Senate Confirmation Hearing: TimTurner for Debate Moderator (Confirmed)

[Lumine]

Executive Order
Appointing a Debate Moderator

TimTurner is hereby appointed Debate Moderator.

X President Tmthforu94

The nominee has 24 hours to make an opening statement.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I thank the President for nominating me and I thank the Senate for giving me a hearing.
Seeing as though the President was making clear the extreme difficulty he was having in finding someone to fill this important position, I felt duty-bound to put my name forward.
I am as of yet unsure of the direction I wish to take this office in (besides fair-handedness, which is a given and is to be expected for this office). I accepted this nomination first and foremost out of a sense of duty for the game. This position does present a chance to be a trend-setter, and to determine the overall behavior expected from the office. That potential is definitely a positive, so I guess it could, metaphorically, be seen as icing on the cake.
The most important thing, though, above all, is this: I am willing to serve in the position. No one is willing. The President has for a long time been searching, to no avail.
I have already begun searching for a deputy, per the request of the President. I have asked Poirot if he is willing to serve as deputy - he has not yet returned my PMs. I hope he does respond in the affirmative soon. He has much dedication to the game, as shown by his many runs for office.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Will you pledge to hold a debate for the Party Chairs as required in the Make Atlasia Debate Act?


https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Make_Atlasia_Debate_Again_Act,_2018

d. Forums to discuss platforms of major political parties, headed by party leaders

[tmthforu94]

I'd like to jump in quickly and state that one thing Tim and I discussed that would be a first step with this position is reforming the above mentioned bill that sets requirements for this act as parts of it are impractical.

One aspect of that is it is nearly impossible to find a non-partisan person as I had initially sought out, I think a Deputy DM would be good for conflicts of interest. The bill also doesn't really outline what happens if candidates don't agree on a debate moderator - it states that there is only one DM, but then requires that all candidates agree on one. More changes would be likely, for example I don't think the DM should be "required" to host any debates except Presidential and probably Congressional, anything beyond that should be on a request basis. That includes Party Chairs.

[wxtransit]

I'd like to jump in quickly and state that one thing Tim and I discussed that would be a first step with this position is reforming the above mentioned bill that sets requirements for this act as parts of it are impractical.

One aspect of that is it is nearly impossible to find a non-partisan person as I had initially sought out, I think a Deputy DM would be good for conflicts of interest. The bill also doesn't really outline what happens if candidates don't agree on a debate moderator - it states that there is only one DM, but then requires that all candidates agree on one. More changes would be likely, for example I don't think the DM should be "required" to host any debates except Presidential and probably Congressional, anything beyond that should be on a request basis. That includes Party Chairs.

Hopefully I'm not intruding here, but just a note - all of the debate types listed in the bill were suggestions, not requirements. The ones I included were put in there specifically as types of debates that were likely to be covered, but not required per se.

[Former President tack50]

Since you are an elected officeholder, what assurances other than the appointment of a deputy Debate Moderator can you give us that you will conduct debates in an impartial and fair manner?

Also, what kind of structure do you plan on following on your debates? Will you follow mostly your predecessor's template or go with something else?

[tmthforu94]

I'd like to jump in quickly and state that one thing Tim and I discussed that would be a first step with this position is reforming the above mentioned bill that sets requirements for this act as parts of it are impractical.

One aspect of that is it is nearly impossible to find a non-partisan person as I had initially sought out, I think a Deputy DM would be good for conflicts of interest. The bill also doesn't really outline what happens if candidates don't agree on a debate moderator - it states that there is only one DM, but then requires that all candidates agree on one. More changes would be likely, for example I don't think the DM should be "required" to host any debates except Presidential and probably Congressional, anything beyond that should be on a request basis. That includes Party Chairs.

Hopefully I'm not intruding here, but just a note - all of the debate types listed in the bill were suggestions, not requirements. The ones I included were put in there specifically as types of debates that were likely to be covered, but not required per se.

I had the same feeling, but considering Yankee's question I felt a clarification could be needed. Section 1 Clause 2 also gets in the weeds a bit too much, IMO.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think it is in the interest of the people of my region to know what the party's stand for and thus I shall insist on these forums being carried out.


I voted for this bill and then implemented it as President with the understanding that it would be used to restore AFE based debate and discussion of issues/topics in the discord era. I find it disappointing that we are already contemplating it being scaled back.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Since you are an elected officeholder, what assurances other than the appointment of a deputy Debate Moderator can you give us that you will conduct debates in an impartial and fair manner?

Also, what kind of structure do you plan on following on your debates? Will you follow mostly your predecessor's template or go with something else?

I'm not sure what "assurances other than the appointment of a deputy Debate Moderator" would be suitable, besides a specific commitment to professionalism and fairness. I probably meant to specifically insert that in my opening statement (back in my head anyway), but opted for brevity.

[wxtransit]

I think it is in the interest of the people of my region to know what the party's stand for and thus I shall insist on these forums being carried out.


I voted for this bill and then implemented it as President with the understanding that it would be used to restore AFE based debate and discussion of issues/topics in the discord era. I find it disappointing that we are already contemplating it being scaled back.

Yep, in full agreement here, the bill was written to help foster debates on new fronts (such as party leaders' debates) and could even be used for topics currently seen as unconventional like referendums, and I hope that function does not get scaled back, as we need more debate, not less of it.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Will you pledge to hold a debate for the Party Chairs as required in the Make Atlasia Debate Act?


https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Make_Atlasia_Debate_Again_Act,_2018

d. Forums to discuss platforms of major political parties, headed by party leaders

I'm not really sure what my legal obligations are here. I still think I will likely arrange for debates on party platforms, with my deputy sharing some of the *labor, of course.
I can promise though that if a debate is ever held on the Labor party's platform, then I won't be chairing it.
*=yes, that is an intentional pun

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I wouldn't have a problem with you chairing a debate on the party platforms.

I think it is in the interest of the people of my region to know what the party's stand for and thus I shall insist on these forums being carried out.


I voted for this bill and then implemented it as President with the understanding that it would be used to restore AFE based debate and discussion of issues/topics in the discord era. I find it disappointing that we are already contemplating it being scaled back.

Yep, in full agreement here, the bill was written to help foster debates on new fronts (such as party leaders' debates) and could even be used for topics currently seen as unconventional like referendums, and I hope that function does not get scaled back, as we need more debate, not less of it.

I think an organized debate on the smoking in cars referendum would have been very interesting. Though ASV debating Scott, would probably drive Scott to drink.

[Former President tack50]

I personally think a debate between party chairs (or even just 2 surrogates) would be best on the off season (so March, May, July, etc) as the presidential and even midterm cycles would probably be best with debates between actual candidates

[Lumine]

A vote is open. Senators, please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[ON Progressive]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Vern]

Aye

[Devout Centrist]

Aye

[MAINEiac4434]

Aye!

[Lumine]

The nominee is officially confirmed.