HOUSE BILL: Make Atlasia Debate Again Act, 2018 (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

Sponsor: Wxtransit
House Designation: HB 1185

[wxtransit]

I'm a bit new to this process, so bear with me here

Often in Atlasia, there is a debate that is held between the presidential candidates during the campaign. And this is a great process. However, these are often the only times of the year that we will see an organized, formal debate on policy issues that is clear for all Atlasians to see. And this is a disservice to newer Atlasians and Atlasians that don't know where the parties/candidates stand, for other candidates than Presidential candidates, and to the democratic process outside of the presidential campaign. With this bill, I have proposed a system of regularly scheduled debates for multiple types of offices (president, representatives, senators, governors, etc.). Currently, Atlasia suffers from a lack of debate. This can fix it.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I am strongly in favor of this idea. We need to help people understand what candidates and political parties stand for by providing debates.

[RC]

This is a fantastic idea. We've needed a new solution to debating for quite a while now, and candidates haven't been so open about their stances. I support this bill completely.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

This seems like one of these great ideas in theory that sadly just gets forgotten and ignored in a few months of being implemented. As we have seen with offices such as the National archivist they have a tendency to go inactive with no action from congress to force the appointed official to be active.  We have seen many candidates be able to organize debates on their own such as the Fed primary, past presidential elections. I am also not sure why we need an officially sanctioned organization couldn’t someone independently just work with candidates to organize debates on their own. 

[wxtransit]

This seems like one of these great ideas in theory that sadly just gets forgotten and ignored in a few months of being implemented. As we have seen with offices such as the National archivist they have a tendency to go inactive with no action from congress to force the appointed official to be active.  We have seen many candidates be able to organize debates on their own such as the Fed primary, past presidential elections. I am also not sure why we need an officially sanctioned organization couldn’t someone independently just work with candidates to organize debates on their own. 

I understand your concerns, however, time and time again debates are not organized independently outside of presidential election debates. The Federalist Party debate is a very rare example. The goal of this bill is to codify a regularly occurring debate system to get more Atlasians informed on the issues and the party stances. And with the visible office of GM as the leader of the proposed IDC, it would not go the same way of National Archivist or approvals will plummet.

And I will take action in Congress if this doesn't get followed through with, once implemented.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This seems like one of these great ideas in theory that sadly just gets forgotten and ignored in a few months of being implemented. As we have seen with offices such as the National archivist they have a tendency to go inactive with no action from congress to force the appointed official to be active.  We have seen many candidates be able to organize debates on their own such as the Fed primary, past presidential elections. I am also not sure why we need an officially sanctioned organization couldn’t someone independently just work with candidates to organize debates on their own.  

I understand your concerns, however, time and time again debates are not organized independently outside of presidential election debates. The Federalist Party debate is a very rare example. The goal of this bill is to codify a regularly occurring debate system to get more Atlasians informed on the issues and the party stances. And with the visible office of GM as the leader of the proposed IDC, it would not go the same way of National Archivist or approvals will plummet.

And I will take action in Congress if this doesn't get followed through with, once implemented.

The biggest reason that this wouldn't get followed through would be a lapse or a change in staff in the GM department.

I generally like this, a lot of times there have been situations where other people have attempted to define our party in ways that are completely wrong, or have outright stolen our material and then claimed we were against those things. Therefore i am particularly interested in the forum of the party leaders.

[wxtransit]

This seems like one of these great ideas in theory that sadly just gets forgotten and ignored in a few months of being implemented. As we have seen with offices such as the National archivist they have a tendency to go inactive with no action from congress to force the appointed official to be active.  We have seen many candidates be able to organize debates on their own such as the Fed primary, past presidential elections. I am also not sure why we need an officially sanctioned organization couldn’t someone independently just work with candidates to organize debates on their own.  

I understand your concerns, however, time and time again debates are not organized independently outside of presidential election debates. The Federalist Party debate is a very rare example. The goal of this bill is to codify a regularly occurring debate system to get more Atlasians informed on the issues and the party stances. And with the visible office of GM as the leader of the proposed IDC, it would not go the same way of National Archivist or approvals will plummet.

And I will take action in Congress if this doesn't get followed through with, once implemented.

The biggest reason that this wouldn't get followed through would be a lapse or a change in staff in the GM department.

I generally like this, a lot of times there have been situations where other people have attempted to define our party in ways that are completely wrong, or have outright stolen our material and then claimed we were against those things. Therefore i am particularly interested in the forum of the party leaders.

Yep, this was one of the ideas I liked when I made it, too.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I get the intent here, but I worry that the practical effect of Section 1 would be to add one more task to the game engine's already-expansive list of official responsibilities. I've organized debates before, and pulling one off successfully is a lot of work; there's no way I can take that on as a regular monthly gig, in addition to my other duties as GM, without neglecting one or the other—particularly as I have serious real-life responsibilities that take up most of my time. Transferring the responsibility to the deputy game moderator only shifts the problem down a rung.

Furthermore, while hosting more debates is certainly a good goal, it's not clear to me how this relates to the original constitutional understanding of the game engine's role in Atlasia. This bill rather reminds me of how the old Senate kept adding new jobs to the SoIA position, culminating in one person being responsible for about a dozen different departments in addition to acting as chief legal counsel, wiki secretary, and deputy GM all rolled into one.

[wxtransit]

I get the intent here, but I worry that the practical effect of Section 1 would be to add one more task to the game engine's already-expansive list of official responsibilities. I've organized debates before, and pulling one off successfully is a lot of work; there's no way I can take that on as a regular monthly gig, in addition to my other duties as GM, without neglecting one or the other—particularly as I have serious real-life responsibilities that take up most of my time. Transferring the responsibility to the deputy game moderator only shifts the problem down a rung.

Furthermore, while hosting more debates is certainly a good goal, it's not clear to me how this relates to the original constitutional understanding of the game engine's role in Atlasia. This bill rather reminds me of how the old Senate kept adding new jobs to the SoIA position, culminating in one person being responsible for about a dozen different departments in addition to acting as chief legal counsel, wiki secretary, and deputy GM all rolled into one.

Hmm. What could you suggest as a replacement?

[wxtransit]

I get the intent here, but I worry that the practical effect of Section 1 would be to add one more task to the game engine's already-expansive list of official responsibilities. I've organized debates before, and pulling one off successfully is a lot of work; there's no way I can take that on as a regular monthly gig, in addition to my other duties as GM, without neglecting one or the other—particularly as I have serious real-life responsibilities that take up most of my time. Transferring the responsibility to the deputy game moderator only shifts the problem down a rung.

Furthermore, while hosting more debates is certainly a good goal, it's not clear to me how this relates to the original constitutional understanding of the game engine's role in Atlasia. This bill rather reminds me of how the old Senate kept adding new jobs to the SoIA position, culminating in one person being responsible for about a dozen different departments in addition to acting as chief legal counsel, wiki secretary, and deputy GM all rolled into one.

Hmm. What could you suggest as a replacement?

Follow-up: would delegating the task to a lesser-used cabinet officer, lesser-used national official, or creating a new cabinet office/national official be suitable options?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I get the intent here, but I worry that the practical effect of Section 1 would be to add one more task to the game engine's already-expansive list of official responsibilities. I've organized debates before, and pulling one off successfully is a lot of work; there's no way I can take that on as a regular monthly gig, in addition to my other duties as GM, without neglecting one or the other—particularly as I have serious real-life responsibilities that take up most of my time. Transferring the responsibility to the deputy game moderator only shifts the problem down a rung.

Furthermore, while hosting more debates is certainly a good goal, it's not clear to me how this relates to the original constitutional understanding of the game engine's role in Atlasia. This bill rather reminds me of how the old Senate kept adding new jobs to the SoIA position, culminating in one person being responsible for about a dozen different departments in addition to acting as chief legal counsel, wiki secretary, and deputy GM all rolled into one.

Hmm. What could you suggest as a replacement?

Perhaps the Secretary of Internal Affairs or, alternatively, the National Archivist? Congress lacks the constitutional authority to create new cabinet offices, but that would be a bad idea regardless.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I get the intent here, but I worry that the practical effect of Section 1 would be to add one more task to the game engine's already-expansive list of official responsibilities. I've organized debates before, and pulling one off successfully is a lot of work; there's no way I can take that on as a regular monthly gig, in addition to my other duties as GM, without neglecting one or the other—particularly as I have serious real-life responsibilities that take up most of my time. Transferring the responsibility to the deputy game moderator only shifts the problem down a rung.

Furthermore, while hosting more debates is certainly a good goal, it's not clear to me how this relates to the original constitutional understanding of the game engine's role in Atlasia. This bill rather reminds me of how the old Senate kept adding new jobs to the SoIA position, culminating in one person being responsible for about a dozen different departments in addition to acting as chief legal counsel, wiki secretary, and deputy GM all rolled into one.

Hmm. What could you suggest as a replacement?

Perhaps the Secretary of Internal Affairs or, alternatively, the National Archivist? Congress lacks the constitutional authority to create new cabinet offices, but that would be a bad idea regardless.

Both of those offices are currently inactive as is so giving them more work might not be that advisable at the moment.

[wxtransit]

I get the intent here, but I worry that the practical effect of Section 1 would be to add one more task to the game engine's already-expansive list of official responsibilities. I've organized debates before, and pulling one off successfully is a lot of work; there's no way I can take that on as a regular monthly gig, in addition to my other duties as GM, without neglecting one or the other—particularly as I have serious real-life responsibilities that take up most of my time. Transferring the responsibility to the deputy game moderator only shifts the problem down a rung.

Furthermore, while hosting more debates is certainly a good goal, it's not clear to me how this relates to the original constitutional understanding of the game engine's role in Atlasia. This bill rather reminds me of how the old Senate kept adding new jobs to the SoIA position, culminating in one person being responsible for about a dozen different departments in addition to acting as chief legal counsel, wiki secretary, and deputy GM all rolled into one.

Hmm. What could you suggest as a replacement?

Perhaps the Secretary of Internal Affairs or, alternatively, the National Archivist? Congress lacks the constitutional authority to create new cabinet offices, but that would be a bad idea regardless.

Both of those offices are currently inactive as is so giving them more work might not be that advisable at the moment.

Isn't there a new Secretary of Internal Affairs and there is a bill to impeach the National Archivist? Also, if a new office were created, does it have to be a cabinet office?

[wxtransit]

What if the person to lead the organization is a citizen appointed by the President, not part of the cabinet office? It's a fairly important and time-consuming job itself.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I get the intent here, but I worry that the practical effect of Section 1 would be to add one more task to the game engine's already-expansive list of official responsibilities. I've organized debates before, and pulling one off successfully is a lot of work; there's no way I can take that on as a regular monthly gig, in addition to my other duties as GM, without neglecting one or the other—particularly as I have serious real-life responsibilities that take up most of my time. Transferring the responsibility to the deputy game moderator only shifts the problem down a rung.

Furthermore, while hosting more debates is certainly a good goal, it's not clear to me how this relates to the original constitutional understanding of the game engine's role in Atlasia. This bill rather reminds me of how the old Senate kept adding new jobs to the SoIA position, culminating in one person being responsible for about a dozen different departments in addition to acting as chief legal counsel, wiki secretary, and deputy GM all rolled into one.

Hmm. What could you suggest as a replacement?

Perhaps the Secretary of Internal Affairs or, alternatively, the National Archivist? Congress lacks the constitutional authority to create new cabinet offices, but that would be a bad idea regardless.

Both of those offices are currently inactive as is so giving them more work might not be that advisable at the moment.

Point taken. In perfect honesty, I'm not convinced this bill should be passed at all—federal commissions have a long track record of falling short of their grand founding ideals, and I rather doubt this will actually promote debates between candidates—but that is a matter for Congress to decide. I merely express my opinion that this is not something the game engine can reasonable take on.

[wxtransit]

I get the intent here, but I worry that the practical effect of Section 1 would be to add one more task to the game engine's already-expansive list of official responsibilities. I've organized debates before, and pulling one off successfully is a lot of work; there's no way I can take that on as a regular monthly gig, in addition to my other duties as GM, without neglecting one or the other—particularly as I have serious real-life responsibilities that take up most of my time. Transferring the responsibility to the deputy game moderator only shifts the problem down a rung.

Furthermore, while hosting more debates is certainly a good goal, it's not clear to me how this relates to the original constitutional understanding of the game engine's role in Atlasia. This bill rather reminds me of how the old Senate kept adding new jobs to the SoIA position, culminating in one person being responsible for about a dozen different departments in addition to acting as chief legal counsel, wiki secretary, and deputy GM all rolled into one.

Hmm. What could you suggest as a replacement?

Perhaps the Secretary of Internal Affairs or, alternatively, the National Archivist? Congress lacks the constitutional authority to create new cabinet offices, but that would be a bad idea regardless.

Both of those offices are currently inactive as is so giving them more work might not be that advisable at the moment.

Point taken. In perfect honesty, I'm not convinced this bill should be passed at all—federal commissions have a long track record of falling short of their grand founding ideals, and I rather doubt this will actually promote debates between candidates—but that is a matter for Congress to decide. I merely express my opinion that this is not something the game engine can reasonable take on.

How about this? The Game Engine would not be involved in any way.

What if the person to lead the organization is a citizen appointed by the President, not part of the cabinet office? It's a fairly important and time-consuming job itself.

Also, I understand that federal organizations don't have a great track record, however, I would rather try to create something great than do nothing at all. What if this does work? And if it doesn't, what would happen besides one inactive office that can be impeached? I think it's better to try and create a solution for the problem, even if there's a chance that the solution fails, then to sit back and do nothing. Independently created debates are rare outside of the presidential campaign. This is to fix that problem.

[RFayette]

I support this bill.  It is necessary to help give people a greater understanding of positions on issues to help make an informed decision.

[wxtransit]

How about this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

[Oakvale]

I oppose this bill.

While I recognise the good intentions behind such legislation, the fact is we've a terrible habit in this country of attempting to solve problems by creating offices. Look no further than the ludicrous position of the National Archivist, where the current incumbent is being impeached for gross inactivity - who'd have seen that coming?

All too often we think of inactivity as a moral failing - it's not. It's a rational response to incentives.  It may well be that we get lucky and end up with an active Debate Moderator. Far more likely we end up with an entirely inactive office because no one has any real incentive to do this job.

This would be an expansion of the government for very little reward.

I agree that more debates is, in general, a good thing - but I don't see why this couldn't be left to the private sector. I'd encourage the various independent news organisations to get together and form a debate commission. That would be healthy. A formal government role? I'm not convinced.

[wxtransit]

I oppose this bill.

While I recognise the good intentions behind such legislation, the fact is we've a terrible habit in this country of attempting to solve problems by creating offices. Look no further than the ludicrous position of the National Archivist, where the current incumbent is being impeached for gross inactivity - who'd have seen that coming?

All too often we think of inactivity as a moral failing - it's not. It's a rational response to incentives.  It may well be that we get lucky and end up with an active Debate Moderator. Far more likely we end up with an entirely inactive office because no one has any real incentive to do this job.

This would be an expansion of the government for very little reward.

I agree that more debates is, in general, a good thing - but I don't see why this couldn't be left to the private sector. I'd encourage the various independent news organisations to get together and form a debate commission. That would be healthy. A formal government role? I'm not convinced.

Which?

I understand your concerns, and they are certainly valid, however, I just don't see any independent news organizations (whatever they are) getting together and making a debate commission anytime soon.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Representatives have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I oppose this bill.

While I recognise the good intentions behind such legislation, the fact is we've a terrible habit in this country of attempting to solve problems by creating offices. Look no further than the ludicrous position of the National Archivist, where the current incumbent is being impeached for gross inactivity - who'd have seen that coming?

All too often we think of inactivity as a moral failing - it's not. It's a rational response to incentives.  It may well be that we get lucky and end up with an active Debate Moderator. Far more likely we end up with an entirely inactive office because no one has any real incentive to do this job.

This would be an expansion of the government for very little reward.

I agree that more debates is, in general, a good thing - but I don't see why this couldn't be left to the private sector. I'd encourage the various independent news organisations to get together and form a debate commission. That would be healthy. A formal government role? I'm not convinced.

Am I to interpret this as an objection to the amendment as well?

[Oakvale]

I oppose this bill.

While I recognise the good intentions behind such legislation, the fact is we've a terrible habit in this country of attempting to solve problems by creating offices. Look no further than the ludicrous position of the National Archivist, where the current incumbent is being impeached for gross inactivity - who'd have seen that coming?

All too often we think of inactivity as a moral failing - it's not. It's a rational response to incentives.  It may well be that we get lucky and end up with an active Debate Moderator. Far more likely we end up with an entirely inactive office because no one has any real incentive to do this job.

This would be an expansion of the government for very little reward.

I agree that more debates is, in general, a good thing - but I don't see why this couldn't be left to the private sector. I'd encourage the various independent news organisations to get together and form a debate commission. That would be healthy. A formal government role? I'm not convinced.

Am I to interpret this as an objection to the amendment as well?

Yes - if this bill does pass I'd prefer that at the very least we don't create another office.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Objection filed by Oakvale. A vote is now open on the above amendment, Representatives please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.