Commissioners Debate

[Crisler]

Greetings all,

As the elction draws near we need to have some serious dialog to determine the stance of each of the candidates. As such I offer myself ready to debate any of the others running for the office of Commissioner. However I ask that we not debate silly things like game rules and mechanics. Let us instead debate how we will run the office we seek.

I look forward to a chance to express my views.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[Crisler]

I will begin this debate by posing a question to worthy adversaries.

What is your stand on the use of atrocities?

[Maniac]

I sense something here to lure P4 in a trap.

[Crisler]

How would a debate on ideaology be a trap or a lure? Unless of course there is something to hide? The light of truth will show all darkness to the world. What I desire is for us to bring forth our ideas and let the people choose which they feel best represents them?

Of course if as Hillary Clinton of old, you feel this is a giant right wing conspiracy, then please show us the conspiracy, and hope you are not making the same mistake she made.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist faction

[Tactical Marine]

I ask a question to you Crisler, if presented with this situation what would you do?

You have just beaten down th enemy faction to one city, he begs for his life and ask to sign a pact with us. Would you ingore him and eradicate the faction or would you agree to the terms? Also if you agreed would you give him back some cities to help him regain power?

[Crisler]

Tactical Marine,

Excellent question and one I am more than prepared to answer. If we have beaten the opponent back to a single city it would be a simple matter to crush him. But at the same time, even with one city the votes of the leader still count.

I would allow the opponent to surrender, provided it was total surrender. If they had forced us to war at this level then nothing but toal surrender would be acceptable.

However I would NOT relinquish any territory we had taken. He chose the war not us, so the lose is his to suffer.

Now then taking the same example a bit farther. The enemy managed to rebuild a city or two and agin some power and they choose to break our pact and again go to war with us, at this point nothing less than the total destruction of our enemy would be accepted. Everyone deserves a chance to prove themselves, but when they prove untrust worthy we must move to defend ourselves against future problem.

I hope this has provided a clear enough answer to your question.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[Method]

DBTS? Darkness' Edge?

[Leland]

Though it goes against party line, I must disagree... the first term is probably all about game mechanics and rules, in my opinion, and that should ideally be reflected in the debates between candidates. Ideology is probably the least important thing here, because commissioner's first chores are to organize stuff like constitutions, minister job descriptions and election procedures.

[Method]

are you saying that maybe this should hold off until we start the game?

[Tactical Marine]

Well I know I'd like to make an informed vote so I would like to be able to ask the canadites questions. Thank you for that informative answer crisler.

[Method]

Crisler i'd like to ask you your policies on social engineering?

[Crisler]

TKG,

As a newbie to the game I would rely on the game mechanics of this question to be answered by more knowledgable players. This has been my contention all along as to why I am the perfect choice to lead. I know my limits as a newer player and would rely heavily upon the advice of the others. As such the people as a whole I felt would be better represented.

No so it does not seem as I am ducking this I will try with my limited knowledge to answer this question.

I am a fan of the Fundamentalist SE, it makes it all but impossible to subvert our forces. In fact I believe subversion of forces is an excllent first line of defense :-)

While it has it's drawbacks in research, these can be easily overcome, add to this the advantage we gain in moral and we can spend a bit less time worrying about Drones. Drones could become an issue quickly for us since the UNP gets larger cities from the start. The Fundamentalist SE allows us to bypass this problem early on.

In Economics I am torn between Planned and Green. Both will work well for us but both also have their weaknesses. In the end I tend to lean more toward Green. The growth rate can be an issue but I do not think it is a big enough issue for a major concern. I really like the boost we get in Efficiency.

In the Values SE I have only really started to look at them. I have no direct leaning at this time. I can see advantages with all of them and would leave this area open for debate from the more experienced players.

For Future Society, I see only one real choice. Eudaimonic it is the only one that come close to fitting the Fundamentalist Philosophy.

Now then none of what I have placed here is written in stone. Any leader has to understand that he must be prepared to bend to the will of his people. However the people must understand that until my choice is over ruled I will champion my cause based on my ideals.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[Method]

Originally posted by Crisler
I am a fan of the Fundamentalist SE, it makes it all but impossible to subvert our forces. In fact I believe subversion of forces is an excllent first line of defense :-)

+2 probe does not leave units invulnerable to subversion.

Originally posted by Crisler
Drones could become an issue quickly for us since the UNP gets larger cities from the start

thats not true at all! the UNP gets +1 talents per 4 citizens and has no growth bonuses!

Originally posted by Crisler
In the end I tend to lean more toward Green. The growth rate can be an issue but I do not think it is a big enough issue for a major concern. I really like the boost we get in Efficiency.

i think that -2 growth really is a major concern, especially in the early game.

Originally posted by Crisler
In the Values SE I have only really started to look at them. I have no direct leaning at this time. I can see advantages with all of them and would leave this area open for debate from the more experienced players.

Knowledge and wealth both counteract fundamentalism, and power's -2 industry is unbearable.

Originally posted by Crisler
For Future Society, I see only one real choice. Eudaimonic it is the only one that come close to fitting the Fundamentalist Philosophy.

Fine . Eudaimonic is also valued by P4.

[Crisler]

TKG,

As I said I am probably the least experienced player here so thank you for pointing out areas where I am mistaken.

1) While the +2 might not make us the perfect defense to subversion, it does go a long way to countering it. It can be a most useful advantage.

2) I was not aware of the +1 Talent bonus, however I did not refer to a growth bonus, the UNP can produce bases that exceed normal population limits by two, thus allow us to have larger cities right from the start. However adding in the +1 moral with the UNP advantage and correct me if I am wrong but that makes us virtually drone proof.

3) As for the choice of Gree, does not the UNP start with a -1 Effeciency? Planned will not work as it will drop our effeciency to the basement, Free Market will drive two areas equally as low. With are left then with something that does nothing or trying to become better in some areas. Green will bring our effeciency back up and provide us a nice boost in dealing with the planet. True we lose some growth but over the long haul I would rather lose a little growth than some of the other loses we get from the other choices.

As I stated earlier, all these are of course subject to the choice of the people, and again I am not the best player to come up with the most effecient scenario. However that is not the role of a true leader. A leaders job is to listen to the advice of people with special knowledge in their areas. Gather that information together and act upon it.

It is nice to see that the P4 and the Fundamentalist Faction have at least one or two areas in common. I look forward to making a way for more cooroperation in the future.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[Method]

Originally posted by Crisler
2) I was not aware of the +1 Talent bonus, however I did not refer to a growth bonus, the UNP can produce bases that exceed normal population limits by two, thus allow us to have larger cities right from the start. However adding in the +1 moral with the UNP advantage and correct me if I am wrong but that makes us virtually drone proof.

that's true, but i cant see us having size 7-9 bases early especially with green. morale does nothing for drones. perhaps you're thinking of police?

Originally posted by Crisler
3) As for the choice of Gree, does not the UNP start with a -1 Effeciency? Planned will not work as it will drop our effeciency to the basement, Free Market will drive two areas equally as low. With are left then with something that does nothing or trying to become better in some areas. Green will bring our effeciency back up and provide us a nice boost in dealing with the planet. True we lose some growth but over the long haul I would rather lose a little growth than some of the other loses we get from the other choices.

i agree that planned is not an option when combined with fundamentalism. Free markets disadvantages are what makes it balanced though. +2 economy means +1 energy per square. this makes a lot of money (to buy units if you like ) and fuels research which is especially needed because of the -2 research of fundamentalism.

[Crisler]

TKG I find your arguement for the free market most interesting, you might actually sway me on this. I would be happy to discuss this in more detail.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[Maniac]

The Efficiency malus of the PKs can be more easily fixed by going Democratic. Morale and Police are different fields. A higher morale won't help you quell drones.

Though a leader needs to listen to the people, he also has a guiding role. Thus it is handy to know something himself about his directorate. That way he can see what is good and what is less good advice and guide the discussion for reaching the most efficient result.

[Method]

the reason i didn't suggest democracy here was because i know that crisler's more interested in fundamentalism, and he'll run it no matter what.

[Crisler]

TKG that is not an accurate statement. The Fundamentalist philosophy is way of looking at things, but it is not nearly as limited as most people think.

I am prepared to consider other options if they can be shown as providing the best for the people.

(RP OFF..... Guys I understand all this from the game mechanics point of view, but half the fun of any game is to suspend the unbelief and actually enjoy the game, delving into the game not the mechanics. RP ON)

As M2ni@c has stated a good leader will listen to his people, something I have stated all along I would do. However M@ni@c I must disagree about the knowledge a leader needs. Look at history, Churchill had no idea how a plane worked and flew, let alone how to fight in one, yet he led his people to victory in one of the great arial battels of all time. He knew his limits and listen to his people. His great leadership was not his personal knowledge but rather his ability to use the information provide from many sources to make a well informed decision.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[DeathByTheSword]

i ofcourse want to tell you all about my (and p4`s stands) on atrocities but for the first commissioner this will not be importent the rules are what the first commissioner has to organize...

[Crisler]

So if I understand my worth opponent from P4 correctly he is saying he does not feel it is important to express the views he has on these and future matters? Are we not to know your pattern of thought or the plans of your party?

Does no one else find it odd that only ONE candidate for Commision has been willing to answer any question posed with no attempt to duck it?

Come now my opponents, step up to the mike.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[Kassiopeia]

Crisler, it is admirable that you are willing to have some debate to clarify the issues of the Commissioner candidates, but the fact is that the first Commissioner will not be playing the game at all, unless this has been rediscussed during my absence.
The actual game won't be beginning until September, August will be used for arranging the game properly, and opening this debate was rash and, I daresay, useless.

[Method]

i think thats what DBTS meant

[Kassiopeia]

I know, but I feared Crisler didn't get his point as he started to reiterate the need of a debate and implying that anyone who refuses to participate in this futile discussion would be not as competent for the task as he is.

If Crisler wishes to know of the policy of the P4 party, I think their thread might have something regarding that matter.

[Anodyne]

TKG> DBTS = Death By The Sword

Hmm.. I think we might have to reconsider the status of the first Commissioner (perhaps this isn't the right thread for it?), since the planning part of the game does seem to flow nicely without him, too...

[Maniac]

Which leaves me wondering what still needs to be planned. We have the different director functions, we have established a way of electing, we have determined game rules and map settings. A thing still unclear is if we will edit the PK file a bit. An example is we might change the graphics and diplomatic text or allow the PKs to go police state.

Probably I oversee something major, but I don't have any democracy gaming experience.

[Kassiopeia]

Maybe Ade, but do consider the fact that August is already gone by a week. It'd be a more uniform start if the game began in September. But electing a Commissioner for this month might be unnnecessary, but it would get some pressure off the political field, and would bring us a focal point of power that can actually do something. Of course, polling and discussion remain as the key procedures in setting up the game.

[Anodyne]

Hmm. Yes, I guess you ain't wrong.

[Kassiopeia]

I was setting up the first Civ2 democracy game, and I do have a feeling in my head that we are missing something here, but I'm afraid I can't name it... and, I tend to havce that feeling quite often, even without any proper reason.

[Maniac]

LOL