Federal Reserve Reform Act (Passed)

[Adam Griffin]

This is the only real power the GM has left and you all are going to strip it away, and give it to either a dysfunctional 10-member body and/or a back-bench cabinet position that can't stayed filled for more than a couple of months at a time?

Even if you give it to the SoIA, the GM still has effective control over it because he/she can ultimately render null and void any and all stories and decisions made by the SoIA/SoEA. Why bother? All I can say is that if I were GM and this were to go through, that's exactly what I would do and I would maintain full control over monetary policy. And there isn't a scenario in the world in which this body has direct control over such a matter and it actually turns out well.

[Adam Griffin]

The legislative branch should be solely in charge of monetary policy.

In real life: yes.
In this game: no.

[Adam Griffin]

Same as the position of SoIA cannot stay filled for more than a couple months, the position of GM cannot, either. That is completely irrelevant for whom to choose to do the job.

Even if you give it to the SoIA, the GM still has effective control over it because he/she can ultimately render null and void any and all stories and decisions made by the SoIA/SoEA. Why bother? All I can say is that if I were GM and this were to go through, that's exactly what I would do and I would maintain full control over monetary policy. And there isn't a scenario in the world in which this body has direct control over such a matter and it actually turns out well.

Well of course no on will hinder the GM from it; and this is good - finally something to do for both of them, finally something happening for those two guys.

I echo your comments that the Senate should please keep its fingers off monetary policy in the game, though.

Historically, the GM position tends to be a bit more stable than that of SoIA/SoEA. All posturing aside, I fear that if we literally make the position of GM weaker than that of SoIA (excluding the blanket "I void your action" power that could really set a bad precedent and that would make people have conniption fits if used consistently), then it's going to become even harder. I've always maintained that the SoIA/SoEA positions need to be abolished - not given more power - as they have generally been abject failures (the same cannot be said about the GM role), and that the GM should be allowed to appoint deputies as necessary to fulfill these in-game needs.

[Adam Griffin]

You could make the argument though that the reason that the SoIA has historically been very inactive is because it has no clearly defined power, and if it were to get some it would stop being so inactive.

In my time in atlasia I can't remember any GM using the powers of the fed apart from Griffin, I could be remembering wrongly though, so I'm not sure how important the powers are to prospective GMs.

You could. I think you could also make the argument that SoIA/EA in general should have never been standalone positions and are a bunch of hoopla and pomp & circumstance with little to no benefit for the officeholder. It's not like anyone hardly ever reads what the trio has to say - this is much more the case for IA & EA.

If I recall correctly, the current GM used the same powers (though not a good example of its use, again, if I'm remembering things correctly). This is more about "stripping powers away from the GM" in the sense that it's a continued effort to put the position under the thumb of the Senate and/or give more power to the executive branch. To my knowledge, the GM is now the only position that can only be dismissed by the Senate. Now, we're talking about taking the only truly tangible element of power (whether a GM uses it or not is irrelevant) away and giving it either directly or indirectly to the Senate, or giving it to the President (because once a GM is appointed, he cannot be automatically terminated by the President anymore; giving it to SoIA in effect gives the executive branch more oversight over who's making that decision).

We have to stop trying to "reform" the position of GM when there is no need for it. The position works just fine: whether or not people listen to it is another thing. If anything, the GM should have more power to enforce the decisions made by said office. Abolish IA & EA if we want meaningful reforms.

[Adam Griffin]

I would just like to register the fact that I am so very disappointed with all of you.

The worst decisions in this game are made usually where there is broad consensus.

[Adam Griffin]

Pray tell, why exactly is it a bad thing that the GM have control over a limited series of triggers and outcomes that no one else can influence? It still creates dynamics through which the game has to respond in some way, shape or form. Let's all remember that any decision made by this body or any other has no pre-defined outcome: only what the GM says happens, happens. The Game Moderator is a position within this game, too; people act as if the GM is a robot and therefore all the real decisions must be given to the Senate or some other official because if not, it's not a real decision being made by a real player. That's half the problem with the GM office as-is: perception and authority, and here we are taking even more of it away from the office. The Senate doesn't need to have its hands wrapped around every single decision, nor do the voters. I love to periodically reference this quote from the GM Wiki page whenever there's another attempt to weaken or discredit the office:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it's a fycking joke.

Furthermore, you guys are discussing giving the power to a failed cabinet position while at the same time stripping the more intensive elements of the original act from the responsibility list (the reports). How exactly is that going to motivate the cabinet official to be involved? You're refuting my points by saying, "we're not stripping the GM of any real power because it's only one thing". So then explain to me how this is going to save a failed position by giving it that one element with no real power? Double standards. I'm sure future SoIAs are going to say, "Oh boy! I've been given this supposedly trivial power so now I'm going to be super active and engaged!".

This is the game mechanic equivalent of implementing communism in the third world: you're taking a situation in which there are two failed positions and one position on life support, and in order to "revive" the other two, you're going to give them blood transfusions from the third. The end result is that they're all going to die. Stop trying to derive success in already failed offices by removing powers from the ones that still work. Stop trying to give yourselves more decision-making authority because of your own long-gone perceptions of the GM. Keep up these attacks on the sovereignty and tangible powers of the GM and I'll make the prediction that this office will be no different than SoIA/SoEA by the end of the year.

[Adam Griffin]

I support the GM having control over some triggers which no one else, which is why the GM would still determine inflation, unemployment. The problem is monetary policy is needed to respond to increasing inflation or unemployment, under the current system the GM, by setting interest rates is just talking to himself.

From what I can see the problem with the SoEA and SoIA at the moment (and there are problems) is there is no challenge to it. In those offices you can decide to make an agreement ending all war and making everyone happy forever and there is nothing stopping you. The logical conclusion here is when the israel palestine issue was solved completely. It's no fun because there's no challenge. It's the same reason no one really wants a senate where the other 9 senators agree with you completely, it's boring. The same is true, in microcosm, for the GM's fed powers at the moment. He decides how to implement them and then decides the success of that implementation.

I understand what you're saying, but I simply disagree with the game mechanics portion. There should be some situations that are completely out of the control of the elected officials in this game. The premise seems to be here that the Senate or another cabinet official should have more control over that part of the process. I see it as being something that the Senate should have to react to with non-monetary policy in order to address, and then the GM determines whether the reaction has a positive or negative influence. A simple change in monetary policy will not solve unemployment or inflation alone, yet these three indicators should all remain under the same umbrella as indicators of whether or not the game is responding in the way it should be to the generated situation or consequences of past actions. In other words, I see Fed monetary policy to be an indicator just like unemployment and inflation.

Giving it to the SoIA essentially creates the same dynamic, but with a different person controlling it (and the ability for there to be more inconsistencies). I've heard grumbles about economic situations in this game not following real-life consequences; do this and you'll get even more of it. This will not make the SoIA more interesting, especially with the detailed requirements behind it being gutted in this legislation.

The Senate possibility is one in which the Senate determines the initial policy, subsequent monetary policy change and then subsequent response to that situation. I feel there is less incentive for the Senate to listen to the GM in this case. The GM at that point is just making a judgement call, rather than actually influencing the entire dynamic. These three metrics I feel should remain intertwined.


Current situation: the game acts > the GM reacts with a unified series of economic indicators > the game reacts > the GM determines whether that affects indicators positively or negatively

Proposed situation #1: the game acts > the GM/SoIA each react with a potentially uncoordinated series of economic indicators > the game reacts > the GM/SoIA each determine whether that affects indicators positively or negatively

Proposed situation #2: the game acts > the game and the GM each react with a potentially uncoordinated series of economic indicators > the game reacts > the game and the GM each determine whether that affects indicators positively or negatively

I think situation #2 puts too much power in officeholders' hands and creates potential inconsistencies; situation #1 is basically the same as the status quo except we're giving the power to someone else, weakening the GM's position and also creates potential inconsistencies

[Adam Griffin]

There's a lot of interesting arguments here, but I suppose I must express my amazement at how some seem to believe there's a sustained effort by the Senate to weaken the GM.

Please don't try to make it sound as if I implied a conspiracy. Regardless of intent, the office of GM is the only cabinet position as of late that has been the focus of multiple bills designed to either limit its autonomy or give its powers to others. Oddly enough, there does seem to be a response with respect to doing this sort of thing not when the positions are failing, but when they actually have an active occupant (much like the last round of VP reforms when windjammer held it).