Deleting the GM

[MAS117]

I say since on one really cares about the GM suitations, and that our only good one Niles has left, the Senate remove the Game Moderator position.

[King]

It's not a Constitutional position, the GM can eliminate his job forever whenever he wants.

[12th Doctor]

If anything, I think we need more GM's.  Perhaps three.

1) Financial/Fiscal/Economic

2) Social

3) International

[Gabu]

If anything, I think we need more GM's.  Perhaps three.

1) Financial/Fiscal/Economic

2) Social

3) International

This might actually not be that bad an idea.  It's quite a big job to do everything, though I personally support having a mostly reactive GM, myself.

[Dr. Cynic]

I like the idea of three.

[12th Doctor]

This is an idea that I have had for quite awhile.  Now is the perfect time to bring it up.

[minionofmidas]

Scrap this nonsense. the Senate is hyperactive as it is already.

[Peter]

If anything, I think we need more GM's.  Perhaps three.

1) Financial/Fiscal/Economic

2) Social

3) International

We had difficulty finding a replacement for Hughie as it was considering that he wanted to get out of the job in early January, I doubt we could ever find three people willing to do this sort of thing, especially as the first one would be highly technical in nature.

For the record, abolish the damned thing. Out of the cabinet, I think only Ford really played into the whole scenario thing particularly anyway and he is off to be Senator now.

MAS is also right that very few people care about the scenarios. I certainly don't and I doubt it would affect my vote except in extreme circumstances, nor I am in any particular hurry to play along with one.

[Sam Spade]

FWIW, I really don't care about the GM position that much, but I do think we need someone (in a sort of GM position) who can create the real world consequences of what the President, the Senate, the Governors do, most specifically in terms of speeches made, acts passed, etc.  I guess this includes GDP figures, press reports, court actions and the like.

For example, if one of Al's crappy bills pass, I think we should know from a GM figure that unemployment rose sharply after it was passed into law.

[Jake]

I think we should get rid of the GM.  No one pays attention to the scenarios anyway. Just scrap it.

[The Duke]

Do NOT get rid of the GM.  Government actions must have consequences.  We need a reactive GM, not scenarios, but a reactive GM who we trust to be even handed in judging policy outcomes.

[Sam Spade]

Do NOT get rid of the GM.  Government actions must have consequences.  We need a reactive GM, not scenarios, but a reactive GM who we trust to be even handed in judging policy outcomes.

This I agree with wholeheartedly.

[Colin]

Maybe we should just follow real world events and only if a situation calls for it would we create our own "scenarios" and "responses".

[Bono]

Maybe we should just follow real world events and only if a situation calls for it would we create our own "scenarios" and "responses".

Well, according to game time, we're actually in 2017, so I dont think that'd be practical.

[minionofmidas]

No, we're not. Our term is four months.
The whole Atlas-US analogy is flawed, and was a partly unintentional consequence of the introduction of the GM (who is unelected...there never was any sort of consensus that there should be a GM, in fact.) We should never have let the 2nd administration start to play at being a major world power.
And I wouldn't trust anybody here to be sufficiently evenhanded, let alone sufficiently knowledgeable to see the loopholes in our acts - and they ALL (except for the ones purely on fantasy admin) consisted of very little but loopholes.

[Bono]

No, we're not. Our term is four months.
The whole Atlas-US analogy is flawed, and was a partly unintentional consequence of the introduction of the GM (who is unelected...there never was any sort of consensus that there should be a GM, in fact.) We should never have let the 2nd administration start to play at being a major world power.
And I wouldn't trust anybody here to be sufficiently evenhanded, let alone sufficiently knowledgeable to see the loopholes in our acts - and they ALL (except for the ones purely on fantasy admin) consisted of very little but loopholes.

Yes. Since Atlasia diverted from US history in February 2004, and we're February 2005, and 12 months have passed, and a term is four months=4 years, 2004+12=2017.

[Peter]

2004+12=2017.

Try again Bono

[Bono]

2004+12=2017.

Try again Bono

2016, w/e. Go ahead, having somoene making fun of my math skills is what I need when I have a math test tomorow.

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, but our terms are four months long. 2004 years + 12 months = 2005 years.

[Bono]

Yeah, but our terms are four months long. 2004 years + 12 months = 2005 years.

That's not the common understanding around here.

[minionofmidas]

I would assume that depends on who you ask and how you ask.

[Jake]

I consider us to be moving in realtime.   If we weren't elections in Iraq would've been in March of 2004.

[Akno21]

The problem with a reactive GM is that it would leave him with too much liscense to be partisan. Say we increase pressure on China. Do they give up their evil communism and become freedom-loving capitalists, or do they simply build more battleships and bomb Taiwan? Depends on the GM and his beliefs.