The GM Independence Amendment (Passed)

[Dr. Cynic]

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.

[Dr. Cynic]

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.

[Dr. Cynic]

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.

[Dr. Cynic]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Dr. Cynic]

I move we go to a final vote.

[Dr. Cynic]

Just to clarify, is this the intended final version?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct. Polnut, if you'd be so kind as to propose the amendment? I don't want to do another one and mistake the intent...

[Dr. Cynic]

Aye