SENATE BILL: The Game Moderator Reform Act (Law'd)

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Antonio for the President

Here's my questions: What limit does the SoEA have to write about foreign crisises and the like affecting Atlasia? Could the SoEA write his/her own crisis and respond to it? That kind of takes the challenge out of it IMHO.

The SoIA is limited to regional matters, and I like the idea, but what role would the GM's Office have for regional matters? Would the GM and SoIA have "co-jurisdiction" over regional issues?

That said, expanding the role of these two offices to give them some form of "assistant GM" powers is a great and long overdue idea I heartily support.

[Badger]

FTR, if I may, I set out a basic list of RL events which happen or do not happen in Atlasia: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=127840.msg2743982#msg2743982

It'd be cool if it could be codified or remain as unofficial policy to make the SoEA/GM's job easier and to not have a sh**tload of boring RL-articles about elections in Niger.

I don't know how I missed that post of yours from Dec, Hash.

And I agree.

[Badger]

Ditto---at least regarding the SoEA's role under this bill. RE: the SoIA, I'll reiterate my earlier question:

The SoIA is limited to regional matters, and I like the idea, but what role would the GM's Office have for regional matters? Would the GM and SoIA have "co-jurisdiction" over regional issues?

That said, expanding the role of these two offices to give them some form of "assistant GM" powers is a great and long overdue idea I heartily support.

[Badger]

Agree with Marokai.

[Badger]

Ditto---at least regarding the SoEA's role under this bill. RE: the SoIA, I'll reiterate my earlier question:

The SoIA is limited to regional matters, and I like the idea, but what role would the GM's Office have for regional matters? Would the GM and SoIA have "co-jurisdiction" over regional issues?

That said, expanding the role of these two offices to give them some form of "assistant GM" powers is a great and long overdue idea I heartily support.

The GM office would more be focused on Senate affairs, and the SoIA would have a focus on regional affairs. My interpretation of the bill is that the GM office would not have powers over regional affairs.

For the record, though, the GM could still have the ability to post on and influence whatever he likes, right?

That is a good question. It needs to be clarified in the legislation one way or another.

Agreed. Maybe "co-jurisdiction" on at least regional levels might be worth a try.

At any rate, the powers and responsibilities here need to be deliniated and yet remain flexable.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thoughts on that?

I very much like and support the amendment re: co-jurisdiction between the SoIA and GM on regional affairs. However I have some concern about the same amendment being included re: the SoEA and foreign affairs.

Earlier in the debate Ben laid out the distinction between this bill's intent for additional authority to be conferred on the SoEA, and the worries the bill would effectively create 2 GMs for foreign affairs:

I have one concern. Is that appropriate for SoEA, for example, to make up an events he'd respond to?

As I've said, basically what this bill will do is allow the SoEA to create stories as a base for the GM.  It also creates background information.  The SoEA cannot create a crisis, respond to it, and give himself the Nobel Peace Prize.  He creates the baseline, and then works with the GM to share the Nobel Peace Prize.

I hope this alleviates your concern.

Ben's post correctly and wisely framed the powers of the SoEA. The proposed amendment's language, however, seems to go far beyond the bill's original intent by giving full "co-jurisdiction over foreign affairs" to the SoEA. This language would in fact effectively create two separate GM's for foreign matters.

May I strongly suggest changing the language of the amendment to give the GM co-jurisdiction over <insert language here related the SoEA's duties as spelled out here:

Section 2 – Secretary of External Affairs
1.   The Secretary of External Affairs shall be permitted to publish stories relating to foreign elections, foreign economic actions, foreign military conflicts, etc.

plus other language of Section 2 if needed>

I realize that makes the amendment more wordy, as the SoEA's expanded powers under this bill are nowhere near as easily summarized as the SoIA's ("regional issues"), but such a change is needed to keep within the original intent of this bill and avoid the train-wreck-waiting-to-happen of dual GMs. 

[Badger]

While proofreading this post, I just read the calls to pass this quickly. Great. You guys'll love this then. I'll try getting something posted soon for suggested amendments, as requested.

While typing my last post I thought of another equally important suggestion: The bill should include language stating that the GM's Office holds final decision-making in a conflict between either the SoIA or SoEA in a decision made under the auspices of this act.

Before people object and say that unnecessarily weakens this bill or either Secretary, let me explain why:

When and IF there is an irresolvable disagreement between either Secretary and the GM's Office re: a regional issue/event or foreign incident, etc, ultimately there should be a final authority to make a decision as to what happens in fantasyland. Otherwise the situation could arise where both offices are issuing conflicting reports of what is happening without resolution and creating utter confusion for those trying to play the game. Since the GM's Office is designed as the ultimate and nonpartisan moderator for happenings in fantasyland, it makes sense that such authority---again IF necessary---should fall to that office.

If that sounds like making the GM too powerful, remember this bill still expands the SoIA and SoEA authority well beyond the status quo---which I absolutely support as long overdue. Also recall that the GM is employed completely at the will of the President and can be dismissed at any time. While I doubt any president would do so for partisan reasons, chronic micromanaging and inability to work and play well with other cabinet members would be deserved grounds to do so.

Finally, let me note that in practice, excessive micromanaging and vetoing either Secretary is nothing whatsoever to fear from this GM. I really, REALLY want the Secretaries to take over more duties in this realm. I intend to only use such "veto" when absolutely necessary when an SoIA or SoEA decision here conflicts with a planned storyline or fundamental sense of "WTF?", and then only after seeing if there's some reachable compromise that allows the Secretary to be satisfied with some modifications. Even then this would be rare. Not only do I want the Secretaries to be creative in using their new authority, but I'm just too darned busy juggling too many things to micromanage anyone. Besides, I trust Ben and JBrase wholly. Its future GMs and Secretaries that may come to irresolvable disagreement which leads me to suggest this.

In sum, even in these new areas of co-jurisdiction there should be a final arbiter when and if an irreconcilable disagreement occurs to avoid utter confusion in the game. That role should logically fall to the GM's Office as part of its historic non-partisan role as overall arbiter of events and policy consequences/outcomes. Nor should this be seen as overly concentrating power with the GM's Office as this bill actually delegates much of its authority to the Secretaries, and a GM can be fired anytime by the president anyway. Accordingly I strongly urge the Senate to include a short (a sentence or two should do) amendment to this bill to avoid such potential irresolvable conflict in the future.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wasn't as difficult to draft as I expected. Nor as wordy as I feared. Changes underlined.

Straight forward. The GM's Office retains co-jurisdiction with the Secretaries in the new areas of authority granted them under this bill in case the GM wants to also spur some activity or storylines there, and likewise if there is irreconcilable disagreement over a story or other decision made pursuant to this bill, the GM's Office would have final authority to resolve the dispute as is consistent with the Office's historical role.

[Badger]

alright, I will just introduce Badger's amendment as a separate bill if/when this one passes.

PLEASE do. I agree we're not likely to have any problems with this particular set of players, but its only a matter of time before the issue arises.

Whatsmore, the amendment should probably be introduced ASAP after this current bill is (likely) passed. Otherwise everyone's attention will quickly move on to other matters, and adding the suggested additional language will be forgotten until a crisis later erupts.

[Badger]

It looks like badger is okay with this so I'm voting aye. If I am incorrect I will change it for him.

I am MORE than okay with this act, though at the risk of sounding like a broken record I urge a senator to promptly come forward as Shua offered and submit as a separate act the minor, yet important, amendment I suggested. I understand the desire to not interupt the final vote with yet another amendment after so much debate, but again if its not quickly introduced (and, it appears from dearth of objections to the proposed language, likely passed soon thereafter) it'll be forgotten about until we're in mid-crisis.

That said, my thanks to the Senate and President for passing this important and helpful legislation.