Federal Reserve Reform Act (Passed)

[bore]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsored by: Bore for the administration

[Lumine]

Thank you very much for sponsoring this, Bore!

I do think the wording may have to be corrected, but this specific proposal is inspired on the inflation issue and the curious issue of the Game Moderator having all the powers of the Federal Reserve, meaning that he can implement policies as well. Many Atlasians have proposed giving this job to the SoIA (Superique, Bore, and so on) to make it a more powerful position and one that is more consistent with its own spirit (that is, dealing with domestic policy), and I decided to craft this proposal.

I should also point out that this is connected with my plan to reform the cabinet, as it would allow the SoIA to appoint a Deputy for this should that become necessary (and I do recall one or two people showing some potential interest in dealing with that specific issue).

[TNF]

Why not just bring the Federal Reserve under the control of the Senate and render this whole 'problem' moot? A nation should have total control of its currency.

[Cranberry]

Why not just bring the Federal Reserve under the control of the Senate and render this whole 'problem' moot? A nation should have total control of its currency.

In what way does a nation not have total control of its currency if a member of the cabinet is specifically tasked with such?

[bore]

The senate would have indirect control over the monetary policy (moreso than now) via the SoIA.

One of the big problems for the SoIA is it's never been an especially defined role, no one really knows what it's supposed to do, and this would to a large extent solve that.

Whatever we do though, we really should get the control of the Fed out of the GM's hands.

[Bacon King]

This is a good bill, but is it still called internal affairs?

[Lief 🗽]

I oppose this. The executive branch should not control monetary policy.

[Bacon King]

I oppose this. The executive branch should not control monetary policy.

Who else then? If we're going to have monetary policy be a thing, it's kind of silly to have the GM be both the cause and effect.

[Lumine]

This is a good bill, but is it still called internal affairs?

It is, yes. My executive order calls for the position to be called Interior, but legally it is still Internal Affairs (something that I seek to correct with my cabinet amendment).

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I oppose this. The executive branch should not control monetary policy.

Who else then? If we're going to have monetary policy be a thing, it's kind of silly to have the GM be both the cause and effect.

I agree with BK here.

[Adam Griffin]

This is the only real power the GM has left and you all are going to strip it away, and give it to either a dysfunctional 10-member body and/or a back-bench cabinet position that can't stayed filled for more than a couple of months at a time?

Even if you give it to the SoIA, the GM still has effective control over it because he/she can ultimately render null and void any and all stories and decisions made by the SoIA/SoEA. Why bother? All I can say is that if I were GM and this were to go through, that's exactly what I would do and I would maintain full control over monetary policy. And there isn't a scenario in the world in which this body has direct control over such a matter and it actually turns out well.

[TNF]

The legislative branch should be solely in charge of monetary policy.

[Adam Griffin]

The legislative branch should be solely in charge of monetary policy.

In real life: yes.
In this game: no.

[Cranberry]

Same as the position of SoIA cannot stay filled for more than a couple months, the position of GM cannot, either. That is completely irrelevant for whom to choose to do the job.

Even if you give it to the SoIA, the GM still has effective control over it because he/she can ultimately render null and void any and all stories and decisions made by the SoIA/SoEA. Why bother? All I can say is that if I were GM and this were to go through, that's exactly what I would do and I would maintain full control over monetary policy. And there isn't a scenario in the world in which this body has direct control over such a matter and it actually turns out well.

Well of course no on will hinder the GM from it; and this is good - finally something to do for both of them, finally something happening for those two guys.

I echo your comments that the Senate should please keep its fingers off monetary policy in the game, though.

[Adam Griffin]

Same as the position of SoIA cannot stay filled for more than a couple months, the position of GM cannot, either. That is completely irrelevant for whom to choose to do the job.

Even if you give it to the SoIA, the GM still has effective control over it because he/she can ultimately render null and void any and all stories and decisions made by the SoIA/SoEA. Why bother? All I can say is that if I were GM and this were to go through, that's exactly what I would do and I would maintain full control over monetary policy. And there isn't a scenario in the world in which this body has direct control over such a matter and it actually turns out well.

Well of course no on will hinder the GM from it; and this is good - finally something to do for both of them, finally something happening for those two guys.

I echo your comments that the Senate should please keep its fingers off monetary policy in the game, though.

Historically, the GM position tends to be a bit more stable than that of SoIA/SoEA. All posturing aside, I fear that if we literally make the position of GM weaker than that of SoIA (excluding the blanket "I void your action" power that could really set a bad precedent and that would make people have conniption fits if used consistently), then it's going to become even harder. I've always maintained that the SoIA/SoEA positions need to be abolished - not given more power - as they have generally been abject failures (the same cannot be said about the GM role), and that the GM should be allowed to appoint deputies as necessary to fulfill these in-game needs.

[bore]

You could make the argument though that the reason that the SoIA has historically been very inactive is because it has no clearly defined power, and if it were to get some it would stop being so inactive.

In my time in atlasia I can't remember any GM using the powers of the fed apart from Griffin, I could be remembering wrongly though, so I'm not sure how important the powers are to prospective GMs.

[Adam Griffin]

You could make the argument though that the reason that the SoIA has historically been very inactive is because it has no clearly defined power, and if it were to get some it would stop being so inactive.

In my time in atlasia I can't remember any GM using the powers of the fed apart from Griffin, I could be remembering wrongly though, so I'm not sure how important the powers are to prospective GMs.

You could. I think you could also make the argument that SoIA/EA in general should have never been standalone positions and are a bunch of hoopla and pomp & circumstance with little to no benefit for the officeholder. It's not like anyone hardly ever reads what the trio has to say - this is much more the case for IA & EA.

If I recall correctly, the current GM used the same powers (though not a good example of its use, again, if I'm remembering things correctly). This is more about "stripping powers away from the GM" in the sense that it's a continued effort to put the position under the thumb of the Senate and/or give more power to the executive branch. To my knowledge, the GM is now the only position that can only be dismissed by the Senate. Now, we're talking about taking the only truly tangible element of power (whether a GM uses it or not is irrelevant) away and giving it either directly or indirectly to the Senate, or giving it to the President (because once a GM is appointed, he cannot be automatically terminated by the President anymore; giving it to SoIA in effect gives the executive branch more oversight over who's making that decision).

We have to stop trying to "reform" the position of GM when there is no need for it. The position works just fine: whether or not people listen to it is another thing. If anything, the GM should have more power to enforce the decisions made by said office. Abolish IA & EA if we want meaningful reforms.

[Cranberry]

Same as the position of SoIA cannot stay filled for more than a couple months, the position of GM cannot, either. That is completely irrelevant for whom to choose to do the job.

Even if you give it to the SoIA, the GM still has effective control over it because he/she can ultimately render null and void any and all stories and decisions made by the SoIA/SoEA. Why bother? All I can say is that if I were GM and this were to go through, that's exactly what I would do and I would maintain full control over monetary policy. And there isn't a scenario in the world in which this body has direct control over such a matter and it actually turns out well.

Well of course no on will hinder the GM from it; and this is good - finally something to do for both of them, finally something happening for those two guys.

I echo your comments that the Senate should please keep its fingers off monetary policy in the game, though.

Historically, the GM position tends to be a bit more stable than that of SoIA/SoEA. All posturing aside, I fear that if we literally make the position of GM weaker than that of SoIA (excluding the blanket "I void your action" power that could really set a bad precedent and that would make people have conniption fits if used consistently), then it's going to become even harder. I've always maintained that the SoIA/SoEA positions need to be abolished - not given more power - as they have generally been abject failures (the same cannot be said about the GM role), and that the GM should be allowed to appoint deputies as necessary to fulfill these in-game needs.

I can obviously not comment on the historical stableness of the GM position, but you have to agree that in the year I have been part of Atlasia, we have had a vacancy in the GM position about as often as we did have one. Obviously, that is not deemed to be so forever, but in my personal experience, there has been little difference between the successes of GM and SoIA, respectively.
 
I agree, the proposal of abolishing SoIA/SoEA as "storytellers" and have those powers to the GM certainly has its benefits. I do believe however also, that if we stay at the current model, it certainly is not worst to give the cabinet positions a detailed job "description", if you want so, with specific powers designated for them.

[Senator Cris]

I support the proposal.

[Maxwell]

I think we need offices that respond to what the GM does. Despite Griffin's panicking, I don't see this legislation making the GM useless. It allows the GM to interact with other characters in the game more effectively and intimately. I support this change, though I'm not sure if we should have this position as a new position or rolled into the SoIA.

[bore]

On paper at the very least the GM remains, by a huge distance, the most powerful player in the game, so I'm not sure this can be seen as a way of stripping powers a way from it. If we wanted to do that we could have abolished the position in the last senate or curtailed it much more effectively.

The GM remains in overall control of how the SoIA's powers were implemented, for instance, and in fact I largely agree with Maxwell that ths reform would help strengthen the GM as it would give them someone to work with.

[Adam Griffin]

I would just like to register the fact that I am so very disappointed with all of you.

The worst decisions in this game are made usually where there is broad consensus.

[bore]

I would just like to register the fact that I am so very disappointed with all of you.

The worst decisions in this game are made usually where there is broad consensus.

That's only because the only way to achieve any game reform is by having a really broad consensus. The controversial issues don't pass so haven't had a chance to fail spectacularly

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I think the game benefits when there is more reaction to what the GM is doing. As SoIA or Secretary of the Interior or whatever it is, I'll admit that I know pretty much piss all about monetary policy, but having the freedom to choose a deputy to cover this portfolio kind of rectifies that problem.

Moreover, I think the game still functions if no one does this job, so it just kind of adds another layer to the game if someone wants to seize the responsibility. I don't see a problem here.

[Bacon King]

Motion for a final vote