Talk Elections

Slot: 2 (General - PPT Administered)


Senators Nix and TNF, as co-sponsors you have 24 hours to advocate for this amendment.

That does say a lot... we're so used to the GM doing nothing that we don't notice when they're not there.

I need to think about this and it's knock-on impacts on other job-holders... but I am sympathetic to this move.

If I may contribute from the position of a lowly citizen (but former Senator! ;)), I think this is a very good idea.  I have long been unconvinced by the effectiveness of the GM position and I would have voted for its abolition long ago, but the recent inactivity proves the point most effectively.

I don't see what's wrong with scrapping a role that obviously has not and will not work in the foreseeable future, and trying something else.

I want the position to work so badly, so very very badly, but I just don't know...perhaps if there was a tighter defining of the specific roles of the GM, it could be saved?

It's a two part problem

1. The position description, as you say, needs to be clearly defined.
but
2. The position needs to be really engaged and essentially, a pain in the arse for all who are involved in Government. The issue is, outside of one or two people, yourself included... there's no one who has the inclination to be that informed nuisance.

If we have come to the point where we are willing to just trash the position, then surely it is time to take the gloves off and go crazy before doing so.

I have desperately wanted the position to succeed since I've been involved in Atlasia... But I suppose if this is a job that no one wants or can do... I dunno... I really want to see the job work and I've tried my best to figure out a way. It's not even a job I've ever even held. But I've worked on several pieces of legislation to try and make the job work... But if it's not going to work, then I'm tired of beating a dead horse.

But I still have to wonder how we are supposed to do things like budgeting and foreign and domestic news?

I agree that the GM should get out of the business of producing economic statistics, cost analyses, etc. But, I do think we need some sort of storyteller to generate major events for us to discuss. Should we just assume that everything that happens IRL also happens in Atlasia?

This is a frustration for me. I mean, there might be very overwhelming national/international stories (Ebola... hello) but because the GM doesn't mention it, it doesn't exist.

On the other side, I do think we need someone to give some sort of economic grounding in what happens here.

I actively did nothing after the Thursday Night Massacre. Things needed to get back to normal and wait for the Presidential. Many of you complained, even Averroes, that I did too much or crossed a line. I stopped, and now Averroes complains again. I was going to be more active in November (depending on the President).

You know, I didn't ever comment on anything while being president here, but it guess there needs to be an exception of this here (maybe also since I'm going to come back soon! :D). In my time in Atlasia, I have not seen a single time when we really needed a GM, let alone a time when we had a real GM. I came to Atlasia I guess the week before Nix resigned, I then was here during Griffin's aliens, Simfan's calendar, Napoleon doing nothing, the Thursday Night Massacre. Did we need a GM in any of these times? I think not. Did he do something constructive during this time? I think not. This is nothing against the guys who did the job, I am sure you did it with the best intentions and I know it's probably the single most ungrateful job in Atlasia. Yet I cannot think of a single time since I am here when there was really need of a GM; and we saw what happened when the GM did his thing and a few guys did not like it.
So yeah, if this is still on the floor when I come back, I'll definitely will vote for this.

Without a GM, then this isn't a game then its just a forum where some users occasionally vote. There needs to be some simulation in a fantasy game.

Senators Nix and TNF, my dear future colleagues,

Abolishing the office of Game Moderator is truly a wrong idea. This office is truly important for one specific reason: regional and federal activity. When I was representative, Archduke and Governor in the Midwest, the office of Game Moderator was extremely helpful for me because he made the cost analysis. No one can deny regional activity is actually falling, the biggest reason is I believe how difficult it is now to estimate cost analysis for budget bills, etc...

I believe the  Game Moderator office needs reforms (and oh my god, the GM amendment that is going to pass is clearly terrible because the GM would be too powerful), but I don't believe this office should be abolished. People seemed to have forgotten, but the Hagrid/Napoleon partnership was at the beginning really effective. A shame Nappy left Atlasia because of health problems.

I recall President Cranberry, while he was SoIA, doing a wonderful job for the events etc.
So maybe, instead of abolishing this office, we should reform this office by making the SoIA and the GM even closer, or by merging the SoIA and the GM office?

I don't believe abolishing this office is the right thing to do.

Best regards,
Senator-elect Windjammer

This arrangement is better for people elected in the regions because they don't have this boring work to do. When the GM stopped doing all this stuff, that's just my impression, but I had the impression that activity started to decline in the regions.

Yes, this is a boring job, doing all of the cost analysis, but being GM, this is like being god, no? :P

I echo the comments made by my cosponsor.

Wait, I don t understand??? Why my candidacy for this office would make you withdraw this bill???

Do you realize I would be extremely be incompetent? I wouldnt understand correctly the bills I would have to make the numbers because of the barrier language :P

Hell, I'd willingly do the job, I just am horrible at math. That's what's always kept me from trying to get the job before. I would take advantage to appoint a Deputy who would be willing to do all the things that I know I couldn't do, such as cost analysis.

The more important aspect to me has always been the news cycle, though. Few GMs have taken that part of the job seriously... I would at least like to hear from someone what their ideas are as far as the future of news in the game, which I feel is necessary for it to function. Otherwise, what more is the game really than us simulating elections? We could realistically just do whatever we wanted if there were no consequences as long as we were all personally popular. That thought really just divorces me from voting to get rid of the GM position.

Then the question becomes why do we bother worrying about what a bill costs or where you get money from or any of that stuff? Why do we bother being concerned about what the economy is doing or really doing anything different at all since all we seem to do is react to events that happen in real life. So if what we do changes nothing, why do we simulate anything past the elections themselves?

I'm just a citizen like Barnes, but I'd just like to say that I think this amendment is both a good idea and probably overdue.  It has become increasingly clear that as much as we may wish it weren't the case, GM is essentially a deadweight position.  Honestly, I don't see what the game would lose from the position's abolition at this point.

Atlasia is an elections simulator. The governing structures obscure this, but there is no government simulation. Yes, legislation is debated and voted on, but then what? It is entered into the wiki, its content filters back into the political narrative of the time, but ultimately it is forgotten. It doesn't matter how dedicated the GM is, how much they write about 'the economy' or 'foreign affairs.' The GM cannot hold players accountable for their actions in government. The GM can always be ignored, and no amount of legislation will fix that. Because Atlas is an elections simulator, the only thing which matters is the campaigns. At the end of the day, players will vote based on their relationships with other players (friendships, yes, but also perceptions of dedication (e.g. activity) and political expediency).

As it stands, it doesn't matter how much a bill costs or where the money comes from. There is no money. There are only forum posts. Yet people go through great lengths to pretend that is not the case. For example, I spent much of 2011 tracking through the entire legislative history of the IDS and cross-referencing those bills to actually existing state budgets to create a budget for that region. I served as speaker for long enough that after each fiscal bill, the budget was updated. PiT and I made sure that Imperial spending stayed within the confines of what we considered to be "realistic." But at some point (perhaps after I left, it's been years so my memory is fuzzy) the budget stopped being updated. And it didn't matter. Because the budget was ancillary to the functionality of the game. The budget's primary function was always political. I took on the budget project when I was new to the game, in order to gain some credibility as a "serious" member of the legislature. That credibility allowed me to become Speaker and from there shape the narrative of the IDS (and in a small part, Atlasia) for about a year and a half.

Note how the GM does not make an appearance in the above story. The GM at the time was...Badger? I don't really remember. But whoever it was had their hands full trying to figure out the effects of some complex healthcare reform bill (reform from what? your guess is as good as mine). And I think they might have been studying to pass the bar exam, or something. Anyway, they had their hands full. The players were able to crunch the numbers on their own. However, there was never any simulation. We never heard about what effects our budget was having on the Imperial "economy" or whatever. The GM can't be everywhere. And even if the GM had been superhuman, it wouldn't have mattered. I remember when I served as SoIA and then GM I kept employment numbers for the regions which were tied directly to my perception of legislative "activity" in those regions. Nobody cared. I don't think anybody read my "office" thread.

The cold, hard truth is none of us want to play a government simulator. Sure, there are plenty of people who vocally wish the GM was more relevant, but no one is willing to empower him to that extent. Because doing so would require fundamentally altering the mechanics of this game. It would require introducing new ways to hold government actors accountable which supersedes the electoral system. For example, doing away with player-voter elections altogether in favor of GM-simulated elections which reward good governance and punish bad governance. That game might be fun if done correctly, but would likely need an actual programmed game engine to work. The alternative is to get rid of all aspects of government simulation altogether. To not worry about tracking the effects of past legislation, or even keeping tabs on past legislation. Rather, acknowledging all bills as what they really are, showpieces which allow elected officials to act out political debates for the benefit of their constituencies.

The current situation is exhausting and somewhat damaging. The game moderation staff are set up to fail. They can either bang their heads against a wall for the duration of their term or throw their hands up and be inactive. I spent a good portion of my GM term inactive due to not having a computer, but frankly, I was glad I had that excuse. And then as I sketched above, those players who do engage in the pageantry of drafting thorough budgets and complex laws gain significant political advantage not because of the content of their proposals, but rather because of the veneer of "seriousness" attached to their efforts. Because these are time-intensive endeavors, the system (perhaps I should say "the culture") gives an advantage to those who have an incredible amount of free time.

It is my position that eliminating the entire Game Moderation staff (that is, all members of the cabinet which engage in any sort of simulation regarding the economy, 'foreign affairs,' 'domestic affairs,' etc.) will rejuvenate the game. An Atlasia which does not try to mirror an actually existing nation but which focuses on the true meat of the game, the relationships between players and the electoral system, will be much healthier.

I disagree... I think context and external factors do mater.

Even in the absence of going all gov't sim without elections, we would be better with some kind of programmed engine, even if for just part of the GMs duties, then the present system.

Well, I guess the vote will be scheduled before I swear. In case I would be able to vote, I intend to vote Aye.
The current system isn't working, if we abolish this office, we will be able to create something else in the future.

Naturally, if you take something to the fullest extent and then try to contemplate the task at hand, you will undoubtedly find it to be the case.

You seem to have become rather pessimistic about everything and seem to reject out of hand neary every proposal that doesn't fit within a preset narrowly defined set of constraints set by yourself.

Kind of like "Don't go to the ME Windjammer, you'll be doomed!" :P

Do you have any ideas on that "Something else?"

Making the SoIA office stronger for instance?

It's things like this that have pushed me closer to just quitting this game altogether. It is part of the reason why I'm leaving in December. It's clear that there is no desire for real change in this game and I'm just tired of going through the same motions we always do.

I'm still going to vote nay because to me, external factors should be an important part of the game.

It's not a real change though. And I've been set to quit for some time anyway. I'm leaving after my term ends for outside reasons, but also the fact that painful little is going to really change. It has nothing to do with you.

The real change would be changing the entire face of the game by actually having to react to simulated external events. However, I've accepted that isn't going to happen. Another change I've proposed is changing to a parliamentary simulation, which would change how elections are conducted, but I don't think that's going to happen either.

I suppose this is a change that can be made, but I don't think it'll really make any difference one way or another. We're just abolishing an office. What actually is going to change about this game? Nothing, really. Again, this has nothing to do with you or anything. I'm personally frustrated by the lack of changes that we can accomplish simply because of habit and apathy. Just getting rid of the GM is yet another thing that basically changes this game in a direction that is completely opposite of the one I'd like to go in.

I wonder just how many people actually do desire to continue to play this game anymore and who is just pushing it along delaying the inevitable?

Ironically, in spite of how long I have been here, leaving the game has never really been an option I would seriously consider unless something external absolutely forced me to. Yet each real life challenge that has come along, I have gone to excessive lengths just to preserve my ability to continue so there are few real life events that could produce that result.

It is more of a house cleaning conceding to an unchangeable reality and merely tidying up by making it official. It is thus that nothing will really change because we presently don't have an active GM abolishing the GM will thus yield nothing in terms of gameplay. It is cosmetic.

Alright, I have two remaining issues with abolishing the GM:

1) I think the game could function without the GM telling us what events are occurring that we need to respond to, but once we respond, there should be some sort of results for us to evaluate. Will this responsibility be passed onto the SoIA or simply gotten rid of?

2) I agree that we don't need the GM for cost analyses but what about revenue analyses? If we just have to rely on speculation ("I really doubt that would raise enough revenue to finance x program") people will probably just ignore such objections and vote based on their own ideology. More generally, how are we supposed to formulate a budget without a GM to give us revenue figures?

Edit: Just read Yelnoc's post and I think you address both of these but I'm not sure I fully agree. Hmm...

I've been thinking long and hard on this one.

Yelnoc's post contains a lot of ideas that certainly have merit. However, how you approach the game will tend to have an impact on how you view this question. As someone who is interested in policy, the idea of removing the external stimuli and not basing what the Senate and nation does on really... anything, is unattractive to me in the extreme.

If we were to get rid of the GM, I would want to see what powers and authority we could transfer to the SoIA and the SoEA. Otherwise, I wouldn't support the overall meta concept contained in Yelnoc's post.

It's somewhat surprising to me that people are saying that no one will listen to the GM and whatever after what happened just a month ago.

Feel free to ignore me since I'm obviously not a Senator.

I think there's a lot of truth to the idea that the GM position is in serious trouble. The present state of Atlasia is that we elect people to debate things, and the outcome of the debate shapes the results of future elections - not because of any simulated impact of legislation that passes or fails, but because of the merit and tenor of the debate. I think removing the GM would work just fine in that, domestic sense. And I absolutely agree that cost analyses are largely irrelevant and it's telling that recent GMs have abolished them entirely.

The problem with transferring GM powers to the SoEA or SoIA is that you end up with a a situation where an active office holder writes their own story - SoEA Superique solving the Israel-Palestine conflict springs to mind.

If we want to keep the GM position it's clear that we would have to institute penalties for people ignoring the GM's 'reality'. The problem with that is that it will be virtually impossible to manufacture any penalties that can be objectively applied in clear circumstances and not provoke massive outrage when implemented.

I disagree to some extent with the premise of Yelnoc's otherwise excellent post - the game is about elections, but the difference is that the 'governance' element is, as I mentioned, based around debate rather than on 'results'. And that's fine - I think us analysing and discussing the costs and merits of legislation is a lot more entertaining and actually healthy for the game than someone handing down the gospel by fiat.

The fundamental problem that needs to be addressed, and is not being addressed by the GM position for an array of myriad reasons, is that policy is ephemeral. This applies particularly in foreign policy. Look at it this way -

1. ISIS arises in real life.
2. Players naturally want to react to this event - to the extent that it would seem absurd to attempt to ignore it because it may not be happening in our virtual reality - and our imaginary far more hawkish Senate passes, say, a resolution to allow the President to deploy ground troops.
3. The President deploys ground troops in our hypothetical reality.
4. Atlasia reality and real life diverge - the U.S. does not deploy ground troops.
5. As a result of this, ISIS becomes more powerful in reality and, say, continues to push into Iraq.
6. Players naturally want to react to this event - to the extent that it would seem absurd to attempt to ignore it because it may not be happening in our virtual reality...



e: There's also the slightly crass point that 'real life' writes a far better 'plot' than any GM could.

The public rarely shows much interest in things that don't either change the game like consolidation or completely unpredictable, normally social issues like dog meat, incest or whatever else, so I'm not sure that's a great metric. Similarly the nature of the event wasn't really policy provoking, it was IIRC a terrorist attack to stop atlasia attacking ISIS. No one was going to be cowed by that type of attack (though they might have been in RL) and we were already attacking ISIS so I'm not sure what policy change was to be expected. To me it's enough that there was a backlash to show that the GM still is, or at the very least can be, relevant. If no one cared about the position then no one would have cared if the GM was sacked. It's also worth pointing out that no one at the time said "well the president was right because he has no obligation to follow the storyline".

While Yelnoc's analysis is thought provoking, I fundamentally disagree that this game should only be about elections. There should be a news element in this game and there should even be simulated scandal for players to answer to rather than only real ones where it usually just whittles down to someone saying something that somebody else didn't like. There are still a great many things that could be done to reform the office even if you want to throw cost projection out the window (which maybe we should because no one cares what a bill costs or about budgeting). Why can't we have simulated news like other political simulations do that are an important part of the game. Honestly, if we're not going to find someone who remotely wants to do that stuff, then I guess we can go ahead and abolish the position.

However, the game has been shifting in my own view, in the wrong direction of where it should be going. I'm still going to vote nay on this. It's just so far removed from my own beliefs of what the game should be. I cannot support it.

I don't think we disagree. The 'governance' element functions as an arena for ideological debate, the performance of which forms a component of the elections game. However, those who envision this game to simultaneously be a government simulation pine for a system in which the results of the 'decisions' made by governments have tangible consequences, as opposed to the current set up where activity of the moderator staff, consistency of story lines, differing understandings of game history, and unwillingness of elected officials to cooperate with moderation staff make all attempts at story-telling and game moderation futile.

I cannot imagine a set of reforms which would fix all of the above problems. Let's take them one-by-one.

• GM Activity: When the GM is inactive, the system collapses. There are very few people willing to take on the position of GM to begin with, considering what a thankless job it is. Of that very small pool, few (if any) have the time, energy, and imagination to produce the various plot points needed to give the game it's "story" and worry about cost estimation and legislation consequences. That's a huge amount of drudgery to ask a person to do, which is why some of that work was farmed out to the SoEA and SoIA. But the same problems apply to those positions- no respect, no real ability to influence the game. Why bother with it?
• Story Consistency: Apparently we annexed Canada while I was gone? Under what circumstances, I don't know. I'm sure there are some helpful mod posts somewhere from that time, outlining how that happened and what the initial reactions were. Whether annexing Canada could possibly have been made to sound like a logical and not Germany-in-the-Sudetenland aggression I don't know. Has that plot point resurfaced to influence future 'foreign policy' story lines? I doubt it. This sort of one-off plot vomit is the stuff of nightmares for a dedicated GM who wants to figure out the 'in-game' or simulated situation in which Atlasia resides.
• Historical Understanding: Related to plot consistency is our understanding as players of plot. The lack of consistent story telling, coupled with the immense age of this game, makes it easy for confusion to arise as to what kind of debates should be taking place in government. To use an example from my time in the IDS, when creating the budget I found that past governments had passed various contradictory tax plans many many times without understanding that the previous governments had already covered that ground. This may be less a problem at the Federal level, due to the presence of players which preserve a very long institutional memory (looking at you North Carolina Yankee), but it is still a problem inherent to this system, which becomes particularly difficult when people refuse to acknowledge a shared understanding.
• Non-Cooperation: Oakvale's example of ephemeral policy fits here. Ultimately, we take our cues from the real world. When something interesting happens outside, we like to react to it, even if it contradicts the Atlasian version of history preserved by the GM. Another, particularly egregious form of non-cooperation is when elected officials refuse to interact with the story points created by GM's, either because they don't find them interesting, or they feel the plot does not fit with the (their understanding of) the game.

Because of the above issues with the GM system, it really doesn't matter what the GM does (or doesn't do). The game grinds on. "Fixing" the issues presented, so that policy makers had to interact with the GM in good faith, and so that their decisions actually had consequences, would require an intense overhaul of the game, reworking Atlasia to become an actual simulator of both public policy and a living game world, rather than just an elections game on a political geography forum. I am not convinced that is achievable, at least, not without a dedicated programmer and an external website. There are some reforms which may move the game in that direction, though ultimately will change very little. First, however, I want to address a proposed change which would just make things worse.

If you're going to eliminate the GM position, DO NOT simply transfer all GM power to the SoIA and SoEA. Please! Bad, bad idea. Oakvale put his finger on one problem, that of the cabinet member who can use his moderation powers to hand himself victories, is a real problem. Without a GM to crack down, BS like that will likely become more common. Just as pressing, without a leader on the moderation staff, the SoIA and SoEA will be free to act independently, which will only worsen the problems of continuity and plot vomit. On the contrary, if you eliminate the GM, you have to eliminate the entire moderation staff. Doing otherwise will simply make the system even more broken.

Another potential "solution" I want to address is wiki modernization. The problems of 'story consistency' and 'historical understanding' may appear to fixable by updating the wiki and making everyone read it. Because we have made it an expectation for GM's to maintain an internally consistent game world for the rest of us to interact with, an up-to-date wiki would certainly help them. But how do you force every elected official to know Atlasian history before engaging in debates or reacting to plot? The biggest problems are the first and last bullets; the middle two are more the result of inactivity and non-cooperation than problems in their own right (yes, this is a poorly structured post, I'm sorry).

If you want to create a GM-driven game where external stimuli, to borrow Polnut's term, matter, I see two options.

• Kill Continuity: Our difficulty maintaining continuity is only a problem so long as we care about continuity. A hard reset after every GM leaves office, or perhaps after every presidential term, makes worrying about making policy and story fit with Atlasia's long history irrelevant. It will also hopefully boost cooperation by making all story lines similar to our real world, thereby eliminating the problem Oakvale identified.
• Kill Elections: This tackles non-cooperation head-on by creating a system of reward and punishment, forcing players to cooperate with the GM and actually respond to stimuli. Nobody is going to go for this of course because it kills off player-driven elections, and this is, of course, an elections game

I am unable to think of any other 'reforms' that actually change the structure of the game in a positive way, while preserving relevance of the GM. Both suggestions have serious problems of their own, which I'd be happy to get into if anyone is actually interested in either. Of course, my preferred option is to completely eliminate the role of game moderation. For me, that is the most honest course of action, which acknowledges our capacities as a group without imposing unrealistic expectations on our GM staff or each other. I truly believe that debating bills without any larger context (then, implicitly of course, the state of the debate around said issue in the US/wider Atlas forum) would make this all a whole lot more fun for everyone involved.

To Cynic, Polnut, and everyone else who wants to see the Atlas change so that the GM is in fact relevant, what do you propose? Perhaps I am overlooking something. Please sketch out how the game could be altered so that players respond to stimuli and GM's stay active.

Well, I wouldn't propose killing elections, that's a given.

I've thought for a long while that perhaps the GM news cycle of legislation should "reward" or "punish" players with positive and negative news stories about certain big pieces of legislation and perhaps that can affect elections. Ideally for me, the spot really should be occupied by more than one person who no longer has anything to gain or lose politically in the game (People who effectively want to say they're "retired" from electioneering for a period of time). It probably should be a few people because the GM position should be able to analyze and simulate public reaction to bills, foreign news, wiki updating, interacting with the cabinet members (Badger and I had quite a lot of interaction as GM and SOIA respectively), etc. I also don't think the GM's should be allowed to vote because they're essentially a Game Admin. Also, Atlasians who ignore GM decisions should be punished somehow. Suspension from office holding or voting for a period of time. People who break rules have to understand those consequences.

My basic feeling is that in order for a GM to be active, they have to willingly give up political ambitions for a period of time, there should be more than one (in fact a group of 3 might be best) and players who ignore GM decisions are punished by the loss of the ability to hold office or vote for a period of time, which can be decided by the Supreme Court, maybe.

Those ideas are simply speculative, but I think it would be a massive negative to get rid of the position, because a game like this really should have an admin.

I don't see why the only option is the nuclear one.

You aren't going to get a perfect scenario. The way I look at it is this.

1. Yes, we need consistency, which is why I suggested clear consequences for those officials who actively ignored the GM. We do need to be influenced, if anything, this place is TOO driven by relationships, but considering the nature of this place and its size, it's unrealistic to see it change.

2. There are those who want to treat Atlasia as their little wish-kingdom, where reality and boundaries don't exist. I'm personally not one of them. We've seen some very problematic moves recently that, yes, undermine the purpose of the GM and the SoIA and SoEA to guide events. I mean... the Middle-East Peace that just happened?

I would support a premise where Atlasia basically follows the US and overall international affairs and only shifts when the GM finds cause to do so (inconsistency with previous decisions and actions for example).

I will not support a system that is just about elections and doesn't have some kind of direction. Now, the point that Senator Nix and others have raised about essentially no one paying attention to the GM or the Secretaries. They're completely correct. But is the answer to just do away with the position and leave us without any guidance?

If anything this path just leads to the wish-fulfillment gold mine and pushes other participants out.

A voice from the gallery would like to make a comment...

I have been GM before. My experience leads me to believe that it is a worthless post that needs to be abolished.

Yes, Afleitch appointed you. I even voted for your confirmation in spite of our long and bad history. I hoped your experience would both avoid the "continuity problem" and also provide a perspective that could do something with the post that was more radical and not constained by the limits ("do anything somewhat interesting and I'll bitch and moan" basically was the meme at the time) implaced on the position by the general public. Therefore, someone who was both ancient and has never gave a damn what about others thought was a good choice for the position.

I have seen both Polnut and Dr. Cynic discuss penalties for ignoring the GM. One of you suggested a ban from office I believe. wHat would the mechanics of this entail, how could you implement  and satisfy the doubters?

Will you calm the hell down man? Forgive me, but I got the impression that we were suppose to debate sh**t here five years ago, not just suppress what the almighty Nix thinks is a bad idea. Two other respected Senators have expressed interest in the proposal and so have I, we should at least discuss how they view doing it and stuff.

You really don't seem to enjoy doing this anymore man.

On the flip side, it is perfectyl reasonable to expect those who play a game, to adhere to its set rules like any other though.

That is why we have debates, to discuss logistics and find answers to such questions, or at least try to. :P

I must say, dropping my big fat ass down an elevator shaft would prove far more trouble than it's worth, I assure you, Nix.

Perhaps the penalties for ignoring and flagrantly telling a GM off should be separate. Ignoring could result in negative news stories and hopefully electoral penalties.

Flagrantly telling the GM to basically go suck a railroad spike when it comes to their storylines should be dealt with the same way any admin deals with a player who gets out of line. Potentially a ban on participation. A Supreme Court lawsuit, perhaps if a ban on office would be considered necessary... I'm more inclined toward a voting ban for a period of time. If these ideas are too extreme, we should at least discuss some sort of compromise rather than head straight for the nuclear option. Maybe even scrapping the role and creating an entirely new Admin style role... I'd prefer to exhaust all options before we dismantle the job entirely...

One point I'd like to make is without some sort of God figure we run the risk of people doing whatever they like ( Without a GM, everything is permissible :P). Without someone to tell us what's actually happened it's entirely subjective, and I can see that going badly wrong, just look at the recent fiasco after tyrion left. Having someone who's appointed to be a minor correcting figure makes sense to me.

Please do not give us the impossible task of judging whether someone has "ignored the GM's storyline" or whatever.

This debate is getting a little too fraught.

I understand the passion, but we seem to coming to this issue from quite different views. We have "the GM is useless and powerless, so lets get rid of it" and "we can't just be about elections and be completely without guidance, even taking into account the weakness of the GM position".

I suppose the question I would ask Senator Nix, who is clearly extremely passionate about this is, how do we put legislation and activities into context when it essentially turns into a free-for-all. Each person determines what their realities and situations are? And if enough people agree that Atlasia becomes part of the EU... then it happens?

I acknowledge that there are problems, serious ones with the GM, but it is down to the characters who inhabit the role. I am just fundamentally concerned about the consequences of saying "sod it, we'll just carry on" and again, this place is already over-ridden by personalities and relationships and turning it into purely an election sim would pretty much mean a whack of posters would just leave.

So, my key question is, even if I acknowledge the GM position is increasingly untenable, what kind of mechanism do you replace it with?   

After reading what was "wrong" with the Game Moderator office the last time, I really believe this is nonsense. I mean, please! This is going to get like the gun control issue IRL! I strongly oppose this.

I think the last time when the GM as the GM and not the political position had a large impact with a story was rimjob, but that's not the sort of point I'm trying to make.

The way I see it, with a position of GM we are all committed in principle that actions in the game have a consequence, and this is objective and not up for date. Now of course in practice almost everything with regard to consequences is up for debate, but this principle allows us to stop, say, me declaring myself king of all atlasia, and without the GM and the objective truth that enbodies I think that opens the door for anything to occur. I think without a GM we run the risk of far more post tyrion style situations.

I would like to say, that a lot of this debate has been far too personal on both sides. I'm as guilty as anyone of it. These debates shouldn't get so personal...

I think you're on to it though with this. The GM could be someone who can resolve disputes, simulate outsider public opinion (if only just to provide some sort of harbinger to provoke debates) and even simulate things such as the rebellions we recently saw. Apart from things like that, maybe we can just allow the GM to make themselves useful in other ways, as you suggest, at their discretion. Can we amend it to that? I would support it. I think the position can still be useful in terms of preventing things completely collapsing into the kind of chaos we saw when the position was completely unused by the holder. Rather than forcing the hours of tedium on the holder, which inevitably exhausts them.

I want to say that as someone potentially entering the office that I support this. The job as it is now is an overwhelming one and I've outlined how I wish to run things if I'm confirmed and it's pretty much in lock step with this. It's to keep the office viable and work as an admin for the game basically, but to allow the game to run naturally with minimal interference.

I will offer the amendment if that is needed at this juncture.

I am not opposed to the direction, I just have a nagging feeling there was something more we could have done.

I am willing to offer the amendment in question.

I like the look of that amendment.

By way of analogy it's probably helpful to look at the GM as a pope figure. Occasionally he'll speak infallibly and that must be assented to, but most of the time we can disagree with him, although his view still gets a lot more weight than some random churchgoer/priest/bishop.

This amendment is good and I will vote for it.
Good job Nix!

I can certainly see myself supporting this at the moment.

Can I just say thank goodness we all got past the initial bickering and were able to meet in the middle on this.

I would have supported the original version, but this one seems great. I'll support it.

I guess a final vote can be opened here?

Proposed by: TNF/ Yankee

Status: Friendly

Senators have 24 hours to object to this amendment.

With no objections the amendment passes.

Can we move to final vote?

I motion for a final vote.

I second the motion

Thirded

Senators, a final vote is now open on this amendment

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

Abstain

Aye

Thank you Cynic!

This has enough votes to pass, Senators have 24 hours to change votes

This amendment has passed and is sent to the regions for ratification.