SB 2017-053 - The First Gameplay Reform Act (Debating)

[Leinad]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: (then-)President Blair (Lab-MA)

I now open this to the floor for debate.

[LLR]

Can the Economic Affairs officer serve in another office simultaneously?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Can the Economic Affairs officer serve in another office simultaneously?

My thought as well. Like the Deputy GM perhaps?

[Blair]

I'd be happy with them being a deputy GM as well; but would rather not have them hold office as it's in effect a gameplay position and non-partisan.

[LLR]

Can the Economic Affairs officer serve in another office simultaneously?

My thought as well. Like the Deputy GM perhaps?

Yes, I feel that would be better, since I have a great opposition to adding more offices.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'd be happy with them being a deputy GM as well; but would rather not have them hold office as it's in effect a gameplay position and non-partisan.

Does that not describe the GM though? Gameplay and non-partisan?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I don't really see what these offices add to the game activity-wise.  Why add new offices for things that are already handled by the GM and Deputy GM?

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't really see what these offices add to the game activity-wise.  Why add new offices for things that are already handled by the GM and Deputy GM?

     It seems like we add things for the GM to do rather often. I may be offbase with that perception, but it gives me pause.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't really see what these offices add to the game activity-wise.  Why add new offices for things that are already handled by the GM and Deputy GM?

     It seems like we add things for the GM to do rather often. I may be offbase with that perception, but it gives me pause.

On the flip side adding things to do doesn't mean they will be done. In 2009-2011 we often mandated stuff that the GM should do or provide and eventually we basically gave up on most of it ever being done, just being satisfied that the GM did the basics.

While this is certainly a good proposal, I must note there are striking resemblances to things that were done back then in relation to the GM. Perhaps the push and drive for solutions now will ensure follow through, but again whether it is the GM or some other office, it will all come down to whether or not an active person can be found who do that job and do it to an extent to comply with all the legislated positions. One thing is for sure, is that it if is not in clear view (x, y and z need to be done), if it is buried in the statute, it most likely will fall by the way side.

[Blair]

I was in two thoughts when I wrote this bill- one idea was to create another cabinet office position like Office of Budget Responsibility but with a broader mandate. The other idea was to make a neutral office that would have a direct role over evaluating economic outcomes.

I still stand by the conclusion that we need to do a lot more to focus on economic activity

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was in two thoughts when I wrote this bill- one idea was to create another cabinet office position like Office of Budget Responsibility but with a broader mandate. The other idea was to make a neutral office that would have a direct role over evaluating economic outcomes.

I still stand by the conclusion that we need to do a lot more to focus on economic activity

Amazing we attempt to put out a long term fire (getting FP to be a critical focus) and economic activity seems to slip.

Perhaps we could also formalize a domestic policy council. My hope was to do both the NSC and DPC and that is why I appointed Domestic Policy Advisors during my campaign in October. Of course they didn't fare so well in the interim, compared to an NSC composed in early January of largely active and currently active people.

Since the DPC would not be confirmed positions, they could be open to the SoI, VP and members of Congress as well as just citizens with a knowledge for policy and/or math (which often is most important part of policy).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That gives me an idea.

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A couple of minor amendments for clarity regarding holding other offices at the same time and to get the debate going again.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This has been sitting for a few days now.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

At the moment I'm leaning strongly towards a nay vote.  Seeing as these responsibilities can already be carried out by the GM and Deputy GM, as well as Congress, I'm very reluctant to sign off on creating new positions that will likely sit vacant for the time to come.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I echo Scott's comments. One of the many issues that Presidents of yester-year ran into was a grand abundance of positions and so few folks willing to fill those positions. There's already a lot of positions to fill, and adding more just doesn't sit right with me. I'm open to hearing comments from my colleagues as well.

[Blair]

Feel free to amendment those offices out (as they weren't part of the main thrust) The part I've quoted below is the main part, and would be imo the biggest change to game-play since I arrived in Atlasia.

There's a massive hole in the game in terms of what we actually do- if it wasn't for the endless amount of admin resulting from the Con-Con (writing of chamber rules, sorting out electoral process, fixing regions etc) they'd be a real danger of the game-play going stale

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[LLR]

I'm happy with amending the bill down to that, personally

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Blair has a point, that there is a hole in the game.

That is why I think the best approach is a network of optional positions (NSC, DPC etc), If you have the people, fine, but you can still move forward without them. It merely gives the opportunity to involve more people in the process.

And what does that process lead towards? A defined Presidential agenda. We have had Presidents in this game with a defined agenda. Purple State, Marokai, Averoes Nix, and AHDuke99 all come to mind. They have a defined set of issues they want to address and then those are adopted and debated. Having an NSC and a DPC means there is a team building that agenda, and expanding on it so that it is not just one thing or five things but many things.

This even led to the "Administration slots". There had always been a slot for Forum Affairs/Emergencies. Then Ben or somebody created a Foreign Policy one and then so on. Then it was from there that I jumped to having the Vice President administer these slots. The emergency ones, the Foreign Policy one and  two others I think. This meant that the Secretary of External Affairs (SoS now) would PM the Vice President what the Administration prioritized in terms of defense or foreign policy issues.

Now it never worked as well as imagined and often the President would be one providing this direction. But it created a process whereby the President's agenda on policy: economic and foreign, game reform etc, could be brought up to the floor quickly and so issues were front and center.

[Blair]

So if a Senator wants to propose that amendmended version of the bill, we can move to a final vote

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I will propose the amendment that Blair quoted in Reply#16 to replace the current text of the bill.

[Goldwater]

In that case, are we ready for a final vote now?

[LLR]

In that case, are we ready for a final vote now?

We haven't even voted on the amendment.

[Goldwater]

Oh, for some reason I thought the amendment was automatically friendly, my mistake. I will open a 72 hour vote on this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators, please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Abstain.