The GM Independence Amendment (Passed)

[Lumine]

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.

Would an election be really a good idea? That would make the position even more political that now, not to mention the process would put the candidates of lesser parties in a complicated position. I do believe it would increase activity, but still...

[TNF]

It's already political. You cannot remove politics from it.

[Dr. Cynic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry this took a little longer to get in there than expected, but here's the new amendments I promised. I added recall from office as a potential punishment for ignoring a GM storyline for an office holder, but I don't know if you guys feel that punishment to be particularly appropriate. I'll be satisfied with whatever you guys deem appropriate in that regard, myself.

[bore]

2 points:

Does removal due to attacking an atlasian citizen entail a different process to removal by the senate? If not, I'm not sure why that needs to be in the constitution. And if so, who defines an attack on an Atlasian?

I too want to give the GM more bite, but who determines what counts as ignoring the GM, and who decides the punishment?

[Dr. Cynic]

2 points:

Does removal due to attacking an atlasian citizen entail a different process to removal by the senate? If not, I'm not sure why that needs to be in the constitution. And if so, who defines an attack on an Atlasian?

I too want to give the GM more bite, but who determines what counts as ignoring the GM, and who decides the punishment?

I'm not sure, again if there should be a removal process any different than what I laid down. It was merely to address Griffin's concerns. Perhaps citizen recall if it came down to it?

That's tricky, I think. But, if it is in regards to a major story that impacts every officeholder, there should be a set time limit on how long they respond to such a crisis, like say seven days, or whatever as long as they're not on a LOA.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

What I'm thinking is this, falls most inline with what Senator Cynic is proposing.

1. The President can petition the Senate to remove the GM by 2/3 vote.
1a. An unannounced absence of 7 days will trigger an automatic censure vote.
1b. A GM who is censured by the Senate twice in the same Presidential term, will be subject to a removal vote.
1c. An unannounced absence of 14 days will trigger an automatic removal vote.
2. Any office-holder who ignores or misrepresents the GM's intentions, by act or omission, should go through impeachment/or censure proceedings.

Frankly... Sections 1a-c should be applied to all Cabinet officials.
 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Polnut, I like everything about your suggestion except for §2.

I find it disturbing that anyone would support penalizing an elected official over something as vague and subjective as "ignoring the GM." This skews too close to criminalizing independent research and unpopular opinions or interpretations of events. We already have a way of holding officeholders accountable for their bad policy decisions... elections.

In any case, this is an issue that deserves to be treated separately from this amendment, which was originally concerned with protecting the GM from executive overreach and sparing the President from angst over the political consequences of retaining any particular GM.

It's only in broad terms... this isn't an amendment, just outlining ideas.

[bore]

I think what we're dealing with here is not the type of thing that can be dealt with via legislation.

The senate already has the power to impeach anybody for any reason, and the constitution specifies that automatic impeachment occurs due to inactivity. Both things happen rarely. It's far more difficult to enforce the law than write it.

I'd like to think that people who ignore the GM will be punished at the ballot box, and if they aren't, well, we get the officeholders we deserve. Although I can see the case for some sort of censure for direct contradiction.

[Dr. Cynic]

I think what we're dealing with here is not the type of thing that can be dealt with via legislation.

The senate already has the power to impeach anybody for any reason, and the constitution specifies that automatic impeachment occurs due to inactivity. Both things happen rarely. It's far more difficult to enforce the law than write it.

I'd like to think that people who ignore the GM will be punished at the ballot box, and if they aren't, well, we get the officeholders we deserve. Although I can see the case for some sort of censure for direct contradiction.

If I modified my amendment to censure rather than recall would it be friendly?

[bore]

I think what we're dealing with here is not the type of thing that can be dealt with via legislation.

The senate already has the power to impeach anybody for any reason, and the constitution specifies that automatic impeachment occurs due to inactivity. Both things happen rarely. It's far more difficult to enforce the law than write it.

I'd like to think that people who ignore the GM will be punished at the ballot box, and if they aren't, well, we get the officeholders we deserve. Although I can see the case for some sort of censure for direct contradiction.

If I modified my amendment to censure rather than recall would it be friendly?

I guess I don't see why it's necessary to have it in the constitution. It doesn't seem to add any actual powers to the senate or the gm, and just leads to more lines that could be misinterpreted.

I don't feel that strongly though, so if other senators think it's necessary, I'll support it.

[Lumine]

Yes, it seems the most pragmatic road is here is not to give an extremely harsh penalty, although censure is something I fully support. Will you modify the amendment, Cynic?

[Dr. Cynic]

Yes, it seems the most pragmatic road is here is not to give an extremely harsh penalty, although censure is something I fully support. Will you modify the amendment, Cynic?

I will.

[Dr. Cynic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bore]

I agree with the message of both of the last two sentences. But I'm still not seeing why they're necessary in the constitution.

The GM can already be removed for whatever reason by 2/3rds of the senate, I'm not sure why we need a specific sentence saying it can be done in any circumstance when legally it can be done whenever 2/3rds of senators say so.

Similarily, any officeholder can be censured whenever, so I'm not sure I see the need to say they can be censured if they ignore the GM, because that's already implied.

[Dr. Cynic]

I agree with the message of both of the last two sentences. But I'm still not seeing why they're necessary in the constitution.

The GM can already be removed for whatever reason by 2/3rds of the senate, I'm not sure why we need a specific sentence saying it can be done in any circumstance when legally it can be done whenever 2/3rds of senators say so.

Similarily, any officeholder can be censured whenever, so I'm not sure I see the need to say they can be censured if they ignore the GM, because that's already implied.

Well, fair enough. I'll withdraw those clauses.

[bore]

I agree with the message of both of the last two sentences. But I'm still not seeing why they're necessary in the constitution.

The GM can already be removed for whatever reason by 2/3rds of the senate, I'm not sure why we need a specific sentence saying it can be done in any circumstance when legally it can be done whenever 2/3rds of senators say so.

Similarily, any officeholder can be censured whenever, so I'm not sure I see the need to say they can be censured if they ignore the GM, because that's already implied.

Well, fair enough. I'll withdraw those clauses.

Thanks, Senator

Unless anyone has anything else, I think we're ready for a final vote.

I think this should just be a quick fix, and if we want to do a more general game moderation reform, that should be in a separate amendment so this one has no danger of failing.

[Dr. Cynic]

I've crossed out the objectionable clauses, leaving the first one, which I believe we agreed upon as the compromise for a President who wished to have a GM removed.

[bore]

I've crossed out the objectionable clauses, leaving the first one, which I believe we agreed upon as the compromise for a President who wished to have a GM removed.

Right you are. Initially I thought the president bit had already been processed, but it seems it hasn't.

Amendment is friendly.

[Lumine]

Senators have 24 hours to object to the amendment.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What is the meaning of "The GM may be removed if their behavior is characterized to be attacking a particular Atlasian, be they officeholder or not."   Is that through the process of the Senate 2/3s vote, or does this describe an additional instance where the GM may be removed and if so by whom?

[bore]

What is the meaning of "The GM may be removed if their behavior is characterized to be attacking a particular Atlasian, be they officeholder or not."   Is that through the process of the Senate 2/3s vote, or does this describe an additional instance where the GM may be removed and if so by whom?

I took it to mean that was a just cause for the senate to remove the GM, but then it would be redundant, which is why it's no longer in the bill. Any non senate removal process would be counter productive to what we're trying to achieve here, so I don't think that's what cynic had in mind.

[Dr. Cynic]

What is the meaning of "The GM may be removed if their behavior is characterized to be attacking a particular Atlasian, be they officeholder or not."   Is that through the process of the Senate 2/3s vote, or does this describe an additional instance where the GM may be removed and if so by whom?

I took it to mean that was a just cause for the senate to remove the GM, but then it would be redundant, which is why it's no longer in the bill. Any non senate removal process would be counter productive to what we're trying to achieve here, so I don't think that's what cynic had in mind.

It was included to provide an instance where the GM may be removed for cause. However, at Bore's request, I withdrew that part of the amendment as you can now see.

[Lumine]

The amendment is now adopted.

[Dr. Cynic]

I move we go to a final vote.

[bore]

I move we go to a final vote.

Seconded