The Presidency of Apolytonia (Campaign Thread)

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Sheik
How do you guys feel about unofficial polls?

Unofficial polls are fine. Certain ones (e.g. pre-election opinion polls), however, can alter the game in a negative way, which shouldn't be allowed.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by jdd2007
trip and ninot, do u support ambassadors?

For certain positions, yes. Offices such as President shouldn't have them, simply because the VP fills that roll. However, I don't feel they should be required, nor do I feel that an amendment is included (if it's not banned, then why be redundant and allow it again?).

[jdd2007]

i mean for the foreign affairs ministry...

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by jdd2007
i mean for the foreign affairs ministry...

Of course, that's what I said (didn't I? ). I think if people want an ambassador, and it's an appropropriate office to have one for (such as the Foreign Ministry), then they should be able to. However, it shouldn't be required.

[jdd2007]

i didnt know what you meant by "for certain positions"
my bad

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by jdd2007
i didnt know what you meant by "for certain positions"
my bad

It's okay. I was only referring to the Presidency alone because that was my example of one of (the only I think? VP too) the offices that shouldn't have them. I definitely support them if the minister wants them.

[Ninot]

Rofl, i was awfully amuzed by the ambassadors confuzement (but im insane tonight)

1. Will you have affairs with people named Monica?

I already have affairs with a person named Monica (i use Monica Belluci as my wallpaper..)

2. If either of you are made president before the foreign advisor elections, will you give me the position and make jdd my secretary whom handles my phone calls and orders my pizza?

If I were made president before Foreign Advisor Elections, does that mean I get to hand pick that job, cuz I used to have it? I guess not. But to answer your question... maybe.

3. How serious will you take the ministers and the citizens?

I intend to take both groups very seriously. In my job as FM, i learnt that I had to deal very strictly with the science minister to ensure I wasnt trading for techs he thought worthless, and more importantly, giving away techs we had valuable. And, as proven, I did follow his advice when it was against my own thoughts (we didnt trade Ceremenoial Burial to the French for Bronze Working (which was a few turns away)

And as for the citizens, I think there is no group more important than the common citizen. Without them, we would be a bunch of blow-hards playing a really complicated game. Democracy means government of the people. I intend to keep that definition by following the wishes of those people as it should be.

4. Will you have a website and will it be up to date?

The answer to this is yes and yes. I will keep a website, and it will always be stacked with information the people desire, and then some. And I will always give the people of the forums easy access to this webpage by making sure links for it are always available in obvious places.

trip and ninot, do u support ambassadors?

As the FM who first suggested ambassadors, i believe it is my duty to support and push for the ambassadors all busy foreign ministers need. To what role they have I must be more open, because in my current state of mind, they would be more like reporters and advisors then actual decision makers.

But, as Trip's ideas have shown in this thread, ANY position should have the right to this kind of aid. Should they be called ambassadors? No, i would go with secretary, or just simply assistant. But to contradict an idea and institution that would make things simpler and easier for everyone would be foolhardy. I say YAY to Ambassadors and Assistants.

[Spiffor]

To both candidates :
What do you think about turnthreads idea ?

[Ninot]

Turnthreads have one attraction to me: Anyone in any time zone could pottentially participate as much as anyother person.

And, perhaps if we test it just right, it could prove usefull in certain situations, and at a certain time in the game.

I especially think that later in the game, when one turn will have so much decisions on its own, a turnthread might be MUCH superrior to a turnchat. Actually, the proposed idea of the intermediary turnthread might be the perfect testing ground in such an early time of game.

But right now when we DONT have that many decisions every single turn, turnchats are still worth their weight in gold. But I have no doubt that this cunning idea of the turnthread will grow into something as this game goes on.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Spiffor
To both candidates :
What do you think about turnthreads idea ?

I think that the communication and organization issues must be worked out to become flawless, otherwise problems will arise. For example, if ministers are trying to post in a swamp of other citizens' posts, it may be hard for people to see what's actually going on. Also, some ministers might be gone, etc. etc. However, if the initial kinks like that can be worked out, then it's a viable possibility.

[Verto]

Both Candidates: Will you lead by public opinion, follow your gut instinct, or try to find a middle ground? Please elaborate on your choice.

Both: Are either of you absolutely opposed to the building,researching and launching of nuclear weapons? Or, on the other hand, absolutely FOR them?

Both: Do you believe it is likely that you will use them, or try to? If so, please explain the situation(s) where you feel the use of nuclear weapons is permissible.

Both: How do public opinion polls (pertaining to elections) differ from threads where citizens are discussing who they plan on voting for, why they will do so, and why the other candidate should be grinded to dust. Why are the polls wrong if they are clearly marked as "unofficial, not representative of the entire people",etc.

Hm..I think that's all for today...

[Ninot]

I will follow the opinion of the people faithfully, but not without trying to advise them myself.

I am for a buildup of nukes, simply because we absolutely will need them for strategic puporses, if say another nation suddenly abtains (and uses) them

I wont use Nukes unless we suddenly are attacked with nukes, or if we are attacking the last civ on earth.

As to your last question, im slightly bedaffled, but ill try to state my idea.

I think Official polls vs. threads vs. unofficial polls is a matter of trust.

Official polls have a great sense of finality to them. If one posts an official poll, there is no going back on that decision.
Normal threads are just for discussion and ideas. You cant make great decisions out of them, because you cant be SURE of the consensus
Unofficiall polls seem to just be too wishywashy to actually look at and make a decision. They are best used for finding out information.. and that they can do superbly. But to make a decision based on a poll like this seems cheap, because you can make as many unofficial polls as you want untill the people agree with you. That the flaw of them, they are cheap and underhanded if used impropperly.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ninot
I am for a buildup of nukes, simply because we absolutely will need them for strategic puporses, if say another nation suddenly abtains (and uses) them

I wont use Nukes unless we suddenly are attacked with nukes, or if we are attacking the last civ on earth.

Is this a definitive statement? You will never use nukes unless another civilization attacks us with them first, or we are finishing off the last civ?

Would you feel it a justified action to use a nuclear weapon to destroy 13 Modern Armor heading towards Apolytonia? I realize you may not have meant it exactly as you said, and we won't have nukes for some time, but I would still like verification.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Verto
Both Candidates: Will you lead by public opinion, follow your gut instinct, or try to find a middle ground? Please elaborate on your choice.

It's my responsibility to follow what the public wants. I've shown that in many decisions. I didn't want the save file distributed. I strongly disagreed with that. But I sent it out anyways. The things I disagree with the most of the public on, I will vehemently try to convince people to listen and accept what I want. It's like Plan Eagle: The first 4 or 5 people were opposed to it, and now public opinion is firmly for it after all the discussion that's gone on about it, and how I've been able to convince people that my plan is the best way to go. That's how I operate.

Both: Are either of you absolutely opposed to the building,researching and launching of nuclear weapons? Or, on the other hand, absolutely FOR them?

Isn't this a little early....
I support the use of nuclear weapons as a battlefield weapon for destroying units, impeding terrain, etc. However, I do not condone the use of nukes against cities and civilian popuations.

Both: Do you believe it is likely that you will use them, or try to? If so, please explain the situation(s) where you feel the use of nuclear weapons is permissible.

I would only use them on the battlefield, never against cities (unless there was a vote on it). In other words, I wouldn't support it, but I would do it if that's what was decided upon.

Both: How do public opinion polls (pertaining to elections) differ from threads where citizens are discussing who they plan on voting for, why they will do so, and why the other candidate should be grinded to dust. Why are the polls wrong if they are clearly marked as "unofficial, not representative of the entire people",etc.

As I've explained before, debate threads (like this) influence voters because as they read the posts, they become more knowledgeable of what the canidate is like, what he believes, and if they can agree with certain policy decisions he makes: basically, you get the impression of the candidate, and why you should vote for one or the other. Public opinion polls make you inclined to think the way other people do, and not form natural opinions of the candidates... more like "well, everyone else likes him, I should like him too," or "everyone else likes him, me not liking him won't matter," which is a terrible disservice to democracy.

Hm..I think that's all for today...

Sweet dreams, Prince Charming.

[Nubclear]

Isn't this a little early....
I support the use of nuclear weapons as a battlefield weapon for destroying units, impeding terrain, etc. However, I do not condone the use of nukes against cities and civilian popuations

*Sigh* (Sorry, had to add that somehwere )

So are you saying that you would use nukes against units (if were at war) even though, usually all the Civs declare war on you?

[MrWhereItsAt]

I think, in such a situation, Trip is saying that he would support it, but of course poll on it, and include in his posts the facts about the likely consequences.

And then, of course, he'd tell you why the consequences wouldn't matter anyway.

But, that's just what you do. If you support something, you should be able to see the other side, and justify your decision to others.

Perhaps you should ask him WHY he supports it, despite the fallout (both physical and political), but perhaps this is not quite the right time to do so.

[Captain]

Trip has a great record and would make an excellent President again.

The thing is, he's been the onlyPresident so far. So how can we make a fair comparison?

All else being equal, maybe we should give Ninot a chance to prove himself.

Then, for the third election, we'll actually have something to compare. Ninot's reign versus Trip's reign.

OTOH, if the new election amendment passes, Trip will not be able to run for President again after this one so the 3rd election will be between two (or more) new Presidential candidates.

But perhaps the Judges (if passed) will interpret the 2 consecutive term limit as applying only now, instead of retroactively, thus allowing Trip a third consecutive term assuming he wins this one.

Ninot did a great job at FAM, but without actually being President before, I can't make a good judgment as to who would be better.

I see almost NO reason not to re-elect Trip and would be pleased if he won again, but it would be good to see what someone else (Ninot) can offer once in the position.

The only reasons not to switch it up would be if the other candidate was incompetant (which Ninot is not, I think he is very capable) or if continuity required it (Case Pink/Blue or Plan Eagle might hiccup).

[UnOrthOdOx]

Ninot,

If you don't remember this discussion, I will find a link. A while back, you spoke of two things. One, that you did not like how party politics were shaping, and two that you would run for re-election of the FAM free of the "general DIA banner" and as yourself only.

I fully understand the desire and ambition to become president. I even aplaud and respect it. Indeed, your term as FAM has been impecible. You showed great initiative and willingness to listen to ideas such as the ambassadors. I am wondering, however, what made you decide to run under the DIA banner, and not as an individual as you once stated? Do you now favor party politics? Is it just a way to ensure your election?

EDIT: For your convenience:

my general stance is I don't like Parties, or Party Politics. I try and distance myself from the DIA vs. Coalition debates. The power they have might be inherent in that they are a group.. and as far as I am concerned, that is mighty powerful enough. I like the fact that I will run again for Foreign Minister under the name Ninot, and not under a general banner of DIA. And that is even tho I am a subscribed DIA member.

[Ninot]

Well, for a quick reply to UnOrthOdOx... you caught me.

I did say I would run again for FAM. but after i took my imposed week free of my PC, i came back to see once again Trip was running unimposed. And there was a request throughout the DIA for members to apply to more positions.

And yes, I'm caught there as well I guess. Im applying myself to this candidacy because my party needed representation.

And while i can be said to have pants of fire for changing my mind about running for FAM again (which, even though I am very confident in both candidates for that job, I would still love to hold that job), I found it more imperative that the role of President be put to some competition. Even if I put myself to shame and get minimal votes in an election here, atleast my challenges to Trip might put him harder to work in the second term. But to allow a second unnoposed election seemed worse than trying to beat out two formidable opponents in the FAM election. Not to say i left that race because I didnt think I would win, but just to say I thought services were better needed here.

Now you ask why I am running under the DIA banner, and not that of an independant. To answer you frankly, I don't know. And to be quite honest, I wouldn't mind at all if I ran as an Independant. But thus far in the race, the only party politics that have been OBVIOUS are party members showing somewhat obvious loyalties.

And yes, I would much prefer everyone ran and voted as independants rather than in parties. And even though I love independance, my ideas are not far from the DIA's (while I am much more liberal towards war).

To answer you the most frankly, I have NO clue why I am not an independant. But I do have a current loyalty, and if that loyalty shall change, so be it. But for now, I am a DIA candidate.. and take that with howmuch weight you wish, but answer me this.

As an Independant, am I any more likely to swing votes from a UFC candidate? or from a DIA candidate? Party politics might be a difference in a handful of votes... and even though I am for independance, because my views are closer to the DIA than they are to the UFC, i feel the prudent choice is to run as DIA so that I may better get my views across to everyone.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Captain
Trip has a great record and would make an excellent President again.

The thing is, he's been the onlyPresident so far. So how can we make a fair comparison?

All else being equal, maybe we should give Ninot a chance to prove himself.

Then, for the third election, we'll actually have something to compare. Ninot's reign versus Trip's reign.

OTOH, if the new election amendment passes, Trip will not be able to run for President again after this one so the 3rd election will be between two (or more) new Presidential candidates.

But perhaps the Judges (if passed) will interpret the 2 consecutive term limit as applying only now, instead of retroactively, thus allowing Trip a third consecutive term assuming he wins this one.

Ninot did a great job at FAM, but without actually being President before, I can't make a good judgment as to who would be better.

I see almost NO reason not to re-elect Trip and would be pleased if he won again, but it would be good to see what someone else (Ninot) can offer once in the position.

The only reasons not to switch it up would be if the other candidate was incompetant (which Ninot is not, I think he is very capable) or if continuity required it (Case Pink/Blue or Plan Eagle might hiccup).

Captain, you always show a huge degree of intelligence in everything you say. This post was no exception.

I believe this post can best sum up any voters questions about who to vote for, if they werent looking for specific stances on certain issues.

And thank you for showing confidence in both my work, and that of Trip.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Ninot
Well, for a quick reply to UnOrthOdOx... you caught me.

Well, you may have noticed I am trying to become somehting of a reporter so, that is my job, right?
edit: (BTW, please answer my question in the "To all candidates thread", thanx) (you too Trip.)

And yes, I'm caught there as well I guess. Im applying myself to this candidacy because my party needed representation.

This is honestly what I expected, and feared. I have got to respect you for your honesty as well. While it is true that partisan politics have been largely left from this debat, and I applaud you both for that, I am somewhat dissappointed that this is your reason for running in the first place.

And yes, I would much prefer everyone ran and voted as independants rather than in parties. And even though I love independance, my ideas are not far from the DIA's (while I am much more liberal towards war).

Party politics are here to stay, for good or bad.

To answer you the most frankly, I have NO clue why I am not an independant. But I do have a current loyalty, and if that loyalty shall change, so be it. But for now, I am a DIA candidate..

As an Independant, am I any more likely to swing votes from a UFC candidate? or from a DIA candidate? Party politics might be a difference in a handful of votes... and even though I am for independance, because my views are closer to the DIA than they are to the UFC, i feel the prudent choice is to run as DIA so that I may better get my views across to everyone.

I, too, am in a similar position. My own views are closer to the UFC, but I do not always agree with everything they say. I likely should have stayed independant, but have committed and will not change easily now.

Honestly, many points have been made for both of you. I, personally would have liked to have seen you run Independant, if only to make a statement. I am honestly still deciding. My general view, though, is: if it aint broke, don't fix it. Nothing to do with parties, but I would need a compelling reason to change ANY of the ministers as the first term has gone VERY well IMO.

I CAN tell you, you would have likely had my vote as FAM, though.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Captain
Trip has a great record and would make an excellent President again.

Thank you, I like to think so.

The thing is, he's been the onlyPresident so far. So how can we make a fair comparison?

Good question.

All else being equal, maybe we should give Ninot a chance to prove himself.

Maybe so.

Then, for the third election, we'll actually have something to compare. Ninot's reign versus Trip's reign.

Well, you'd certainly be able to compare two people's performence.

OTOH, if the new election amendment passes, Trip will not be able to run for President again after this one so the 3rd election will be between two (or more) new Presidential candidates.

Very true. You'd get brand new candidates.

But perhaps the Judges (if passed) will interpret the 2 consecutive term limit as applying only now, instead of retroactively, thus allowing Trip a third consecutive term assuming he wins this one.

Well, the problem with that is I won't be around anymore after August 18th, so I'm sorry to say I won't/can't be running for any more offices for some time after that.

Ninot did a great job at FAM, but without actually being President before, I can't make a good judgment as to who would be better.

Usually, this is the case for the real Presidential election... much of the time 1 candidate is up for reelection, and the other is someone brand new. How do we pick?

I see almost NO reason not to re-elect Trip and would be pleased if he won again, but it would be good to see what someone else (Ninot) can offer once in the position.

Indeed. I'd just like to win, personally.

The only reasons not to switch it up would be if the other candidate was incompetant (which Ninot is not, I think he is very capable) or if continuity required it (Case Pink/Blue or Plan Eagle might hiccup).

I think that this is a major factor. I know Plan Eagle inside and out, and 2/3 of the people support it as our course of action against America. I will be able to argue my position and try to defend the plan (I swung Public Opinion firmly against it to firmly for it through my arguments), when I can't say that Ninney will. Maybe that's not a priority for people though, we'll have to see.

[Will 5001]

To both candidates:
Do you support building up for a war aginst France immediately after the war with America? What do you prepose we do with the defeated Americans? (this may already have been asked, I havent read every post )

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Will 5001
To both candidates:
Do you support building up for a war aginst France immediately after the war with America? What do you prepose we do with the defeated Americans? (this may already have been asked, I havent read every post )

I don't really care either way. I feel that the Americans must be defeated/destroyed early so we can begin settling their land as quickly as possible. However, once we have beaten America we will be in a much better position to judge what to do next. I don't have an opinion either way on both issues.

[Robber Baron]

In what looks to be shaping up as a fascinating scenario, we might end up with a ministry in which the President disagrees with his Supreme Military Commander about the basic strategy to be followed in the war that looms ahead. So I ask the candidates, if your SMC firmly opposed a warplan that you back, would you give him direction of the field, or insist on ramming through ... oh, lets say, purely hypothetically ( ), Plan Eagle.

[UnOrthOdOx]

THIS is a VERY nice question.

Nicely done, Baron. Would you like a job as a reporter?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Robber Baron
In what looks to be shaping up as a fascinating scenario, we might end up with a ministry in which the President disagrees with his Supreme Military Commander about the basic strategy to be followed in the war that looms ahead. So I ask the candidates, if your SMC firmly opposed a warplan that you back, would you give him direction of the field, or insist on ramming through ... oh, lets say, purely hypothetically ( ), Plan Eagle.

Both of us must listen to the will of the people. If the people support Eagle, and the SMC doesn't, then Eagle should take place. If the SMC supports Eagle, and the public doesn't then we shouldn't. Something like Eagle is more than just tactical moves (which the SMC is entitled to make), it's a major issue, and deserves the public's attention.

In other words, I will bend to the will of the people, not other ministers.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Following that up: Should the SMC choose to ignore the people, would you disregaurd his orders to proceed with whatever you deemed right?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Following that up: Should the SMC choose to ignore the people, would you disregaurd his orders to proceed with whatever you deemed right?

Yes I would. If the people want something, then it's my responsibility to be their voice. This is the case for the Presidency more than any other position.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Another follow up: Is there a % majority that will cause you to ignore the SMC, or is 50.1% enough? Clarify the EXACT circumstance that it would be acceptable to disobey ANY Minister, now that we really get into it.

edit: spelling disaster. (AOL, can you blame me?)