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.