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?