The GM Independence Amendment (Passed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 11:46:52 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  The GM Independence Amendment (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: The GM Independence Amendment (Passed)  (Read 4364 times)
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,596
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 03, 2014, 10:52:34 AM »
« edited: October 24, 2014, 10:35:02 PM by Senator Lumine (PPT) »

Slot: 10 (PPT's Discretion, PPT Administered)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Senator Bore, as sponsor you have 24 hours to make your case for this amendment.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2014, 11:15:26 AM »

Thanks Lumine for bringing this to the floor so quickly.

I don't think I really need to explain this one. This is exactly the same bill as last time but reintroduced based on what happened yesterday.

I'll propose an amendment while I'm at it as well:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,596
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2014, 11:36:07 AM »

Well, I voted in favor of this proposal the first time it was introduced for I believed that the possibility for a conflict between the GM and the President was there, and the position had to be independent.

Some of us have already discussed this proposal and are in favour of it, and I feel it's very important that we can avoid the possibility of what happened yesterday from happening again. Plus, having seven Senators vote in favor is also a good thing, because it means that a simply majority cannot be achieve in case of purely political reasons to remove the GM, it means that it will require a broad consensus (I imagine virtually all of us would have voted Nay if SirNick's dismissal was proposed to us).

Oh, and Senators have 24 hours to object to the amendment.
Logged
sentinel
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,733
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2014, 11:47:11 AM »

As a...twice former GM...I strongly approve of this proposal. It is a step in the right direction in regards to game reform and helping to ensure that the Game Moderator is an independent actor.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,508
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2014, 12:40:41 PM »

Well,

I think 2/3 is too high. Why not simply 5 senators?
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2014, 12:40:58 PM »

I had been in contact with several Senate colleagues over this issue. Lumine, Polnut, Bore, who I should like to thank for taking the step of introduction on this.

This is a deeper issue than what is just going down now. A very similar situation happened once before. As soon as I'm off my phone, I'm going to introduce a minor amendment to the wording of the bill, which still maintains it's spirit. The GM position should be secure from the whims of a single individual, no matter who it may be. I support this as a step in the right direction.
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2014, 01:20:49 PM »

I guess the most important thing for us as Senators is not to comment on the current on goings that are certainly more than related with this bill in this thread. Our job in the Senate is to legislate, not to politick; and there is far too much politicking in the Fantasy Election board (admittedly this is quite funny though), but still we just try to keep this out of the debate here.
But anyway, I can only support this. The GM should be an independent figure, he is our god (next to Dave of course); and as such should not be subject to a single person's "caprice" to say so. Otherwise, what would be the point of it?
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2014, 01:27:36 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


I'm proposing a minor amendment which doesn't completely strip the President of a say in the matter. I think it's fair to give future Presidents the right to have a say in case there is a serious disagreement on the matter. I simply don't believe one single person should have the authority to dismiss the game god at any time. If I'd been in the Senate before, I would have voted in favor of this when it was intro'd the first time.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2014, 02:39:40 PM »

Cynic's amendment is friendly.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2014, 02:50:06 PM »
« Edited: October 03, 2014, 02:57:52 PM by Marokai Besieged »

We shouldn't be legislating for super-edge-cases. The President should have the authority to dismiss the GM. In over five and ahalf years, this hasn't been done for partisan or personal reasons until last night and I believe the consequences of the action have spoken for themselves.

I value and respect the GM position, as a person who was there when we reformed the GM, besties with the best GM we've ever had, and a former GM myself. The position is vitally important and demands respect. But it should not be impossible to dismiss if the situation calls for it.

What DemPGH did was a terrible abuse of power and a taboo, but this is an emotional reaction that you are not thinking through the long-term consequences of.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 03, 2014, 02:59:33 PM »

The difference between impeachment and dismissal is presumably that dismissal is slightly easier, in that it avoids a public vote. I'd assume as well dismissal could be for more prosaic reasons than impeachment, for instance the senate just disagreeing with where the GM is taking the game, as opposed to thinking they're malicious.

In the last 5 years, how man GM's have been dismissed by the president using this power? If the answer is 0, and I can't remember any while I've been in atlasia, then we should ask what the point of an article is if it has only been abused.

I'm pretty convinced by the ideological arguments for the decision to remove the games god having to be a collective decision, not a unilateral one (which is why I voted for the initial bill) but there seems to be a strong practical case for reform as well.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2014, 03:12:32 PM »

The reason the Game Moderator position rose back into any sort of prominence whatsoever is when Purple State rallied the Senate against President Bgwah's complacency and refusal to fire GM Ebowed. There was no way to have any outside oversight of the position and it allowed the position to waste away.

I realize this is an unsatisfying answer for those who want to "reform" the GM position somehow, but there is no way to "reform" this position without creating a dozen more potential hazards. The risk of what happened last night is a risk you have in a game like this and you just have to elect the right people and exercise the right amount of oversight to ensure that it never happens. Virtually everyone agreed what DemPGH did was outrageous and it led to his resignation. No other President in their right mind would step over that line again.

Maybe there is a case for reforming this position, but I have yet to see how anything like this helps the GM position in any way. People disrespect the authority of the position because some people are just going to be that way. The problems with the GM position (the obscene workload, the lack of real consequence to legislation we pass) aren't solved by these proposals.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 03, 2014, 03:16:34 PM »

The reason the Game Moderator position rose back into any sort of prominence whatsoever is when Purple State rallied the Senate against President Bgwah's complacency and refusal to fire GM Ebowed. There was no way to have any outside oversight of the position and it allowed the position to waste away.

I realize this is an unsatisfying answer for those who want to "reform" the GM position somehow, but there is no way to "reform" this position without creating a dozen more potential hazards. The risk of what happened last night is a risk you have in a game like this and you just have to elect the right people and exercise the right amount of oversight to ensure that it never happens. Virtually everyone agreed what DemPGH did was outrageous and it led to his resignation. No other President in their right mind would step over that line again.

Maybe there is a case for reforming this position, but I have yet to see how anything like this helps the GM position in any way. People disrespect the authority of the position because some people are just going to be that way. The problems with the GM position (the obscene workload, the lack of real consequence to legislation we pass) aren't solved by these proposals.

The decision, in my view, shouldn't be left to a single person. If the President wishes to remove the GM, I don't see why it's unreasonable to ask the Senate to do so. When a President makes an appointment, it has to go through the consent of the Senate. The Senate confirms or rejects the GM, so I think for this particular position, that affects everyone in game, it can't just be left to one person to do this. I've believed that for years, going back to the Porce/ANN debacle. I think the amendment I proposed is reasonable and applies a check and balance on such an important decision.

I know we may disagree on this, but I still feel it's vitally important to protect the authority of the GM job.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2014, 03:21:58 PM »

So, if I'm getting you correctly, your argument is that we should allow the president to be able to dismiss the GM whenever, because this one time the senate overruled a president refusing to fire the GM of the time?

Surely that provides all the evidence we need that the senate would be capable of firing the GM if necessary?
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2014, 03:29:33 PM »

So, if I'm getting you correctly, your argument is that we should allow the president to be able to dismiss the GM whenever, because this one time the senate overruled a president refusing to fire the GM of the time?

Surely that provides all the evidence we need that the senate would be capable of firing the GM if necessary?

I was more arguing against Nix's suggestion that there be no oversight of the position whatsoever.

I otherwise maintain that this does nothing but protect against something that happened one time in over five years, if ever, and would almost assuredly not happen again. This Amendment purely makes oversight of the GM more bureaucratic and does nothing to solve the broader problems that plague the position, which largely can't be legislated against. You can't force people to respect the position.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2014, 03:50:16 PM »

Impeachment only requires a public vote if less than 80% of the Senate votes to impeach. If eight, nine, or ten Senators were in favor of removing the GM, a referendum wouldn't even be necessary. What's proposed here is so similar to impeachment that I see no obvious reason not to rely on the process that we've already established for removing people from office.


Right. There is a slight difference in that the senate could dismiss a gm with 7 votes but if that were impeachment that would require a public poll. Like I said though, I'd be interested to hear what other senators feel though, because I don't mind, one way or the other, if the two are folded together.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2014, 03:52:33 PM »

So, if I'm getting you correctly, your argument is that we should allow the president to be able to dismiss the GM whenever, because this one time the senate overruled a president refusing to fire the GM of the time?

Surely that provides all the evidence we need that the senate would be capable of firing the GM if necessary?

I was more arguing against Nix's suggestion that there be no oversight of the position whatsoever.

I otherwise maintain that this does nothing but protect against something that happened one time in over five years, if ever, and would almost assuredly not happen again. This Amendment purely makes oversight of the GM more bureaucratic and does nothing to solve the broader problems that plague the position, which largely can't be legislated against. You can't force people to respect the position.

Out of interest then, apart from yesterday, has a president ever directly dismissed a GM?
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2014, 04:11:03 PM »

Besides, the position has been dysfunctional for as long as most of us have been here. Even promising candidates burn out after a few weeks, or, at best, a couple of months, and now that the office's credibility has collapsed, it has ceased to add anything of value to the game. Trying something reasonable is less risky than letting it rot.

I don't disagree with the sentiment behind this, but I still fail to see what this specific proposal would do to resolve that problem. We would merely be making it harder to get rid of a GM, and nothing more. It doesn't touch on any problem aside from preventing an astronomically rare abuse of power.

Out of interest then, apart from yesterday, has a president ever directly dismissed a GM?

I believe so, but as we don't keep records particularly well, the only way to be sure of this would be to look back on White House threads for the last five years.

The larger problem I have with this is that, aside from being shortsighted, it's arbitrarily applied. The rationale for protecting the GM from abrupt dismissal by the President is that the powers the GM has should be better respected, but what of the SoIA and SoEA? Those positions have equivalent powers in their respective fields. How is it logical to protect the GM from executive dismissal because of the power that office holds, but not the SoIA and SoEA positions despite them holding near-identical powers. The only thing that makes the GM different is that positions power to override them, but they still have immense authority. What's to stop SoIA and SoEAs from being dismissed for political reasons as well?
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2014, 04:31:22 PM »

Also the GM is a non political above it all position, whereas the SOIA and the SOEA are meant to enforce the presidents policies.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2014, 04:34:31 PM »

Besides, the position has been dysfunctional for as long as most of us have been here. Even promising candidates burn out after a few weeks, or, at best, a couple of months, and now that the office's credibility has collapsed, it has ceased to add anything of value to the game. Trying something reasonable is less risky than letting it rot.

I don't disagree with the sentiment behind this, but I still fail to see what this specific proposal would do to resolve that problem. We would merely be making it harder to get rid of a GM, and nothing more. It doesn't touch on any problem aside from preventing an astronomically rare abuse of power.

The Game Moderator shouldn't be subject to summary dismissal for the same reasons why members of the Supreme Court should not be vulnerable to summary dismissal. Making it more difficult to fire someone makes that position more independent, less contingent on the priorities of other political actors, and less subject to political pressure which at least four of the past five GMs (Adam, Simfan, Sirnick, and I) admit to having felt.

When I was GM I wrote recurring stories about a nativist resistance movement in parts of Oceania, and this was repeatedly ignored every time I tried to get people to pay attention to it. It infuriated me. I also wrote a story about abortion law in the Mideast that caused a bunch of them to get on my ass and accuse me of writing partisan stories.

In the end, I resigned out of protest because the authority of the position was not being respected enough, but it had nothing to do with political pressure or the threat of being fired that brought me down or caused people to not listen to my narratives. Protection from dismissal wouldn't have made people suddenly start listening. These are completely separate problems.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2014, 05:02:40 PM »

Fair enough. I hope the Senate will exercise oversight in the future if needed.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,085
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2014, 05:38:48 PM »

In my opinion (and people aren't going to like this), such a bill needs to be carefully thought out and expanded upon, lest we turn the position into something like the Supreme Court, where officeholders are under no obligation to be active or engage, and with no real recourse for removal in such situations. Even if the office is isolated from political events, the climate of the Senate is not, and getting 7 votes may prove to be harder at times than anyone might be considering.

Such a bill needs to address three components, in my opinion:

1) What this proposed bill already is attempting to do
2) Mechanisms for dealing with absurd behavior on the part of the GM
3) Mechanisms that penalize those who disregard what the GM says

Yankee and I briefly threw some ideas back and forth on the third matter, because I (maybe he, too) believe that the only way you're going to restore any sense of legitimacy to this role is if you strike the fear of God into people who would blatantly disregard the circumstances. Of course, this creates a conundrum between numbers 2 and 3 in how to ensure that "absurd behavior" can be dealt with without being considered blatant disregard of the GM's mandate.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2014, 05:39:38 PM »

I remember you and I were talking about this at the beginning of the year...
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2014, 07:13:02 PM »

In my opinion (and people aren't going to like this), such a bill needs to be carefully thought out and expanded upon, lest we turn the position into something like the Supreme Court, where officeholders are under no obligation to be active or engage, and with no real recourse for removal in such situations. Even if the office is isolated from political events, the climate of the Senate is not, and getting 7 votes may prove to be harder at times than anyone might be considering.

Such a bill needs to address three components, in my opinion:

1) What this proposed bill already is attempting to do
2) Mechanisms for dealing with absurd behavior on the part of the GM
3) Mechanisms that penalize those who disregard what the GM says

Yankee and I briefly threw some ideas back and forth on the third matter, because I (maybe he, too) believe that the only way you're going to restore any sense of legitimacy to this role is if you strike the fear of God into people who would blatantly disregard the circumstances. Of course, this creates a conundrum between numbers 2 and 3 in how to ensure that "absurd behavior" can be dealt with without being considered blatant disregard of the GM's mandate.

You do make good points, Adam... Give me a day so I can address this in the bill, because I do agree with what you're saying. The GM has to be protected and in turn we have to be protected from  poor behavior. If this game is to actually be something more than "Let's get together and have elections every couple of months and write bills", then we have to have an active GM, one who can't be pressured politically, but we also have to, as you said, protect the office holders from a GM that has a political agenda. The job really needs to be de-politicized as much as possible.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 04, 2014, 03:03:47 AM »

Personally I don't think its even possible to have a GM that is not, in one way or another, acting politically. The inherent biases that come with holding certain views (for instance, how you feel an increased minimum wage effects employment numbers) are going to come with whomever it is is at the helm. So I don't necessarily think that we can actually 'de-politicize' the position more than we can continue to pretend that the Supreme Court is an apolitical body. There's no such thing as being apolitical, especially when it comes to this position.

I would argue that what we need to do here is just face facts and use it as an opportunity to make the position one that can be filled by election. Let people campaign on what it is they want to do with the game, which storylines they'll pursue, and what they think the role of the position should or should not be. This eliminates the arduous search process (since only those who really want the job will campaign for it) entirely.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 11 queries.