Marokai Blue/Purple State for Atlasia, Campaign HQ

[Badger]

Simply allow it in the Voter Registration Thread. Maybe require a short waiting period (e.g. 5 days) before one can reregister so as not to overly burden the GM.

[Badger]

Deregistration is a terrible idea that was abolished because it creates a legal mess.

How so? Not to be obtuse, but doesn't legalizing it do away with any potential legal issues?

[Badger]

Just an idea.

- User X deregisters (using the register thread).
- We let 5-10 days without doing nothing. If the poster retracts his deregistration, then we do nothing.
- If no retractation before the deadline, the RG removes user X from the registered voter roll and adds him to a deregistered user list.
- Deregistered users can't vote, run for elections, be tried, bring charges against another user. Any candidate running for an office who deregistered has his candidacy invalidated.
- Deregistered users are kept on the deregistered user roll for 2 months. Until they are on it, they can't re-register.
- After this time, they are definitely removed from Atlasia, but they can come back when they wish.

Two months seems an AWFULLY long mandatory inactive period. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose to have it that long, and may discourage people from rejoining Atlasia (i.e. they'd like to rejoin after cooling off a week or two after deregistering, but can't for two months, and lose interest in the meantime after rediscovering how nice real life is ).

[Badger]

Just an idea.

- User X deregisters (using the register thread).
- We let 5-10 days without doing nothing. If the poster retracts his deregistration, then we do nothing.
- If no retractation before the deadline, the RG removes user X from the registered voter roll and adds him to a deregistered user list.
- Deregistered users can't vote, run for elections, be tried, bring charges against another user. Any candidate running for an office who deregistered has his candidacy invalidated.
- Deregistered users are kept on the deregistered user roll for 2 months. Until they are on it, they can't re-register.
- After this time, they are definitely removed from Atlasia, but they can come back when they wish.

Two months seems an AWFULLY long mandatory inactive period. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose to have it that long, and may discourage people from rejoining Atlasia (i.e. they'd like to rejoin after cooling off a week or two after deregistering, but can't for two months, and lose interest in the meantime after rediscovering how nice real life is ).

I think deregistering for one week or two would be a horribly awful thing to do, it would create mess for no reason. If one really wants to go, then he must go for real.

IMHO, it comes down to the RG's opinion as to the feasability of any time frams involved.

[Badger]

Making the Game Moderator more effective.

Having an effective Game Moderator has become a necessity in Atlasia as of late. Spoiled by Purple State's effective tenure as GM, we've become used to getting constant reports on employment, population, poverty, debt and revenue, news reports, evaluations of policy proposals, and more.

There is, however, a common problem since Purple State's departure from that office: the load on the individual has become too great to bear alone. Badger has done a very respectable job at handling the responsibilities, but more can always be done, and when Al was briefly GM, there was great difficulty in handling it alone. And that is understandable, it's a heavy load.

That's why I believe it is time for the implementation of "Game Advisors." Two GM "assistants", if you will, that assist and periodically perform the duties of GM themselves when the Game Moderator himself is unable to do so. This will allow people who do not want to or are not able to do the entirety of the duties themselves, to still participate in running the game. Considered the "Junior Game Advisor" and "Senior Game Advisor", these two individuals will be directed by the Game Moderator himself.

For example, the Game Moderator himself could divide duties between himself and the two Game Advisors, by allowing the Junior Game Advisor to handle foreign affairs, the Senior Game Advisor to handle Economic Affairs, and the GM himself handles Misc. news stories and legislative analysis. Such a division of duties, or any combination thereof, could allow a much lighter load shared by the three. By sharing the burden, I believe it is possible for much more effective and frequent updates from the office of the GM.

Badger has done a very good job, all things considered, of being Game Moderator. But more and more help could always be used.

And of course, I'm happy that something I scribbled down in notepad 4 months ago or so and circulated privately a few times, has finally become so openly accepted by the other two major nominees:

(In a PM to Fritz, Bgwah, and Kalwejt, after Fritz privately asked for ideas on proposals in the October campaign, I sent this as part of the partial platform I drafted for myself (screenshot if someone wants absolute proof) before I backed out of the race officially.)

Abolish Secretary of Internal Affairs and possibly create two new positions entitled "Game Advisors" or something like that. Consider them "Junior" and "Senior" advisors that could take over in the even of the GM leaving or being unable to perform his duties. Let them all work together to post.

Everyone coming around to the general idea of more GMs is a very welcome thing indeed.

I actually have some views on this that are somewhat similar, but with some important distinctions. I would actually support keeping the offices of SoIA and SoEA, but that they be endowed with the authority as "assistant GM" for domestic and foreign affairs respectively under the authority of the GM. There are numerous advantages to such a role such as increasing the power of these under used offices, allowing greater delegation of GM duties, and allowing some actual impact on policy (again, subject to GM veto) by changes in the executive branch.

I've actually done that informally with Hash and Dr. Cynic, and its worked out pretty well thus far.

I would oppose, however, having entirely separate domestic and foreign affairs GMs. There is simply too much interaction and causality between the two to have to create a two headed beast trying to create "reality". The ongoing (well, temporarily suspended for the holidays at Hash's request, and then the last week due to some sadness in my home) Chinese financing crisis is a perfect example. Is that domestic or foreign? It clearly falls in both categories. Yes, maybe two GM's can work together on such a project, but the final call on what's happening in the world should fall to one GM, preferably with two able assistants serving as SoIA and SoEA.

[Badger]

I actually have some views on this that are somewhat similar, but with some important distinctions. I would actually support keeping the offices of SoIA and SoEA, but that they be endowed with the authority as "assistant GM" for domestic and foreign affairs respectively under the authority of the GM. There are numerous advantages to such a role such as increasing the power of these under used offices, allowing greater delegation of GM duties, and allowing some actual impact on policy (again, subject to GM veto) by changes in the executive branch.

I've actually done that informally with Hash and Dr. Cynic, and its worked out pretty well thus far.

I would oppose, however, having entirely separate domestic and foreign affairs GMs. There is simply too much interaction and causality between the two to have to create a two headed beast trying to create "reality". The ongoing (well, temporarily suspended for the holidays at Hash's request, and then the last week due to some sadness in my home) Chinese financing crisis is a perfect example. Is that domestic or foreign? It clearly falls in both categories. Yes, maybe two GM's can work together on such a project, but the final call on what's happening in the world should fall to one GM, preferably with two able assistants serving as SoIA and SoEA.

That could be worked out that way if it turned out it would be the best way to do it, there just needs to be some way to set those responsibilities in stone. That's part of the reason my proposal was simply "Game Advisers" instead of blanket commitments for new Game Moderators entirely, the goal was never to give competing GMs, but merely to give people, if necessary existing offices if people have no problem with the idea, power to formally advise and assist the GM. Something needs to lighten the load, while still making it a team. Whatever you think would work best under the current proposals, is what we should do, as ultimately, you're the person affected by these ideas the most.

I think we're actually on the same page here, Marokai, and at most merely differing over semantics.

I share your vision of what two assistant GMs/game advisers can do, as well as the need for them. My view is if we're going to formally create these roles then they would be best assigned to the SoIA and SoEA. Better to expand the role and responsibilities of two underutilized jobs rather than creating two more new offices, and it also allows a more clearly drawn division of labor between domestic and foreign matters than simply two general adviser positions.