Confirmation of panag as VP

[Panag]

Originally posted by Shiber
I think that we've all grown very tired of this discussion. Now that the poll is closed, and after 7 pages of posts, I think it's time to close this thread.
I'll PM Arnelos about this and hope that he'll agree with me on this. Panag, you can post your reply to this now, if you'd like to, so that you won't have to rant about how I always need to have the last word after this thread is closed.

hi ,

why , are you afraid that some people shall disagree with you , .......



oh yeah , dont forget to add some other threads in that PM aswell , they deserve to be closed aswell , .......

bye

[Shiber]

Originally posted by panag
why , are you afraid that some people shall disagree with you , .......

On the contrary. I like a good argument!
However, this one is getting out of hand. We can continue it elsewhere if you'd like, but I feel that our constant bashing is irritating the rest of the crowd.

oh yeah , dont forget to add some other threads in that PM aswell , they deserve to be closed aswell , .......

Sure. I have already sent the PM but I could send Arnelos another. Which specific threads do you have in mind?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Shiber
Although the president may choose to have either a turnchat or a turnthread, I think that running a turnthread when there's a war going on is simply irresponsible. During wars, feedback from the ministers and other chat participants is crucial for proper decision-making, especially when several unexpected events may happen every turn ("No plan survives first contact with the enemy").

As long as I know where we stand. So I am irresponsible for holding turnthreads during the course of the first war of France. Very well, I accept your criticism, but it does not deny the fact that it CAN be done. Yes, there were many who were not entirely happy with there being no chats at the time, but it can be done effectively. If anything, I would say that threads have a higher degree of using 'national emergencies' instead. The last situation a fine example. Would Aggie have been more likely to stop had there been no one in the chat telling him what to do? People who were not the proper authority to be making that decision? I know I certainly halted play during the war on France when Germany and Persia sign pacts with Joan. Would I have done the same if people were telling me to play on? I don't know...

[Shiber]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
As long as I know where we stand. So I am irresponsible for holding turnthreads during the course of the first war of France. Very well, I accept your criticism,

Just as long as you know that I hold you in very high regard, and I find that you are one of the people who have contributed the most to this game, among with other great names.
Holding a turnthread during the second French war was inappropriate IMHO, but I didn't complain because it didn't matter much - we were attacking France with overwhelming force, and whatever advantage a turnchat would have given our forces, it was definitely not necessary.
However, you must remember MWIA's turnthread. It was done during the first French war, which was naturally much more difficult, and some mistakes were made; mistakes which I think could have been prevented if the turns were played in the form of a turnchat instead. That was when I became convinced that turnthreads are inappropriate during wars and I haven't changed my mind since.
Thankfully though, that was MWIA's only mistake during his term, and to be honest, I enjoyed his term more than I enjoyed any other term (and that ain't flattery!). His reports were also extraordinary, and so were the chats (especially during the war with Persia)!

... but it does not deny the fact that it CAN be done. Yes, there were many who were not entirely happy with there being no chats at the time, but it can be done effectively. If anything, I would say that threads have a higher degree of using 'national emergencies' instead. The last situation a fine example. Would Aggie have been more likely to stop had there been no one in the chat telling him what to do? People who were not the proper authority to be making that decision? I know I certainly halted play during the war on France when Germany and Persia sign pacts with Joan. Would I have done the same if people were telling me to play on? I don't know...

You certainly have a point there - turnthreads have their advantages. However, I still think that during wars, the advantages that turnchats provide far exceed those that turnthreads provide. I don't remember whether you've been to the last turnchat, but I got the impression that the last few turns wouldn't have gone as great if these turns were played in the form of a turnthread.
Of course that's my opinion. It is by no means a clear and solid conclusion, just the opinion that I hold, based mostly on the arguments that I have provided.

[GodKing]

What a bit-ch session. Enough please.

Shiber, I am glad to see you are running next term for FAM.

Panag - I hope you don't get the chance to prove or disprove your abilities, sole because that would mean that our president is having problems. If you do, I suspect you will do fine, else I would not have voted yes for you. If it does come about, I suspect you will be watched with a lot of scrutiny. Be warned. I would much rather this issue not become a judicial case - we have had far to many of them lately, and IMO they are mostly ego's causing a pain in the butt.

I can understand why people are ranting and raving. There is one very respected member of this game who I personally find very insulting and offensive - personally. His game skills are however excelent, and so be it. We live and let live. The two of us generally avoid each other. I suggest you do the same.

Paz

GK

[WhiteBandit]

Come on guys.

This is kind of just getting out of hand. While I do agree with certain arguments, this is almost getting childish. Let's end it. There's really nothing that we can do. Only time will really tell what happens to panag and if he'll be able to rise to our expectations. Until then, these personal barbs at each other are really embarassing to our game.

Neither of you needs to get the last word in. End it now please. Before we lose more respect for either of you or worse, someone leaves the game.

Thanks.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Shiber


Just as long as you know that I hold you in very high regard, and I find that you are one of the people who have contributed the most to this game, among with other great names.
Holding a turnthread during the second French war was inappropriate IMHO, but I didn't complain because it didn't matter much - we were attacking France with overwhelming force, and whatever advantage a turnchat would have given our forces, it was definitely not necessary.

I take no offense at open criticism.

However, you must remember MWIA's turnthread. It was done during the first French war, which was naturally much more difficult, and some mistakes were made; mistakes which I think could have been prevented if the turns were played in the form of a turnchat instead. That was when I became convinced that turnthreads are inappropriate during wars and I haven't changed my mind since.
Thankfully though, that was MWIA's only mistake during his term, and to be honest, I enjoyed his term more than I enjoyed any other term (and that ain't flattery!). His reports were also extraordinary, and so were the chats (especially during the war with Persia)!

Here is where we disagree. I do not fault the threads as being the cause of the confusion. I fault the orders submitted. It would have been no different/is no different when a minister is absent from a chat. In all honesty, I should have just sacked up and done that Turnthread so that what had been discussed was carried out and allowed MrWIA to have a week to get back into things. It was a widely talked on issue that was forgotten and it was not placed in any orders nor was MrWIA notified of it prior to the thread being carried out, nothing to do with the way threads work.

I personally see chats as more a complication of the process than anything else. They are FUN, and that is their purpose IMO. If anything I feel they confuse the process and have the potential to cause more confusion and erronious errors than a well planned thread. Not to mention they take a long time and schedules are difficlut to coordinate. Again, I think they are there for the public more than the carrying out of orders in the proper fashion.

[Shiber]

I'm waiting for Arnelos to read my PM (I think he's at work at the moment). Hopefully he and you hold the same opinion of this manner and he will comply to my request and close this thread; something which I think he would have done anyway, as this thread really is getting out of hand - 8 pages of posts!!
And so many of them are mine!!

[Shiber]

UnOrthO, we must have cross-posted, so here's my reply to your message:

The famous verse, "no plan survives first contact with the enemy", describes just my feelings towards holding turnthreads during wars.
I agree that turnchats can often make things more complicated. Furthermore, I agree that during peace times, their only purpose is for fun. However, IMHO, during wars the chat serves as an important tool in the hands of the president and the SMC, should the latter be present. The chatroom serves as a brainstorming group, and from my experience helps very much. I remember several times when we were facing a certain problem, especially during the war vs. Persia, and one of the chatters came up with a creative solution to the problem. I credit the fact that we defeated Persia's initial attacks so well only to the facts that we had a great and open-minded president, a creative SMC and a very good bunch in the chats.

[Meshelic]

*not gonna get into this, not gonna get into this, not gonna get into this*

[Shiber]

I know the feeling.

[Meshelic]

There are about a hundred things I think I could have said, but...well at this point it would just fuel a fire that should stop burning about now.

I'm not very impressed with some of the responses here, is all I'll say.

[Jon Shafer]

Yes!!

Vote Panag for a bright future!

[adaMada]

Re: Come on guys.

Originally posted by WhiteBandit
This is kind of just getting out of hand. While I do agree with certain arguments, this is almost getting childish. Let's end it. There's really nothing that we can do. Only time will really tell what happens to panag and if he'll be able to rise to our expectations. Until then, these personal barbs at each other are really embarassing to our game.

Neither of you needs to get the last word in. End it now please. Before we lose more respect for either of you or worse, someone leaves the game.

Thanks.

I've gotta agree with WhiteBandit here (no big shocker ).

I voted on this poll, though I don't plan to say how I voted in public -- I don't want to be lumped with either side of the fight. I will say this, however: I like Panag and I like Shiber (Honestly, I've yet to meet anyone I don't like in this demogame). I hear both side's points (and indeed, they are good points), and I agree with a little of each.

Getting that out of the way, here are one or two specific comments and requests that I do have. These are from a citizen of the game who'd like to see it continue beyond this term, and perhaps even avoid a little civil war :

• Panag: I don't think anyone's attacking you for being Jewish, or for being pro-israeli. We have many Israeil members on Apolyton, and I don't see any evidence of racism against them within the Demogame. Considering one of your primary attackers is Shiber, who is Israeli, I’m not sure that holds much water .
  
• Panag's detractors: I agree with Shiber on one specific point -- impeachment is not an option at this time.
  
• Shiber AND Panag: I understand you guys don't like each other. That's something I've known for quite some time, and I believe it's been well established to all here . Having said that, we must have a stable government this term. You two are going to have to at least find a way of ignoring each other, if not tolerating. We can't have little fights breaking out all over the game
  
• Panag and Arnelos: It might not be a bad idea for Panag to try out a turn of a chat sometime. Everyone has a ton of trouble their first time (I've been there for several first times now ), and I know (were I VP) I'd appreciate the chance to give the system a shot with Arnelos available to help. Honestly, it's not a very bad idea -- and if Panag does mess up a bit, it would not be grounds for any attack on him. Like I've said, everyone messes up their first time
  
• Panag's detractors: Please don't suggest things (such as taking on a turnchat) purely as a test for Panag. If Panag/Arnelos feel they need to practice a bit -- which would be very natural for ANY VP -- then they for the reasons I've pointed out above – and if anything goes wrong, it’s nothing against Panag. Reminding/suggesting is never bad of course, but if Arnelos/Panag don't want to accept, no need to force the issue .
  
• All: Happy holiday season (or not, depending on your believes), and have a nice day .

-- adaMada

EDIT: I've mixed feelings on closing this thread. On one hand, I really am getting tired of it taking up front page space. On the other, I've got a feeling that the same old fights will wind up appearing again, and at least this gives them one central location... On second thought, I'd probably close it -- I'd like to see both sides reach some sort of mutual agreement to ignore each other, but I doubt it'll happen, so...

[nz_upy]

can anyone deny that adamada is right is this instance?
that is all