Game Moderation Abolition Amendment (Passed)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

That does say a lot... we're so used to the GM doing nothing that we don't notice when they're not there.

I need to think about this and it's knock-on impacts on other job-holders... but I am sympathetic to this move.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I want the position to work so badly, so very very badly, but I just don't know...perhaps if there was a tighter defining of the specific roles of the GM, it could be saved?

It's a two part problem

1. The position description, as you say, needs to be clearly defined.
but
2. The position needs to be really engaged and essentially, a pain in the arse for all who are involved in Government. The issue is, outside of one or two people, yourself included... there's no one who has the inclination to be that informed nuisance.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I agree that the GM should get out of the business of producing economic statistics, cost analyses, etc. But, I do think we need some sort of storyteller to generate major events for us to discuss. Should we just assume that everything that happens IRL also happens in Atlasia?

This is a frustration for me. I mean, there might be very overwhelming national/international stories (Ebola... hello) but because the GM doesn't mention it, it doesn't exist.

On the other side, I do think we need someone to give some sort of economic grounding in what happens here.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I disagree... I think context and external factors do mater.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I've been thinking long and hard on this one.

Yelnoc's post contains a lot of ideas that certainly have merit. However, how you approach the game will tend to have an impact on how you view this question. As someone who is interested in policy, the idea of removing the external stimuli and not basing what the Senate and nation does on really... anything, is unattractive to me in the extreme.

If we were to get rid of the GM, I would want to see what powers and authority we could transfer to the SoIA and the SoEA. Otherwise, I wouldn't support the overall meta concept contained in Yelnoc's post.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I don't see why the only option is the nuclear one.

You aren't going to get a perfect scenario. The way I look at it is this.

1. Yes, we need consistency, which is why I suggested clear consequences for those officials who actively ignored the GM. We do need to be influenced, if anything, this place is TOO driven by relationships, but considering the nature of this place and its size, it's unrealistic to see it change.

2. There are those who want to treat Atlasia as their little wish-kingdom, where reality and boundaries don't exist. I'm personally not one of them. We've seen some very problematic moves recently that, yes, undermine the purpose of the GM and the SoIA and SoEA to guide events. I mean... the Middle-East Peace that just happened?

I would support a premise where Atlasia basically follows the US and overall international affairs and only shifts when the GM finds cause to do so (inconsistency with previous decisions and actions for example).

I will not support a system that is just about elections and doesn't have some kind of direction. Now, the point that Senator Nix and others have raised about essentially no one paying attention to the GM or the Secretaries. They're completely correct. But is the answer to just do away with the position and leave us without any guidance?

If anything this path just leads to the wish-fulfillment gold mine and pushes other participants out.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This debate is getting a little too fraught.

I understand the passion, but we seem to coming to this issue from quite different views. We have "the GM is useless and powerless, so lets get rid of it" and "we can't just be about elections and be completely without guidance, even taking into account the weakness of the GM position".

I suppose the question I would ask Senator Nix, who is clearly extremely passionate about this is, how do we put legislation and activities into context when it essentially turns into a free-for-all. Each person determines what their realities and situations are? And if enough people agree that Atlasia becomes part of the EU... then it happens?

I acknowledge that there are problems, serious ones with the GM, but it is down to the characters who inhabit the role. I am just fundamentally concerned about the consequences of saying "sod it, we'll just carry on" and again, this place is already over-ridden by personalities and relationships and turning it into purely an election sim would pretty much mean a whack of posters would just leave.

So, my key question is, even if I acknowledge the GM position is increasingly untenable, what kind of mechanism do you replace it with?   

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

For the Senate's consideration:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This amendment would strip away all of the mandates that are currently in the Constitution, and would clear the way for the kind of GMing that Cynic and I have been discussing. That is, as Bore puts it, enough game moderation to establish that, in Atlasia, not all things are permitted.

At the same time, it would not impede a more active GM should that rare person with equally boundless expertise and free time come into the position.

I can certainly see myself supporting this at the moment.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE