Federal Reserve Reform Act (Passed)

[windjammer]

No Bacon King.

Sorry for not having been able to participate in this thread before. I have been really busy irl.

I totally agree with Griffin. This bill is a bad idea. Just to be clear, I'm not AGAINST reforms, I'm against basically stripping duties to an office. You're doing the same mistakes than the senate did when they voted to basically strip every duty of the VP: what was the result? An inactive office.
I will vote no because I don't want that to happen to the GM as well. If you don't like this office, I would prefer you to try to abolish this office, instead of progressively stripping every of his duties.
The Nappy-Hagrid partnership was really good, I don't understand the need of "change".

[Lumine]

Is there really such a need to overreact? This is certainly not an attempt to progressively strip the GM from his duties, but an attempt to help the position of SoIA by allowing an administration to deal with monetary policy, a very minor duty for the GM that so far has been used in just a couple of times. The more the cabinet can work with a GM and react to the events of the game the better for all of us.

[Bacon King]

Motion for a final vote

Motion withdrawn per Windjammer's request

[Maxwell]

I don't think it's good for the GM to just be in the corner and saying "well inflation is this, and oh, great, I have the solution for it too". Makes everyone else pointless, doesn't it?

And if we've been looking at GM Cynic's work, he's done a marvelous job to the point where I think the game gets better when we have someone interacting with him. Take a look at the midwest - GAWorth is approaching reform of our approach to reservations because of the story published in Cynic's materials. I think that is a fantastic step forward in the game. I think having someone in charge of monetary policy would do the same.

The level of panic I see from my friends almost make me think we are stripping the GM role to the level of VP irrelevance. That is just not the case, and I wish they would not stir up this sort of hyperbole.

[SWE]

I support this. As Maxwell pointed out, giving the person with the job of creating problems and making them the only ones able to fix the problem is pretty pointless. In real life I'd prefer giving the legislative branch this power, but this seems like the most practical from a game play perspective.

No Bacon King.

Sorry for not having been able to participate in this thread before. I have been really busy irl.

I totally agree with Griffin. This bill is a bad idea. Just to be clear, I'm not AGAINST reforms, I'm against basically stripping duties to an office. You're doing the same mistakes than the senate did when they voted to basically strip every duty of the VP: what was the result? An inactive office.
I will vote no because I don't want that to happen to the GM as well. If you don't like this office, I would prefer you to try to abolish this office, instead of progressively stripping every of his duties.
The Nappy-Hagrid partnership was really good, I don't understand the need of "change".

Taking away a rarely used power is hardly 'stripping the GM of his duties'

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

As a former GM, I would have liked to have another character setting Fed policy that I could have interacted with.  It wasn't understood as part of GM's duty when I was there, but if it had it would have just felt like another instance where I was talking to myself. I support this.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Matt from Vermont, when he was VP, didn't use his "duties" at all. That doesn't mean that the recent senate reforms didn't strip every VP duty.

[windjammer]

I still don't understand why Cynic, who is doing a good job, should be stripped from this duty.

[Adam Griffin]

Pray tell, why exactly is it a bad thing that the GM have control over a limited series of triggers and outcomes that no one else can influence? It still creates dynamics through which the game has to respond in some way, shape or form. Let's all remember that any decision made by this body or any other has no pre-defined outcome: only what the GM says happens, happens. The Game Moderator is a position within this game, too; people act as if the GM is a robot and therefore all the real decisions must be given to the Senate or some other official because if not, it's not a real decision being made by a real player. That's half the problem with the GM office as-is: perception and authority, and here we are taking even more of it away from the office. The Senate doesn't need to have its hands wrapped around every single decision, nor do the voters. I love to periodically reference this quote from the GM Wiki page whenever there's another attempt to weaken or discredit the office:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it's a fycking joke.

Furthermore, you guys are discussing giving the power to a failed cabinet position while at the same time stripping the more intensive elements of the original act from the responsibility list (the reports). How exactly is that going to motivate the cabinet official to be involved? You're refuting my points by saying, "we're not stripping the GM of any real power because it's only one thing". So then explain to me how this is going to save a failed position by giving it that one element with no real power? Double standards. I'm sure future SoIAs are going to say, "Oh boy! I've been given this supposedly trivial power so now I'm going to be super active and engaged!".

This is the game mechanic equivalent of implementing communism in the third world: you're taking a situation in which there are two failed positions and one position on life support, and in order to "revive" the other two, you're going to give them blood transfusions from the third. The end result is that they're all going to die. Stop trying to derive success in already failed offices by removing powers from the ones that still work. Stop trying to give yourselves more decision-making authority because of your own long-gone perceptions of the GM. Keep up these attacks on the sovereignty and tangible powers of the GM and I'll make the prediction that this office will be no different than SoIA/SoEA by the end of the year.

[bore]

I support the GM having control over some triggers which no one else, which is why the GM would still determine inflation, unemployment. The problem is monetary policy is needed to respond to increasing inflation or unemployment, under the current system the GM, by setting interest rates is just talking to himself.

From what I can see the problem with the SoEA and SoIA at the moment (and there are problems) is there is no challenge to it. In those offices you can decide to make an agreement ending all war and making everyone happy forever and there is nothing stopping you. The logical conclusion here is when the israel palestine issue was solved completely. It's no fun because there's no challenge. It's the same reason no one really wants a senate where the other 9 senators agree with you completely, it's boring. The same is true, in microcosm, for the GM's fed powers at the moment. He decides how to implement them and then decides the success of that implementation.

[Adam Griffin]

I support the GM having control over some triggers which no one else, which is why the GM would still determine inflation, unemployment. The problem is monetary policy is needed to respond to increasing inflation or unemployment, under the current system the GM, by setting interest rates is just talking to himself.

From what I can see the problem with the SoEA and SoIA at the moment (and there are problems) is there is no challenge to it. In those offices you can decide to make an agreement ending all war and making everyone happy forever and there is nothing stopping you. The logical conclusion here is when the israel palestine issue was solved completely. It's no fun because there's no challenge. It's the same reason no one really wants a senate where the other 9 senators agree with you completely, it's boring. The same is true, in microcosm, for the GM's fed powers at the moment. He decides how to implement them and then decides the success of that implementation.

I understand what you're saying, but I simply disagree with the game mechanics portion. There should be some situations that are completely out of the control of the elected officials in this game. The premise seems to be here that the Senate or another cabinet official should have more control over that part of the process. I see it as being something that the Senate should have to react to with non-monetary policy in order to address, and then the GM determines whether the reaction has a positive or negative influence. A simple change in monetary policy will not solve unemployment or inflation alone, yet these three indicators should all remain under the same umbrella as indicators of whether or not the game is responding in the way it should be to the generated situation or consequences of past actions. In other words, I see Fed monetary policy to be an indicator just like unemployment and inflation.

Giving it to the SoIA essentially creates the same dynamic, but with a different person controlling it (and the ability for there to be more inconsistencies). I've heard grumbles about economic situations in this game not following real-life consequences; do this and you'll get even more of it. This will not make the SoIA more interesting, especially with the detailed requirements behind it being gutted in this legislation.

The Senate possibility is one in which the Senate determines the initial policy, subsequent monetary policy change and then subsequent response to that situation. I feel there is less incentive for the Senate to listen to the GM in this case. The GM at that point is just making a judgement call, rather than actually influencing the entire dynamic. These three metrics I feel should remain intertwined.


Current situation: the game acts > the GM reacts with a unified series of economic indicators > the game reacts > the GM determines whether that affects indicators positively or negatively

Proposed situation #1: the game acts > the GM/SoIA each react with a potentially uncoordinated series of economic indicators > the game reacts > the GM/SoIA each determine whether that affects indicators positively or negatively

Proposed situation #2: the game acts > the game and the GM each react with a potentially uncoordinated series of economic indicators > the game reacts > the game and the GM each determine whether that affects indicators positively or negatively

I think situation #2 puts too much power in officeholders' hands and creates potential inconsistencies; situation #1 is basically the same as the status quo except we're giving the power to someone else, weakening the GM's position and also creates potential inconsistencies

[Lumine]

There's a lot of interesting arguments here, but I suppose I must express my amazement at how some seem to believe there's a sustained effort by the Senate to weaken the GM.

If anything, ever since DemPGH tried to do as he pleased with a GM the Senate has worked to aid the position by changing the mechanisms for dismissal and allowing the use of GM deputies among other things. Giving all the powers to the GM is also a sign of disfunction, because the GM and the Federal government are supposed to interact, and this has been done via the negotiations and actions regarding Iraq and Ukraine, where we had a successful example of cooperation enhancing the game.

What this bill would do is to give a power to the SoIA that will actually allow him to interact with the GM regarding monetary policy, because as of now the SoIA (which is technically responsible of Domestic Policy) has no powers to act on this area, with only executive orders from the President as a resort (and ruling via executive order has its obvious problems as well).

We are getting off topic here, but the bottom line is that the federal government will always struggle to function properly if we don't have a balance between the cabinet positions that allows for them to interact and cooperate, something that can now be achieved thanks in no small part to Dr. Cynic's performance and style as GM and the possibilities offered by having an actual Deputy GM in Barnes.

[Adam Griffin]

There's a lot of interesting arguments here, but I suppose I must express my amazement at how some seem to believe there's a sustained effort by the Senate to weaken the GM.

Please don't try to make it sound as if I implied a conspiracy. Regardless of intent, the office of GM is the only cabinet position as of late that has been the focus of multiple bills designed to either limit its autonomy or give its powers to others. Oddly enough, there does seem to be a response with respect to doing this sort of thing not when the positions are failing, but when they actually have an active occupant (much like the last round of VP reforms when windjammer held it). 

[Lumine]

There's a lot of interesting arguments here, but I suppose I must express my amazement at how some seem to believe there's a sustained effort by the Senate to weaken the GM.

Please don't try to make it sound as if I implied a conspiracy. Regardless of intent, the office of GM is the only cabinet position as of late that has been the focus of multiple bills designed to either limit its autonomy or give its powers to others. Oddly enough, there does seem to be a response with respect to doing this sort of thing not when the positions are failing, but when they actually have an active occupant (much like the last round of VP reforms when windjammer held it).  

I meant Windjammer's arguments as well, but for some reason it does seem like whenever we have to argue there are conspiracy theories in the background...

Moving onto the main point here, I don't feel that what we have done is to limit the autonomy of the GM and reduce the office to nothing. It is a fact that the cabinet needs reforms and it needs to avoid the vagueness provided by the constitution, and I feel attempts like this bill fulfill in part that objective. The argument about the active occupants of the position being the ones hurt by this does seem a bit ironic in light of your earlier comments against SirNick (and I believe Simfan as well). Cynic has been a great GM, but that doesn't mean things cannot be improved when it comes to the cooperation between the cabinet and his office. Call me idealistic, but I want to believe that Riley or Bore will be able to assemble a cabinet active enough to continue this line of thinking.

Regarding the conflict that arised when Windjammer was the Vice-President, the issue was not one of activity or a calculated attempt to limit and reduce the position, the issue surged because there was (ironically, I guess) a clear conflict of separation of powers and the potential weakening of the President Pro Tempore.

[windjammer]

There's a lot of interesting arguments here, but I suppose I must express my amazement at how some seem to believe there's a sustained effort by the Senate to weaken the GM.

Please don't try to make it sound as if I implied a conspiracy. Regardless of intent, the office of GM is the only cabinet position as of late that has been the focus of multiple bills designed to either limit its autonomy or give its powers to others. Oddly enough, there does seem to be a response with respect to doing this sort of thing not when the positions are failing, but when they actually have an active occupant (much like the last round of VP reforms when windjammer held it).  

I meant Windjammer's arguments as well, but for some reason it does seem like whenever we have to argue there are conspiracy theories in the background...

Moving onto the main point here, I don't feel that what we have done is to limit the autonomy of the GM and reduce the office to nothing. It is a fact that the cabinet needs reforms and it needs to avoid the vagueness provided by the constitution, and I feel attempts like this bill fulfill in part that objective. The argument about the active occupants of the position being the ones hurt by this does seem a bit ironic in light of your earlier comments against SirNick (and I believe Simfan as well). Cynic has been a great GM, but that doesn't mean things cannot be improved when it comes to the cooperation between the cabinet and his office. Call me idealistic, but I want to believe that Riley or Bore will be able to assemble a cabinet active enough to continue this line of thinking.

Regarding the conflict that arised when Windjammer was the Vice-President, the issue was not one of activity or a calculated attempt to limit and reduce the position, the issue surged because there was (ironically, I guess) a clear conflict of separation of powers and the potential weakening of the President Pro Tempore.

The VP is the president of the senate, and his only constitutionnal duty is to break the ties. People believe the VP is a member of the executive branch whereas he's a member of the legislative branch, there was no problem with "separation" of powers.

Speaking about the bill now, to be honest, I don't think you're malicious Lumine and there are plots behind, it's just we fundamentally agree on many things.

I totally agree with Griffin on that, the GM is doing a good job and I fear that stripping some of his duties would undermine this office in long term.

[Dr. Cynic]

If I could chime in and offer my two cents here, I feel a bit like my future is being discussed where I have little say in the outcome.

I have no problem if you want to get the economic number crunching away from me. It's something I have a hard time doing and it's probably the only part of this job I don't enjoy. I have no problem if you guys want to make the SOIA position the effective number cruncher for people who are good at that kind of thing.

I much more greatly enjoy coming up with news storylines. In the news tonight, I've brought forward a new one that you guys could react to. What you choose to do is up to you. If I felt that there was an attempt by the Senate to strip me of the powers that I feel I am doing the most good with, then I would resign. I don't feel that way (at least not yet). I want what's best for the game and if you guys feel that handing that portion of the game to the SOIA is for the better, then you should do it. It's not my hill to die on.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The purpose behind giving the GM the power of the Fed because 1) the Fed is two complex to actually play as playable positions and such forth and 2) so that it could add to its ability to create situations to force the game to react. The very point was that if the Fed acted, then the Senate/Administration (SoIA taking the lead) would follow policies in reaction to what the fed had done.

Moving the Fed changes where the intented reaction is to be and attempts to make the Fed itself the center of the reaction (economic indicators does X, Fed does Y in response).

[bore]

Is there anything else to say here?

[bore]

Senators a final vote is now open on this bill, please vote aye nay or abstain

[windjammer]

NAY

[TNF]

NAY

[Senator Cris]

Aye

[SWE]

Aye

[Lief 🗽]

Nay

[bore]

Aye