SENATE BILL: The Vice President Finally Has a Purpose Amendment (Failed)

[Marokai Backbeat]

Consider me, for the record, incredibly disappointed.

And no, nebulous informal responsibilities provided by other people are not "duties", as Franzl already said. The Vice President has effectively nothing official to ever do, and it will only get something to do when it is given official duties.

We can't ever give it more powers, that's unfair violation of 'separations of power.'

We can't abolish the office, think of the potential!

We can't elect it separately, because what would be the point?

We can't give it more power, we can't reduce it's power, we can't abolish it or treat it as a separate office. So tell me, someday, Senate, what we actually can do with this afterthought of a position.

/sigh

[tmthforu94]

Marokai, you shouldn't be too disappointed, after all, this has sort of become an expectation. Everyone talks about game reform and how important it is, and while some individuals actually take the initiative to write something up, just about every game reform bill is DOA in the Senate, which is unfortunate, because especially since this is a game, I think it's good to try new things that might make it better.

[Napoleon]

Marokai, you shouldn't be too disappointed, after all, this has sort of become an expectation. Everyone talks about game reform and how important it is, and while some individuals actually take the initiative to write something up, just about every game reform bill is DOA in the Senate, which is unfortunate, because especially since this is a game, I think it's good to try new things that might make it better.

Vice President reform already happened, just because you, and now Marokai, are choosing not to give the VP power doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Removing powers from someone else (optionally!) and giving them to the VP as a stop-gap measure is not real reform.

[Napoleon]

Removing powers from someone else (optionally!) and giving them to the VP as a stop-gap measure is not real reform.

Neither is making the VP a Senator, which actually removes power from other people. You can't complain about the VP having little to do when its your fault that is the case.

You're right though- you didn't propose it, so of course its not real reform. It wasn't a stopgap measure though. I don't know why you're trying to rewrite history.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Removing powers from someone else (optionally!) and giving them to the VP as a stop-gap measure is not real reform.

Neither is making the VP a Senator, which actually removes power from other people. You can't complain about the VP having little to do when its your fault that is the case.

You're right though- you didn't propose it, so of course its not real reform. It wasn't a stopgap measure though. I don't know why you're trying to rewrite history.

It absolutely was a stop-gap measure; the motivation behind the proposal was to basically shore up cabinet shortcomings, most notably the Secretary of Internal Affairs, because almost nobody has done a decent job of that office since it was created three and ahalf years ago. A convenient way of doing that, while looking like people were actually doing something with the Vice Presidency, was to just throw the VP at the problem and hope it resolved itself. Except that was a terrible idea, that most people who were paying any kind of attention knew would ultimately make no difference at all (which is why it constantly seems like the most vocal supporters of it are non-reformists), and has just served as a way for people to make excuses for the VP or sucky cabinets. I can't think of any President that has ever taken "advantage" of that power, and if anyone did, I probably don't remember it for a good reason.

Taking responsibilities away from someone else and depriving someone else of a position for the purpose of making it look like the VP actually has any sort of power is not a serious solution to either cabinet problems or VP problems. The objections to giving the Vice President even limited Senate voting powers don't even make sense if you're also supporting giving the VP cabinet powers. The most commonly referred to reason is "it's a huge violation of the separation of powers principle, it would do nothing but benefit the administration!" Do you know what actually is wholly inappropriate? Giving the Vice President GM-like powers.

Unless the VP is giving election administration powers (not necessary, since Homely is doing great) or the position of Attorney General (also not necessary, since there's a f**k-ton of potential AG candidates in the wings) it's wildly inappropriate to give the VP the powers of SoIA and SoEA, because those positions have been given GM powers to create and shape domestic and world events. How is being assistant Game God somehow less of a conflict of interest?

[Napoleon]

Oh dear. Where do I begin? This post is wrong on so many levels. I hope people aren't actually falling for this act, and if this is not an act but an indication of your actual thought process, I am surprised you find yourself qualified to be commenting on the mental health of others.

It absolutely was a stop-gap measure; the motivation behind the proposal was to basically shore up cabinet shortcomings, most notably the Secretary of Internal Affairs, because almost nobody has done a decent job of that office since it was created three and ahalf years ago.

Um, as one of the main sponsors of the amendment, I can firmly deny that it was intended as a stop-gap measure. A lot of Atlasians are newer and aren't aware of what was going on then, but they can do their own research.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Cabinet Flexibility Amendment served two main purposes: the first was to enable more people to fill cabinet positions. You don't need a separate RG and SoFE, for example. I know when we ran against each other you attacked me for this but its obviously proven to be successful when given the chance. The second was to allow the VP to have more of an impact in the executive branch. The Vice President can be given an important Cabinet role and actually serve as a governing partner. Gee, I thought that's what you and Duke said you were going to be. Why not actually do it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was such a terrible idea. Oh no, how did it pass the Senate? How in the world did the terrible idea pass in every region? Those non-reformers Napoleon and Kalwejt, how dare they! We need real reforms, the kind Marokai likes that fail everytime they get proposed or never see any use once passed. We don't need fake reforms like Committees!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll clue you in on a little something: the Cabinet Flexibility Amendment has been used more than your wonderful reforms like the National Initiative or the Regional Legislative Petition. Why propose something that can actually pass; why propose something that can actually be used? Not on Marokai's watch!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Depriving someone else of a position? Half of the time we are desperate to fill these positions. You may have received a lot of Cabinet applicants. Every President does. Then the excitement wears off, people resign and the job loses its luster. But a committed VP, an elected representative, will actually have a real motivation to do a good job in a Cabinet position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cool. I didn't actually use that argument, so I don't care if people make that argument or not. I do care that our President-elect is refusing to actually use reforms, claiming a position is broken when its not because he didn't get his way nearly two years ago, and is trying to claim that a successful reform isn't real reform because he didn't come up with the idea. I'm sorry giving the VP Cabinet opportunity isn't as interesting as having politicians dressing up in animal costumes. I'm sorry, sincerely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um, no? How is giving it to the VP any different than the other Cabinet officials? They all reflect upon the administration and the President.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does it matter now which members of the administration have GM-like powers? Did the thought ever occur to you that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

?

Basically, the Senate should approve this amendment because Marokai likes it, and Marokai won't actually give his VP something to do in accordance with the Constitution, because he doesn't like it, and he is going to throw a fit until we do what he says, even though his little pet project has failed time and time again. Oh joy. That's the most convincing argument, like, everrrr.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm having a difficult time picking out what wasn't obvious trollish bait, so forgive me if my quotes of your post are a bit surgical.

Um, as one of the main sponsors of the amendment, I can firmly deny that it was intended as a stop-gap measure. A lot of Atlasians are newer and aren't aware of what was going on then, but they can do their own research.

If the cabinet was doing a sterling job on it's own, we would not have passed an Amendment giving the VP the power to assume one of the cabinet officials jobs. So yes, it had the dual purpose of also shoring up cabinet weaknesses, and I don't understand how this could possibly be denied.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't even understand what this paragraph means. Everything you said after the first sentence completely contradicts it. How does the Cabinet Flexibility Amendment allow more people to serve in the cabinet? Its expressed function is consolidating offices!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The initiative system has been unable to be used effectively because certain people, such as, I don't know, you, insisted on a ludicrously high signature requirement before you would agree to vote on it, essentially dooming it from the start. The first time we tried using it, it got a lot of proposals, attention, and signatures, but everything needed 20+ supporters before it could even be voted on.

And it was Kal's proposal, not mine. I'm just the one trying to Amend the damn thing so it can actually be used.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If a President puts out the call, you can find people to fill these positions. If you wait for people to read Page 12 of the White House thread, three months into a term, or something, you're not going to get many applicants. There were many people, new and old, who applied to serve in my cabinet, and they would've done the same for you, or any other President, had the attempt seriously been made.

And while you're playing the "my reform dick is bigger than yours" contest, I'd just like the remind you that you were President for two freaking terms, and had two different Vice Presidents. Why didn't this miraculous reform work wonders, exactly? Because it's simply not practical and not big enough of a solution to do a thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

?[/quote]

In practice, this means nothing, and only exists so that the GM is a higher authority then SoIA and SoEA. The GM never overrides anything, and this is completely irrelevant. Your proposal is basically that we give the VP Game God powers; as this is somehow totally not a conflict of interest. I refuse to do so. The VP should be given it's own powers, not someone else's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seriously; this is the supposedly amazing Senator all those people who don't actually pay attention to Atlasia jerk off over?


Here's the skinny: The VP position presently sucks, and no serious proposal to actually do anything new with it has ever passed. Giving it some other guy's job isn't the way forward, and you're never, ever, ever, going to actually seriously change anything until you actually give it unique responsibilities and powers, or we just get rid of it. No one seems to have the balls to do either. Everyone wants their token VPs, but not the responsibility of getting them to be active and do anything.

Mecha joked about FDR parrelels when he was interviewing me prior to the election, but there is a great FDR quote I love: "Take a method, and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."

Past efforts to spray perfume on the office haven't worked. I'm not picky about what we do with the VP position, but we should at least try something that doesn't involve waiting for the magical savior VP to arrive that solves all our problems, because our current "idea" on how to improve the Vice Presidency simply doesn't have enough meat to it, and is neither practical, or desirable.

[Napoleon]

What a bunch of convoluted garbage. I hope this isn't a preview of whats to come. I happen to have approached this proposal with an open mind. In fact, I remember working behind the scenes to try and build support for this very idea within the skeptics in my party and other parties, but eventually decided this wasn't needed. I abstained this time because I didn't like the way it considered a tied vote to fail. When approached by a Senator who asked if I convinced to change my vote, I gave this more consideration and realized that this really isn't necessary. In fact, I already demonstrated that making the VP a Senator would have basically no real effect. Did that not occur to you?

I'm having a difficult time picking out what wasn't obvious trollish bait, so forgive me if my quotes of your post are a bit surgical.

Um, as one of the main sponsors of the amendment, I can firmly deny that it was intended as a stop-gap measure. A lot of Atlasians are newer and aren't aware of what was going on then, but they can do their own research.

If the cabinet was doing a sterling job on it's own, we would not have passed an Amendment giving the VP the power to assume one of the cabinet officials jobs. So yes, it had the dual purpose of also shoring up cabinet weaknesses, and I don't understand how this could possibly be denied.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't even understand what this paragraph means. Everything you said after the first sentence completely contradicts it. How does the Cabinet Flexibility Amendment allow more people to serve in the cabinet? Its expressed function is consolidating offices!

The pool for Cabinet officials is expanded when you can give that position to the VP or another Cabinet member. This isn't rocket science.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The initiative system has been unable to be used effectively because certain people, such as, I don't know, you, insisted on a ludicrously high signature requirement before you would agree to vote on it, essentially dooming it from the start. The first time we tried using it, it got a lot of proposals, attention, and signatures, but everything needed 20+ supporters before it could even be voted on.

And it was Kal's proposal, not mine. I'm just the one trying to Amend the damn thing so it can actually be used.[/quote]

Ok cool. That's not actually true, but ok cool.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If a President puts out the call, you can find people to fill these positions. If you wait for people to read Page 12 of the White House thread, three months into a term, or something, you're not going to get many applicants. There were many people, new and old, who applied to serve in my cabinet, and they would've done the same for you, or any other President, had the attempt seriously been made.[/quote] Ok cool. Again, what's your point?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It worked great as a matter of fact, thanks for asking. Kalwejt was a damn fine Secretary of External Affairs and was able to serve as an active and able official. I didn't appoint him because there were no other applicants, I appointed him because I felt he was the best for the job and wanted my Vice President to have an active role in real policy-making. So what if Nathan didn't have the time on his hands to serve in the Cabinet? He didn't need to. I picked him as VP becuase I had worked with him and trusted him to serve in the single most important role for the VP- to fill in for the President when needed. And frankly, he's done an excellent job, I can't think of anyone else I'd rather have serving as President during these last couple weeks.

Apparently, others have admitted this role's critical importance:

I don't understand the obsession with trying to give the VP things to do. The VP is traditionally a do-nothing position and he can participate in leading the senate or wait until the President cannot serve.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

?[/quote]

In practice, this means nothing, and only exists so that the GM is a higher authority then SoIA and SoEA. The GM never overrides anything, and this is completely irrelevant. Your proposal is basically that we give the VP Game God powers; as this is somehow totally not a conflict of interest. I refuse to do so. The VP should be given it's own powers, not someone else's.[/quote]

You're literally impossible. Explain what makes the freaking VP any different from a Cabinet official. It's all the same administration, under the same umbrella, picked by the same President...so...

Oh, the GM never overrides anything. Perhaps there hasn't been a need for the GM to override anything? Maybe the VP when serving in the Cabinet hasn't done anything to create a "conflict of interest" as you claim. I made the same argument against the initial GM reform, people disagreed with me and I moved on and worked to improve the concept instead of forcing my own ideas down people's throats.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seriously; this is the supposedly amazing Senator all those people who don't actually pay attention to Atlasia jerk off over? [/quote]

If that's not your argument, what is? You've provided nothing of substance. I was open to supporting this. No one gave me a reason to vote for it and you're certainly not helping in that regard. I can't be the only one feeling this way either. This failed no matter what my vote was. Here I am actually debating the amendment, offering suggestions and trying to make it something passable. I know one of the Nay voters on this said he liked what I brought up (Hagrid, I believe). What is our supposedly reformist President-elect doing to try and pass this, other than antagonizing people and being, well, a bully?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's funny. I remember discussing this with the VP I picked and he didn't want to be a Senator. I fully intended to pursue this at first but was convinced otherwise. The Cabinet appointment for the VP makes sense. It's an executive position, for a member of the exectuive branch, allows the VP to advocate for the administration in a unique capacity, and forces the VP to be a governing partner, not a credit card you can swipe any time you want more votes. I don't know what your VP selection motives were but you clearly didn't care about making use of the options on the table. That's sad.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The pool for Cabinet officials is expanded when you can give that position to the VP or another Cabinet member. This isn't rocket science.

And by giving two jobs to one person, you are depriving someone else out there of the job. I understand your argument that the cabinet isn't very sexy, but we shouldn't triage the cabinet's suckiness, we should improve the cabinet on its own. I accept that I have the option to appoint Duke to a cabinet position if he wants it, but I will not do so as my first option, because I do not view it as desirable to have one person hogging multiple offices.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would've preferred the President who was elected to do that job in the first place, but hey.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the VP is the President's right-hand-man. I didn't select my GM or SoIA or SoEA with the expressed purpose or furthering an agenda, but I did pick Duke for that purpose. That's my point. If the VP is that meaningless to certain people here so as to be nothing more than a body double, then we don't need the position at all and should abolish it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm a bit irritated at the idea that the Cabinet Flexibility Amendment is at all a big enough reform to fix the wholesale irrelevancy of the Vice Presidency. It's been in place for a year and ahalf, and has not improved the perception of the office one iota. The CFA is nothing more than cabinet damage control and is not an actually desire outcome. The VP should stand on its own with unique responsibilities, not shoehorned into someone elses job.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is part of the problem, and is one of my points. By giving the Vice President optional responsibilities, you will not improve the office. You will instead only attract people who skate by doing the bare minimum, and encourage prospective Presidents to seek out people who help them more in an election rather than in government. If the Vice President was also a Senator, it would force them to take a more active role than anything else that's being proposed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The SoIA and SoEA are not governing partners in the same sense, they are effectively GM assistants. They are governing partners only in the loosest sense. They shape events and work with the GM to create a narrative the rest of the game works with, and that is why I picked and SoIA and SoEA who can do the job impartially, not to be my yes-men. This is the disconnect we're having. I do not view those two offices as appropriate for the VP to hold because it basically allows me to use the SoIA and SoEA to craft events in ways to my Administration's liking. If it is inappropriate to give the VP the GM position, it is no less inappropriate to give the VP the SoIA or SoEA positions; and once you've established that, the only offices left amount to very little.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seriously; this is the supposedly amazing Senator all those people who don't actually pay attention to Atlasia jerk off over?

If that's not your argument, what is? You've provided nothing of substance. I was open to supporting this. No one gave me a reason to vote for it and you're certainly not helping in that regard. I can't be the only one feeling this way either. This failed no matter what my vote was. Here I am actually debating the amendment, offering suggestions and trying to make it something passable. I know one of the Nay voters on this said he liked what I brought up (Hagrid, I believe). What is our supposedly reformist President-elect doing to try and pass this, other than antagonizing people and being, well, a bully?
[/quote]

Reminds me of where I was on the ERA, only in reverse with the opposition that was lacking and the proponents that kept making the good points.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This was going to be a tense debate and difficult for either side to prevail. I said that in the thread, I said it in direct communication and I made it a key aspect of my campaign to hammer home the point. I never had any illusions about that and was even certain that it would pass at the beginning. I knew that the best thing for this game was not to rollover for the grand agenda, but to actually have a debate about it and yes bring core principles (OMG! OMG! He Really Believes in Seperation of Powers! Something, which should have been obivious four years ago as I most certainly wasn't in the RPP for the purpose of advocating seperatism. It was to preserve a balance and I even opposed an all regional Senate seat plan for that reason because it went to far the other way. If you divide the power, it can't centralize and become a tyranny nor can it dissolve into the tyranny of the majority which inevitable leads back to the tyranny of the former. I approach the branches the same way I do the Regions on that front.) into the fray. We had a heated debate and a close vote (I wasn't the only one who figured it would pass the Senate as I believe Oakvale stated as much earlier), which does nothign but help the game in my opinion. Turns out the Amendment failed at the end of the day.

Also, I don't like being lectured to about opposing reforms or grouped as someone who "isn't serious about Game Reform". I am perfectly willing to make changes when I think they will improve the situation, even taking some big risks. I led the drive in the Senate to make the committees a reality, drafted the OSPR amendment that made it possible and then created the Gov't Oversight and Reform Committee, which I then chaired for a term. Four years ago, I was involved with efforts to fix the Game Moderator with Purple State way back when Marokai was still hating him. I am not some Game Reform crusader (such is a Quixotic to say the least as PS found out the hard way as President), but I most certainly am not a game reform opponent, and just because I support regions and seperation of powers doesn't negate that. It didn't negate it in November 2009 when I said no to another one of these "brilliant" ideas, and it doesn't negate it now when I did likewise. Reacting in this kind of way and attempting to hammer those you disagree with in such fashion, Marokai, will put you on a one way road back to November when relations between NAppy and the Senate collapsed. I always said you two were a lot alike.

[Gass3268]

Extremely disappointed that this failed.

[Napoleon]

Extremely disappointed that this failed.

Why?

Many of us are just waiting to hear one somewhat decent argument to change our minds, and we haven't heard a whisper.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Extremely disappointed that this failed.