves quicker and ideas that flow across regions - for instance one region's decision to, say, introduce a carbon tax could make other regions follow suit - as well as reactions, against what other regions pass and against what the federal government enforces.

Yes if it works this sounds really interesting, and opens up an opportunity for interregional governmental diplomacy which is something we've previously lacked, but I fear in reality what will happen is either a significant chunk of region goes inactive/ zombie - region becomes 8-9 people leaving no real space for government/ opposition/ middle dynamics, people therefore ignore regions because everything they want passes or nothing they want passes or alternatively we force stuff on regional levels and since there's no real government dynamic it gets far more inactive than now.

It would also give parties something to do apart from bicker (or worse, stay quiet): plan and coordinate the presence of members across the regions. So in this respect it is conducive to activity surge, since political parties would have a new axis on which to strategise instead of the linear gameplay of vote-collecting we have had until now.

That I agree with, I just dont think fragmenting senate in six areas will help with long term activity; 20 people going zombie out of group of 60 isn't a big deal whereas 5 people dropping out of group of 15 definitely is.

The elector idea only reinforces the objective of getting as many sleeper voters as possible as it only makes electors useful at election time: a small group of senators would actually play the game, and everyone else just watches. That doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me.

Way I thought the elector system working was that each senator posts their vote, and their region. When counting we count FPTP for each region and it needs to receive majority of region's support to win - we could enhance this further by require sponsors from atleast x/y regions. This discourages sleeper voters, since a lot of them would not actually have regions (those just sign up and dont do anything after), it can further be established to require maintenance by redrawing regional boundaries every x months (to reflect national elections). Parties are actually harmed by having lots of sleeper voters who take constituencies, since that is taking up a space that one of their active members who vote in every election could take - and given limited number of elector areas you might loose just by having inactive members in a region despite having a majority - they're therefore incentivised to purge their lists.

[Arkolon]

The elector idea only reinforces the objective of getting as many sleeper voters as possible as it only makes electors useful at election time: a small group of senators would actually play the game, and everyone else just watches. That doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me.

Way I thought the elector system working was that each senator posts their vote, and their region. When counting we count FPTP for each region and it needs to receive majority of region's support to win - we could enhance this further by require sponsors from atleast x/y regions. This discourages sleeper voters, since a lot of them would not actually have regions (those just sign up and dont do anything after), it can further be established to require maintenance by redrawing regional boundaries every x months (to reflect national elections). Parties are actually harmed by having lots of sleeper voters who take constituencies, since that is taking up a space that one of their active members who vote in every election could take - and given limited number of elector areas you might loose just by having inactive members in a region despite having a majority - they're therefore incentivised to purge their lists.

That sounds a lot better than what I had understood from the first post on the matter. I'm all for this now, it definitely stacks up better than my idea. A potential problem could be that we run out of places on the map (and we'd need a competent/active mapmaker), but we can work that out later. To be clear, this idea would make MPs simultaneously act as state electors who give their vote to a candidate of their choice in an electoral college where every state has the same value?

How many regions would you suggest? 5?

[Partido Liberal Constitucional]

Way I thought the elector system working was that each senator posts their vote, and their region. When counting we count FPTP for each region and it needs to receive majority of region's support to win - we could enhance this further by require sponsors from atleast x/y regions. This discourages sleeper voters, since a lot of them would not actually have regions (those just sign up and dont do anything after), it can further be established to require maintenance by redrawing regional boundaries every x months (to reflect national elections). Parties are actually harmed by having lots of sleeper voters who take constituencies, since that is taking up a space that one of their active members who vote in every election could take - and given limited number of elector areas you might loose just by having inactive members in a region despite having a majority - they're therefore incentivised to purge their lists.

What I originally suggested was that we have a fixed number of seats in the chamber and proportionally assign them to people based on how well a party does in a region/district. For example, "in district x, Bloc Quebecois won five seats for getting "50-60" percent of the popular vote whereas NDP won four seats for winning roughly 40% of the vote".

Are you suggesting we retain the limitless chamber, but make it so that that things can only pass if they win a majority of the regions? If so why count using FPTP in a two way vote? Isn't that redundant?

I'm not critical, I just don't understand what this is.

edit: Oh damn is it this?

this idea would make MPs simultaneously act as state electors who give their vote to a candidate of their choice in an electoral college where every state has the same value?

This is what I guessed, but I still don't get what you said about FPTP.

[Lykens]

Way I thought the elector system working was that each senator posts their vote, and their region. When counting we count FPTP for each region and it needs to receive majority of region's support to win - we could enhance this further by require sponsors from atleast x/y regions. This discourages sleeper voters, since a lot of them would not actually have regions (those just sign up and dont do anything after), it can further be established to require maintenance by redrawing regional boundaries every x months (to reflect national elections). Parties are actually harmed by having lots of sleeper voters who take constituencies, since that is taking up a space that one of their active members who vote in every election could take - and given limited number of elector areas you might loose just by having inactive members in a region despite having a majority - they're therefore incentivised to purge their lists.

What I originally suggested was that we have a fixed number of seats in the chamber and proportionally assign them to people based on how well a party does in a region/district. For example, "in district x, Bloc Quebecois won five seats for getting "50-60" percent of the popular vote whereas NDP won four seats for winning roughly 40% of the vote".

Are you suggesting we retain the limitless chamber, but make it so that that things can only pass if they win a majority of the regions? If so why count using FPTP in a two way vote? Isn't that redundant?

I'm not critical, I just don't understand what it is.

I think that was for presidential elections.

[Partido Liberal Constitucional]

What I originally suggested was that we have a fixed number of seats in the chamber and proportionally assign them to people based on how well a party does in a region/district. For example, "in district x, Bloc Quebecois won five seats for getting "50-60" percent of the popular vote whereas NDP won four seats for winning roughly 40% of the vote".

Are you suggesting we retain the limitless chamber, but make it so that that things can only pass if they win a majority of the regions? If so why count using FPTP in a two way vote? Isn't that redundant?

I'm not critical, I just don't understand what it is.

I think that was for presidential elections.

An elector is simply defined as "a person who elects or may elect."

What am I missing? Are you being facetious?

[Lykens]

I think that was for presidential elections.

An elector is simply defined as "a person who elects or may elect."

What am I missing? Are you being facetious?

He was referring to presidential elections.

[Great Nepal]

What I originally suggested was that we have a fixed number of seats in the chamber and proportionally assign them to people based on how well a party does in a region/district. For example, "in district x, Bloc Quebecois won five seats for getting "50-60" percent of the popular vote whereas NDP won four seats for winning roughly 40% of the vote".

Are you suggesting we retain the limitless chamber, but make it so that that things can only pass if they win a majority of the regions? If so why count using FPTP in a two way vote? Isn't that redundant?

I'm not critical, I just don't understand what this is.

edit: Oh damn is it this?

this idea would make MPs simultaneously act as state electors who give their vote to a candidate of their choice in an electoral college where every state has the same value?

This is what I guessed, but I still don't get what you said about FPTP.

No, FPTP within the state's bloc.

Lets say there are five regions with 20 Mps each (regions boundaries and count will be adjusted every election cycle -either by admins or committee enabling gerrymandering attempts?), for a given bill the votes count up as:
Region 1: 8 for, 7 against; 5 no show/ abstain.
Region 2: 3 for, 2 against; 15 no show/ abstain.
Region 3: 9 for; 10 against; 1 no show
Region 4: 9 for; 10 against; 1 abstain
Region 5: 10 for; 8 against; 1 abstain

So region 3, 4 vote against while region 1, 2 and 5 vote for so the bill passes despite loosing overall up-down vote because of regional fptp - this means for parties zombie members are no longer a boost they can tg up during important elections, but deadweight who're making actual planning for their constituencies harder/impossible, while at the same time turning parties from just part of coalitions to actual important thing. Essentially this'd be like each of these regions electing a elector to cast heir vote for each legislation based on fptp except without the fractured legislature thread that'd cause.

[Tectonix]

What I originally suggested was that we have a fixed number of seats in the chamber and proportionally assign them to people based on how well a party does in a region/district. For example, "in district x, Bloc Quebecois won five seats for getting "50-60" percent of the popular vote whereas NDP won four seats for winning roughly 40% of the vote".

Are you suggesting we retain the limitless chamber, but make it so that that things can only pass if they win a majority of the regions? If so why count using FPTP in a two way vote? Isn't that redundant?

I'm not critical, I just don't understand what this is.

edit: Oh damn is it this?



This is what I guessed, but I still don't get what you said about FPTP.

No, FPTP within the state's bloc.

Lets say there are five regions with 20 Mps each (regions boundaries and count will be adjusted every election cycle -either by admins or committee enabling gerrymandering attempts?), for a given bill the votes count up as:
Region 1: 8 for, 7 against; 5 no show/ abstain.
Region 2: 3 for, 2 against; 15 no show/ abstain.
Region 3: 9 for; 10 against; 1 no show
Region 4: 9 for; 10 against; 1 abstain
Region 5: 10 for; 8 against; 1 abstain

So region 3, 4 vote against while region 1, 2 and 5 vote for so the bill passes despite loosing overall up-down vote because of regional fptp - this means for parties zombie members are no longer a boost they can tg up during important elections, but deadweight who're making actual planning for their constituencies harder/impossible, while at the same time turning parties from just part of coalitions to actual important thing. Essentially this'd be like each of these regions electing a elector to cast heir vote for each legislation based on fptp except without the fractured legislature thread that'd cause.

Hey, just popping my head in here for a sec. Are we planning on having FPTP in our new elections, or should we try out something new? MMP and STV are all very interesting options, and an NPV-STV system would be great for the head of state (assuming we have a center-left or left country).

[Great Nepal]

No, FPTP within the state's bloc.

Lets say there are five regions with 20 Mps each (regions boundaries and count will be adjusted every election cycle -either by admins or committee enabling gerrymandering attempts?), for a given bill the votes count up as:
Region 1: 8 for, 7 against; 5 no show/ abstain.
Region 2: 3 for, 2 against; 15 no show/ abstain.
Region 3: 9 for; 10 against; 1 no show
Region 4: 9 for; 10 against; 1 abstain
Region 5: 10 for; 8 against; 1 abstain

So region 3, 4 vote against while region 1, 2 and 5 vote for so the bill passes despite loosing overall up-down vote because of regional fptp - this means for parties zombie members are no longer a boost they can tg up during important elections, but deadweight who're making actual planning for their constituencies harder/impossible, while at the same time turning parties from just part of coalitions to actual important thing. Essentially this'd be like each of these regions electing a elector to cast heir vote for each legislation based on fptp except without the fractured legislature thread that'd cause.

Hey, just popping my head in here for a sec. Are we planning on having FPTP in our new elections, or should we try out something new? MMP and STV are all very interesting options, and an NPV-STV system would be great for the head of state (assuming we have a center-left or left country).

I'm not really sure on head of states; although having different way of voting on bills/ head of government to electing head of state might be quite interesting - have potential for head of state - head of government conflict?

[FreYhill]

No, FPTP within the state's bloc.

Lets say there are five regions with 20 Mps each (regions boundaries and count will be adjusted every election cycle -either by admins or committee enabling gerrymandering attempts?), for a given bill the votes count up as:
Region 1: 8 for, 7 against; 5 no show/ abstain.
Region 2: 3 for, 2 against; 15 no show/ abstain.
Region 3: 9 for; 10 against; 1 no show
Region 4: 9 for; 10 against; 1 abstain
Region 5: 10 for; 8 against; 1 abstain

So region 3, 4 vote against while region 1, 2 and 5 vote for so the bill passes despite loosing overall up-down vote because of regional fptp - this means for parties zombie members are no longer a boost they can tg up during important elections, but deadweight who're making actual planning for their constituencies harder/impossible, while at the same time turning parties from just part of coalitions to actual important thing. Essentially this'd be like each of these regions electing a elector to cast heir vote for each legislation based on fptp except without the fractured legislature thread that'd cause.

Hey, just popping my head in here for a sec. Are we planning on having FPTP in our new elections, or should we try out something new? MMP and STV are all very interesting options, and an NPV-STV system would be great for the head of state (assuming we have a center-left or left country).

> Center-Left Left version
> Being Successful in the long run

We need something in the middle where Conservatives and Liberals can agree/control government.

I think we should adopt the Electoral College too.

[Tectonix]

Hey, just popping my head in here for a sec. Are we planning on having FPTP in our new elections, or should we try out something new? MMP and STV are all very interesting options, and an NPV-STV system would be great for the head of state (assuming we have a center-left or left country).

> Center-Left Left version
> Being Successful in the long run

We need something in the middle where Conservatives and Liberals can agree/control government.

I think we should adopt the Electoral College too.

NOOOOO!

Well, adopting the EC can be debated upon. I would gauge whether we need it based on the urban/rural disparity that will arise. Let's just say, I ain't a fan of the EC.

[FreYhill]

> Center-Left Left version
> Being Successful in the long run

We need something in the middle where Conservatives and Liberals can agree/control government.

I think we should adopt the Electoral College too.

NOOOOO!

Well, adopting the EC can be debated upon. I would gauge whether we need it based on the urban/rural disparity that will arise. Let's just say, I ain't a fan of the EC.

Were you a fan of the EC before it elected Donald?

[Great Nepal]

> Center-Left Left version
> Being Successful in the long run

We need something in the middle where Conservatives and Liberals can agree/control government.

I think we should adopt the Electoral College too.

NOOOOO!

Well, adopting the EC can be debated upon. I would gauge whether we need it based on the urban/rural disparity that will arise. Let's just say, I ain't a fan of the EC.

EC is terrible, terrible system... so much so that its perverse incentives makes it awesome for rping the worst democracy in the planet.

[Arkolon]

What I originally suggested was that we have a fixed number of seats in the chamber and proportionally assign them to people based on how well a party does in a region/district. For example, "in district x, Bloc Quebecois won five seats for getting "50-60" percent of the popular vote whereas NDP won four seats for winning roughly 40% of the vote".

Are you suggesting we retain the limitless chamber, but make it so that that things can only pass if they win a majority of the regions? If so why count using FPTP in a two way vote? Isn't that redundant?

I'm not critical, I just don't understand what this is.

edit: Oh damn is it this?



This is what I guessed, but I still don't get what you said about FPTP.

No, FPTP within the state's bloc.

Lets say there are five regions with 20 Mps each (regions boundaries and count will be adjusted every election cycle -either by admins or committee enabling gerrymandering attempts?), for a given bill the votes count up as:
Region 1: 8 for, 7 against; 5 no show/ abstain.
Region 2: 3 for, 2 against; 15 no show/ abstain.
Region 3: 9 for; 10 against; 1 no show
Region 4: 9 for; 10 against; 1 abstain
Region 5: 10 for; 8 against; 1 abstain

So region 3, 4 vote against while region 1, 2 and 5 vote for so the bill passes despite loosing overall up-down vote because of regional fptp - this means for parties zombie members are no longer a boost they can tg up during important elections, but deadweight who're making actual planning for their constituencies harder/impossible, while at the same time turning parties from just part of coalitions to actual important thing. Essentially this'd be like each of these regions electing a elector to cast heir vote for each legislation based on fptp except without the fractured legislature thread that'd cause.

I didn't know you meant this for weekly votes instead of presidential elections - it sounds like it complicates an ordinary procedure (the Speaker would have to know what he's doing), but I still like the idea of it and it would be a necessary evil to complicate voting in that way to make the game more strategic/less about sleeper voters.

I also like the gerrymandering idea, but maybe that's just me.

[House of Judah]

Author: House of Judah
Seconds: Freyhill, Ikania

---

RESOLVED

Whereas Merizoc has engaged in a pattern of behavior that is beneath the standards of conduct expected of a Nation States Senate Administrator, including

• Treating with contempt requests to explain his actions as a Nation States Senate Administrator
• Abusing his power as an #NSG_Senate IRC Channel Operator to harass other users
• Doxxing a member of the Nation States Senate community

And therefore having lost the confidence of the Nation States Senate community in his ability to administer with level-headed judgement the Nation States Senate roleplay,

Is hereby found to be incompetent for the role of Nation States Senate Administrator and impeached, stripping him of all powers and responsibilities there of.

[Great Nepal]

No, FPTP within the state's bloc.

Lets say there are five regions with 20 Mps each (regions boundaries and count will be adjusted every election cycle -either by admins or committee enabling gerrymandering attempts?), for a given bill the votes count up as:
Region 1: 8 for, 7 against; 5 no show/ abstain.
Region 2: 3 for, 2 against; 15 no show/ abstain.
Region 3: 9 for; 10 against; 1 no show
Region 4: 9 for; 10 against; 1 abstain
Region 5: 10 for; 8 against; 1 abstain

So region 3, 4 vote against while region 1, 2 and 5 vote for so the bill passes despite loosing overall up-down vote because of regional fptp - this means for parties zombie members are no longer a boost they can tg up during important elections, but deadweight who're making actual planning for their constituencies harder/impossible, while at the same time turning parties from just part of coalitions to actual important thing. Essentially this'd be like each of these regions electing a elector to cast heir vote for each legislation based on fptp except without the fractured legislature thread that'd cause.

I didn't know you meant this for weekly votes instead of presidential elections - it sounds like it complicates an ordinary procedure (the Speaker would have to know what he's doing), but I still like the idea of it and it would be a necessary evil to complicate voting in that way to make the game more strategic/less about sleeper voters.

I also like the gerrymandering idea, but maybe that's just me.

Sorry for not being clearer; I blame typing at night.
Yes definitely, it puts additional burden on speaker/ vote counters; maybe eased slightly if we have each voter declare their region on same post as their vote but even then there'd need to be occasional referencing to the main list to make sure this is happening properly... i don't really have easy solution on that tbh. Gerrymandering could really be interesting avenue to go down, especially if parties become more strategic entities.

[Lykens]

I didn't know you meant this for weekly votes instead of presidential elections - it sounds like it complicates an ordinary procedure (the Speaker would have to know what he's doing), but I still like the idea of it and it would be a necessary evil to complicate voting in that way to make the game more strategic/less about sleeper voters.

I also like the gerrymandering idea, but maybe that's just me.

Sorry for not being clearer; I blame typing at night.
Yes definitely, it puts additional burden on speaker/ vote counters; maybe eased slightly if we have each voter declare their region on same post as their vote but even then there'd need to be occasional referencing to the main list to make sure this is happening properly... i don't really have easy solution on that tbh. Gerrymandering could really be interesting avenue to go down, especially if parties become more strategic entities.

I feel like that'd be too burdensome. I certainly like the idea for an electoral college for the presidency, elections will be much much more intriguing than whomever can throw the most bodies at a candidate.

For votes on legislation, I see it becoming a burden. On one hand like you said we wouldn't just be throwing bodies aye or nay, but I think that's... an integral part of NSS. Since we don't have a set number of seats and majorities are always in doubt or fluctuate, you need a good whip to get your peogle out, and the onus is on the leadership and whips to recruit people, engage them in the rp, and keep them coming back. That may just be me and my former whip bias.

While there's already heavy emphasis on leadership involvement I feel like what your proposal will do is allow party leaders to dish out retribution for not toeing the line, not just for inactivity. And don't get me wrong, I'm all about a strong central leadership, but we don't want potential abuse to drive people away.

[Arkolon]

For votes on legislation, I see it becoming a burden. On one hand like you said we wouldn't just be throwing bodies aye or nay, but I think that's... an integral part of NSS. Since we don't have a set number of seats and majorities are always in doubt or fluctuate, you need a good whip to get your peogle out, and the onus is on the leadership and whips to recruit people, engage them in the rp, and keep them coming back. That may just be me and my former whip bias.

There is not much fun in having this be contest of "who knows the most amount of people in NSSport", since that's what it becomes when we have to look for sleeper voters to win. That has been a part of NSGS, but it's clear it isn't necessarily conducive to the best roleplay experience and it can be reformed. There's nothing to suggest sleeper voters ever engage in the RP: under the current system, their only purpose is to parrot back "aye" or "nay" in unison once a week and they aren't asked to do much else. I see where the argument that it would be confusing to work out is coming from, but it's a price that must be paid if the voting method is to change at all. Consider that in the current system, counting votes is too easy, meaning all parties look for is raw votes. Campaign algorithms, scorinators, admin-kingmaking etc. could work one day, but from our current most-simple system they would be far, far too complicated a jump. The least we could do is finally integrate constituencies into the game and make the constituencies matter.

It would not be difficult to count votes with multiple regions in a spreadsheet. Right now we've had two columns: name and vote. With one more column, we could manage easily, and with a few more columns we could totally automate the counting process. It wouldn't be too burdensome: looking at it from cost/benefit, I personally reckon the benefits outweigh the costs.

While there's already heavy emphasis on leadership involvement I feel like what your proposal will do is allow party leaders to dish out retribution for not toeing the line, not just for inactivity. And don't get me wrong, I'm all about a strong central leadership, but we don't want potential abuse to drive people away.

Parties will still want raw votes, they'll just have to use them differently and not look for sleeper voters. If many refuse to toe the line, the party can decide to either reform or shrink its power. If it shrinks its power, it weakens itself, so it wouldn't be a very wise move. I suspect voters would just go to a different party (or make a new one) that fits their interests.

[Jeckland]

what is this complicated horseshit and how does it help

[Arkolon]

If we end up in the Caribbean as a postcolonial country, what do you guys think of the name Fernão?

[The New World Oceania]

If we end up in the Caribbean as a postcolonial country, what do you guys think of the name Fernão?

Love the name, love the postcolonial idea, but hesitant on the location. I think a large, impoverished country would be beneficial, especially with the regions proposal. If a country were small enough for a central government to easily manage, there'd much less incentive to use a federal structure.

[Tectonix]

NOOOOO!

Well, adopting the EC can be debated upon. I would gauge whether we need it based on the urban/rural disparity that will arise. Let's just say, I ain't a fan of the EC.

Were you a fan of the EC before it elected Donald?

I was a fan of it when America was a democracy. AKA - Never.

[Collatis]

I'd like to bring it to the attention of the Senate that The Sarian has repeatedly doxxed both members of the community, his solicitor, and innocent 30 year old lawyers. We cannot stand for this travesty.

what is this complicated horseshit and how does it help

Amen.