The GM Independence Amendment (Passed)

[bore]

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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bore]

Cynic's amendment is friendly.

[bore]

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.

[bore]

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?

[bore]

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.

[bore]

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?

[bore]

Also the GM is a non political above it all position, whereas the SOIA and the SOEA are meant to enforce the presidents policies.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[bore]

I move we go to a final vote.

Seconded

[bore]

Do we need that?

The constitution doesn't say anything about replacing the SoFE, the RG, the SOEA or the SOIA yet the president can do that at the beginning of the term.

I'm fine with putting it in as a safeguarding measure though.

[bore]

Final vote?

[bore]

Aye