Talk Elections

Realpolitik, aka Al, has been nominated to the position of Game Moderator.

This hearing shall be open for questioning of the nominee to a maximum of 72 hours, unless further questioning is requested by the Senate.

Go crazy!

Al, some concerns have been voiced over your capability to be neutral. I don't share these concerns.....but I would kindly request that you respond to them.

Do you think neutrality is even a worthy goal as GM...and if so, do you think you'll be able to be a neutral voice?

I will be neutral in the areas in which it is possible to be neutral; in the production of population statistics and so on. In all other areas it is impossible to be genuinely neutral as interpretation cannot be neutral and neither can imagination. I will attempt to be something else, namely fair. If I do not like a given regional government (for example), I will not use the office of GM as a means to cause that regional government trouble, save for any trouble they have brought on themselves. If I am confirmed as GM, the Midwest region (as a hypothetical example) will not wake up the next morning to discover that it now has an 80% unemployment rate.

Or to put things in a less wordy and contorted manner... it is my view that the main point of having a GM is to make the game more interesting to as many players as possible. Systematic bias from the GM would make the game less interesting to everyone (myself included) and so I'm not in favour of it.

That's good enough for me :)

What about legislation you personally disagree with?

Could you be more specific?

And if a region implements a policy you severely disagree with and/or it conflicts strongly with your ideology, that would be considered 'bringing it upon themselves' if you give them trouble?

For example, will you make a region that implements socialist policies successful, while wreaking havoc upon a region that embraces the free market?

By 'bringing it upon themselves' I mean something that results directly from policy error, not 'I disagree with that, time for punishment'.

On your second point, that would depend entirely on the policy in question. I would tend to make judgements based on real life examples rather than ideological or theoretical considerations.

I sort of meant that in a general sense. Let me rephrase.

As one of the more radical members of Atlasia, can we trust you to look thoroughly at both sides of an issue in your analysis of legislation?

I shall be voting nay! All Welsh people should be harpooned. Harpooned, I tell you!

Disregard my follow-up, this answered my question.

Would the Senate be interested in my proposed updates plan? The general intention is to update the main GM publication at least once a week unless notice is given otherwise. Ideally there would be more updates than that, but weekly seemed like a logical lower limit in normal circumstances.

What are your plans with regards to the content of the regular update?

Propaganda, mostly. With some gossip, silly stories, sport, sports gossip and soft porn to boost sales. Might manage some actual news every three months or so, but I can't make any firm commitments in that general area, I'm afraid.

And some sleeping pills, perhaps. I don't have any. Actually, I've never had any. Perhaps it would be a good idea, I don't know.

---

Seriously though, I will run a newspaper, as is the tradition. It will contain several articles per edition; usually a main story, some smaller items and the headlines of minor (or apparently minor) stories.

How long do you see yourself serving as Game Moderator?

That's hard to tell for sure because it depends how things go here and - an extent - in the real world. So I can't give you a maximum figure. Could be months, could be years. But a minimum figure would be around two months.

How would your GM-ship compare to that of the last GM?

I am fully aware of the tradition. My experience with that "tradition" was one of severe incompetence. Of course you will run some kind of news source. I was trying to figure out if you planned to committ to at least a few certain basics which would be part of your regular reports?

It's hard to tell this sort of thing until it actually happens, but I suspect the main differences would come from the fact that I have a strong interest in long-term well-developed story arcs. I would be more likely to work along those lines instead of one-off events such as 'region x needs to increase support for sector x of the economy'.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'a few certain basics'; you'll have to be more specific.

Well part of it you answered above in response to Bullmoose, what I meant was could you give us some idea of what information could be expected consistently as opposed to what would be more spontaneous with a few specific examples.

My main aim is for a reasonably continuous narrative (or sets of narratives) that covers most aspects of real life type events and information that people here are interested in. Statistical information (for example) will be released, but within the context of a story (a story headed 'Unemployment rises to 15%' would include regional breakdowns and probably information on blackspots).

Sounds interesting. I think if there was one thing that PS could have done better, it was to fit his reports into some broader storyline over several months. That would have possibly got people more interested then they were.

I didn't pick Al by accident. ;)

Al:

You've indicated you're no fan of trying to restart the budget process. Mostly it seems based on a "been there, tried that, didn't work too well" codger "elder stateman" view. By statute, you will be responsible to chair a commission including Yank and I plus two other picks of PS's to formulate a plan to make the budget a regular, workable, and fun part of Atlasian government.

Can you be counted on to put aside your initial reservations about restarting the budget process and try to develop a system that hopefully will create debate over such controversial issues like taxes, government spending, and public debt? At this point do you have any general broad goals or guidelines as to what the budget process should entail?

I am certainly prepared to lay aside early reservations relating to that subject; I would not have agreed to this nomination were anything else the case.

My views on the budget are, I think, well know. If we are to have one, then it must be as simple as possible. The point at which we need calculators and degrees in statistics, and a fair knowledge of advanced mathematics in order to play the game in anything other than a supporting role is one that must be avoided. Equally a budgetary system that requires us to go into great detail regarding specific spending decisions and government departments (as was the case with the old budget) is one that will only damage the game.

I would like to think that this answer counts as a 'yes' to your question.

Or at least close enough. ;)

And I should reiterate that Al's view of the budget matches mine almost exactly. A very general, very basic budget can be extremely useful for the game, but if the system becomes overly complex and an obstacle to discussion of other issues then it will end up where the old process is now.

I'd also like to point out that placing Al on the Budget panel will prevent Atlasia from making the same mistakes of the past.

A vote to confirm this nominee has begun. Senators, please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

Aye

Aye

AYE.

(And please change the thread title to note a vote is being held. Thanks!)

nay

Aye

Nay.

No ideological bias in your three nay votes at all...

This is why I joined the Senate, to make tough votes like this. Now I could vote NAY because of my personal animousity towards Al, but I won't, because that would be a betrayal of the guidlines I set for myself on matters such as these and when personality has gotten involved in supporting or opposing appointments we often ended up with Incompetence. I could also vote Nay because thats what I told a fellow Senator I planned to do and I don't break my promises. However as a Senator, sometimes such sacrifices are necessary to do the job. Lastly I could vote Nay with the knowledge that it doesn't matter how I vote because there are presently five AYEs and one Marokai Blue is second stringer, I could do that and use any of the above or even past record of innactivity as Game Moderator as grounds for voting Nay.

However today, I am going to vote AYE, because I am satisfied with the answers given here and to judge the decision based on any other grounds is in my opinion a grave injustice to the system, I look forward to your hopefully successful term as Game Moderator.   


I eagerly await my assassination by the usually suspects. :P



Agreed, I did suggest and others as well that someone with experience of what happened then be consulted in the process. This will do that.

Diolch, diolch, diolch.

Little note: access to teh interwebs will be somewhat sporadic this week.

Aye

Senators voting in favor of the nominee: Franzl, Bacon King, Badger, Hans-im-Gluck, Bullmoose, NCYankee, Libertas (7)
Senators opposed: Bgwah, Dallasfan65 (2)
Senators abstaining: AHDuke (1)
italics: abstained without vote

This nominee is hereby confirmed by the Senate.

(edit: missed NCYankee's Aye vote in his wall o' text)

I mean, who would have thought that mentioning the word "Nay" three or four times before finally mentioning that I was voting "Aye", would cause confusiong? ;) :P

Just as I was starting to get worried, I come across this post. :D

Alrighty then. Do I have to swear in or am I technically not a public servant? (yeah, yeah, yeah, I ought to know this. But I've been a long way from atlasia for the past week)

Purple State did, but I don't think you have to.

Well, there's nowt in legislation saying I have to. So, I won't.

An interesting question.

Per the Constitution:

Is the GM an "officer of the Federal government"?

Per the decision in Ebowed v. Atlasia (2009 Atl. S.C.2d 2 (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Decision_Text_-_2009_Atl._S.C.2d_2_(Ebowed_v._Atlasia))), the GM was deemed to be a “constitutionally created executive office”. The constitutional position of the GM may have been altered though by the Game Moderator Reform Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Game_Moderator_Reform_Act) - which enunciates the appointment and removal of the GM in the same section, and in a manner of some similarity, as that of other executive officers.

The GM is appointed and removable by officers of the Federal Government. The GM's job description is also clearly devoted (officially) solely to the needs of the Federal Government ("The Game Moderator is responsible for providing the Senate and Atlasia with the necessary information to conduct debate and create legislation.").

It might also be relevant that in recent times the role of the GM might have changed somewhat also -  for example, the Budget Process Renewal Committee Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=116970.msg2523082#msg2523082) gives the GM a position as chair of a government committee, clearly at the heart of actual government process rather than the game's meta-process. Indeed, Purple State's tenure as GM seemed to me to indicate a shift in that direction generally, e.g. I believe that he would be the first GM to have sat in on cabinet meetings (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=112686.0).

All in all, my wager would be that the Court would find it necessary for the GM to swear-in.

I'll do so just to be on the safe side, then. I don't especially like it, but, meh.

I'm an institutionalist. What can I say? :P