Game Moderation Abolition Amendment (Passed)

[Dr. Cynic]

I have desperately wanted the position to succeed since I've been involved in Atlasia... But I suppose if this is a job that no one wants or can do... I dunno... I really want to see the job work and I've tried my best to figure out a way. It's not even a job I've ever even held. But I've worked on several pieces of legislation to try and make the job work... But if it's not going to work, then I'm tired of beating a dead horse.

But I still have to wonder how we are supposed to do things like budgeting and foreign and domestic news?

[Dr. Cynic]

No, not really.

Here's an offer for you, Windjammer: Volunteer to serve as GM and I will withdraw this bill immediately.

Hell, I'd willingly do the job, I just am horrible at math. That's what's always kept me from trying to get the job before. I would take advantage to appoint a Deputy who would be willing to do all the things that I know I couldn't do, such as cost analysis.

The more important aspect to me has always been the news cycle, though. Few GMs have taken that part of the job seriously... I would at least like to hear from someone what their ideas are as far as the future of news in the game, which I feel is necessary for it to function. Otherwise, what more is the game really than us simulating elections? We could realistically just do whatever we wanted if there were no consequences as long as we were all personally popular. That thought really just divorces me from voting to get rid of the GM position.

[Dr. Cynic]

We could realistically just do whatever we wanted if there were no consequences as long as we were all personally popular.

As far as I can tell, this has been true of Atlasia throughout its entire history even with a Game Moderator.

Then the question becomes why do we bother worrying about what a bill costs or where you get money from or any of that stuff? Why do we bother being concerned about what the economy is doing or really doing anything different at all since all we seem to do is react to events that happen in real life. So if what we do changes nothing, why do we simulate anything past the elections themselves?

[Dr. Cynic]

Get back to me when you find someone with the right combination of expertise in programming, system dynamics, and public policy who's willing to volunteer a few hundred hours of his or her free time.

There's no point in fantasizing about what we could do if we had unlimited resources.

It's things like this that have pushed me closer to just quitting this game altogether. It is part of the reason why I'm leaving in December. It's clear that there is no desire for real change in this game and I'm just tired of going through the same motions we always do.

I'm still going to vote nay because to me, external factors should be an important part of the game.

[Dr. Cynic]

I am proposing a "real change." Why you would threaten to quit Atlasia in response is beyond my comprehension.

It's not a real change though. And I've been set to quit for some time anyway. I'm leaving after my term ends for outside reasons, but also the fact that painful little is going to really change. It has nothing to do with you.

[Dr. Cynic]

What is a real change?

The real change would be changing the entire face of the game by actually having to react to simulated external events. However, I've accepted that isn't going to happen. Another change I've proposed is changing to a parliamentary simulation, which would change how elections are conducted, but I don't think that's going to happen either.

I suppose this is a change that can be made, but I don't think it'll really make any difference one way or another. We're just abolishing an office. What actually is going to change about this game? Nothing, really. Again, this has nothing to do with you or anything. I'm personally frustrated by the lack of changes that we can accomplish simply because of habit and apathy. Just getting rid of the GM is yet another thing that basically changes this game in a direction that is completely opposite of the one I'd like to go in.

[Dr. Cynic]

It's somewhat surprising to me that people are saying that no one will listen to the GM and whatever after what happened just a month ago.

The crisis that we dealt with a month ago was entirely about the politics of the situation - that is, the President dismissing a traditionally neutral official for blatantly political reasons -  and not at all about the actual story that set it off. Sure, there were a couple of speeches, but most of us in government continued along as if nothing had happened, and the public showed even less interest.

The public rarely shows much interest in things that don't either change the game like consolidation or completely unpredictable, normally social issues like dog meat, incest or whatever else, so I'm not sure that's a great metric. Similarly the nature of the event wasn't really policy provoking, it was IIRC a terrorist attack to stop atlasia attacking ISIS. No one was going to be cowed by that type of attack (though they might have been in RL) and we were already attacking ISIS so I'm not sure what policy change was to be expected. To me it's enough that there was a backlash to show that the GM still is, or at the very least can be, relevant. If no one cared about the position then no one would have cared if the GM was sacked. It's also worth pointing out that no one at the time said "well the president was right because he has no obligation to follow the storyline".

While Yelnoc's analysis is thought provoking, I fundamentally disagree that this game should only be about elections. There should be a news element in this game and there should even be simulated scandal for players to answer to rather than only real ones where it usually just whittles down to someone saying something that somebody else didn't like. There are still a great many things that could be done to reform the office even if you want to throw cost projection out the window (which maybe we should because no one cares what a bill costs or about budgeting). Why can't we have simulated news like other political simulations do that are an important part of the game. Honestly, if we're not going to find someone who remotely wants to do that stuff, then I guess we can go ahead and abolish the position.

However, the game has been shifting in my own view, in the wrong direction of where it should be going. I'm still going to vote nay on this. It's just so far removed from my own beliefs of what the game should be. I cannot support it.

[Dr. Cynic]

Well, I wouldn't propose killing elections, that's a given.

I've thought for a long while that perhaps the GM news cycle of legislation should "reward" or "punish" players with positive and negative news stories about certain big pieces of legislation and perhaps that can affect elections. Ideally for me, the spot really should be occupied by more than one person who no longer has anything to gain or lose politically in the game (People who effectively want to say they're "retired" from electioneering for a period of time). It probably should be a few people because the GM position should be able to analyze and simulate public reaction to bills, foreign news, wiki updating, interacting with the cabinet members (Badger and I had quite a lot of interaction as GM and SOIA respectively), etc. I also don't think the GM's should be allowed to vote because they're essentially a Game Admin. Also, Atlasians who ignore GM decisions should be punished somehow. Suspension from office holding or voting for a period of time. People who break rules have to understand those consequences.

My basic feeling is that in order for a GM to be active, they have to willingly give up political ambitions for a period of time, there should be more than one (in fact a group of 3 might be best) and players who ignore GM decisions are punished by the loss of the ability to hold office or vote for a period of time, which can be decided by the Supreme Court, maybe.

Those ideas are simply speculative, but I think it would be a massive negative to get rid of the position, because a game like this really should have an admin.

[Dr. Cynic]

Where's your sense of humor?

Any penalty that is strong enough to achieve anything would have chilling effects. There's no way to distinguish between a person who ignores the GM and one who simply believes that no action is an appropriate response.

I must say, dropping my big fat ass down an elevator shaft would prove far more trouble than it's worth, I assure you, Nix.

Perhaps the penalties for ignoring and flagrantly telling a GM off should be separate. Ignoring could result in negative news stories and hopefully electoral penalties.

Flagrantly telling the GM to basically go suck a railroad spike when it comes to their storylines should be dealt with the same way any admin deals with a player who gets out of line. Potentially a ban on participation. A Supreme Court lawsuit, perhaps if a ban on office would be considered necessary... I'm more inclined toward a voting ban for a period of time. If these ideas are too extreme, we should at least discuss some sort of compromise rather than head straight for the nuclear option. Maybe even scrapping the role and creating an entirely new Admin style role... I'd prefer to exhaust all options before we dismantle the job entirely...

[Dr. Cynic]

One point I'd like to make is without some sort of God figure we run the risk of people doing whatever they like ( Without a GM, everything is permissible ). Without someone to tell us what's actually happened it's entirely subjective, and I can see that going badly wrong, just look at the recent fiasco after tyrion left. Having someone who's appointed to be a minor correcting figure makes sense to me.

Can you think of a recent example in which a GM actually did this?

I think the last time when the GM as the GM and not the political position had a large impact with a story was rimjob, but that's not the sort of point I'm trying to make.

The way I see it, with a position of GM we are all committed in principle that actions in the game have a consequence, and this is objective and not up for date. Now of course in practice almost everything with regard to consequences is up for debate, but this principle allows us to stop, say, me declaring myself king of all atlasia, and without the GM and the objective truth that enbodies I think that opens the door for anything to occur. I think without a GM we run the risk of far more post tyrion style situations.

I think you're on to something with this argument, and it appeals to me the more that I think about it. But doesn't it also suggest that we ought to treat the position differently?

That is, rather than someone who plays an active role in day-to-day affairs, providing weekly updates and ongoing stories and so on, the GM should take a less active role, intervening only occasionally to resolve disputes or to lend weight to the game's "reality." He or she should be, as Cynic suggests, someone who will renounce personal ambition for the immediate future. Maybe if we reduce the scope of the job, treating it almost as an emeritus position, we could fill the position with two or three senior players who don't plan to run for office again (or at least not for a while), and who don't want to commit hours of their time every week, but who wants to remain involved with Atlasia nevertheless.

I would like to say, that a lot of this debate has been far too personal on both sides. I'm as guilty as anyone of it. These debates shouldn't get so personal...

I think you're on to it though with this. The GM could be someone who can resolve disputes, simulate outsider public opinion (if only just to provide some sort of harbinger to provoke debates) and even simulate things such as the rebellions we recently saw. Apart from things like that, maybe we can just allow the GM to make themselves useful in other ways, as you suggest, at their discretion. Can we amend it to that? I would support it. I think the position can still be useful in terms of preventing things completely collapsing into the kind of chaos we saw when the position was completely unused by the holder. Rather than forcing the hours of tedium on the holder, which inevitably exhausts them.

[Dr. Cynic]

I want to say that as someone potentially entering the office that I support this. The job as it is now is an overwhelming one and I've outlined how I wish to run things if I'm confirmed and it's pretty much in lock step with this. It's to keep the office viable and work as an admin for the game basically, but to allow the game to run naturally with minimal interference.

[Dr. Cynic]

Can I just say thank goodness we all got past the initial bickering and were able to meet in the middle on this.

[Dr. Cynic]

Aye