 |
Who should be Foreign Affairs Minister?
This poll is closed. |
| Arnelos |
   |
28 |
56.00% |
| adaMada |
   |
22 |
44.00% |
| Total: |
50 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:23
|
|
Candidates
Arnelos
adaMada
Closes in 3 days. 72 hours from this post.
Campaign Thread
Last edited by notyoueither on 13-11-2002 at 04:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
adaMada's only flaw is that he is too nice. Since nobody else will campaign, I will... VOTE ADAMADA! (no offense, buddy)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
adaMada
|
 |
"The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Mar 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
This campaign couldn't be more different from the one for Domestic Minister. I'm glad that both of my potential sucessors get along so well and seem to agree on the issues. But it does seem to make for a rather boring campaign.
Come on, guys. Why are each of you better than the other guy?
--Togas |
I think Togas makes excellent points. On one hand, I'm thrilled with the relationship I have with Arnelos; I find following this election much more enjoyable than the one for Domestic Minister, and I believe that it is more than my personal involvement. The civility of everyone in this thread has been an enormous benefit, and I believe that we are better for it, as a community.
I also agree, however, that we both stopped campaigning after polls were posted. Though I agree that we don't differ that greatly, and believe that there are two excellent choices presented here, I'd like to continue the well-spirited and friendly campeigns. If nothing else, it'll help pass the next few days  .
Having said that, I am a strong believer in positive campeigning. As such, rather than making a statement about why I may or may not be better than Arnelos, I'll prepare a statement on why I decided to run for the job. As always, I'd invite (and perhaps even suggest?) Arnelos do the same.
-- adaMada
Last edited by adaMada on 14-11-2002 at 04:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
Since I think both adaMada and I would like to avoid making this race about us personally, since we both highly respect each other, the following is an attempt to give (as Togas requested) a reason why one would vote for one or the other of us based upon the issues.
I offer my apologies in advance if I have in any way mischaracterized any statement by adaMada, as it has certainly not been my intent to do so. Several of the differences below may lead certain voters to vote for me and other voters to vote for adaMada. My intent is to make it easier for voters to ascertain where each of us stand on issues that may or may not be important to them.
Thank You.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARNELOS AND ADAMADA ON THE ISSUES
Issues Where a Clear Difference Exists
(in order of significance in difference)
Collaboration with Senate:
Arnelos: Intention to work closely with Senate. States that this is not just rhetoric, as specific plan is to help form a FAM advisory board of Senators who have the dual role of advising FAM and introducing Senate legislation on FAM issues (giving them oversight of FAM).
adaMada: Is thinking about appointing a Senate rep.
Peace Agreements:
Arnelos: Would consider whether the stated war aims have been met as the primary determinant of signing any peace treay. Pledges, however, to consult both SMC and President, even though only required to consult one of them. Would ulimately consider SMC's advice more important than President's if otherwise undecided.
adaMada: Declares himself an independent: favors war when he sees gain and opposes war when he doesn't. Would try to follow the will of the people.
(issue requires President or SMC consultation)
Military Alliances:
Arnelos: When war was declared with a specific target, would suggest to Senate the signing of these with the target's neighbors to prevent the target for getting its neighbors to ally against us. Would also consider suggesting these be signed with other powers to prevent the target from getting them to declare war on us as well. Would attempt to get better tech deals (if possible) in the process. Considers this a useful tactic for executing a "divide-and-conquer" strategy against the AI civs.
adaMada: Has mixed feelings about them. Would consider them if our goal was to destroy a nation rather than completely annex them.
(issue requires Senate approval)
Embassies:
Arnelos: We may eventually need them with all, but embassies with some nations are not critical at the moment because we need no deals with them that require an embassy. Saving money (at least for now) for critical tech purchases and other needs is the better choice.
adaMada: Would like to complete all embassies.
(issue requires President or Senate consultation)
Campaign Themes:
Arnelos: Thinks Togas did a wonderful, wants to build on it under NewCon: Institutional Transparency, Consultation with Senate, Willing to play Machiavellian politics with the AI, willing to delegate authority
adaMada: Plans to borrow a lot of Togas' ideas, would keep organization of FAM basically the same with potential addition of Senate rep, "a very strong believer in assessing the situation as it occurs"
War with Germany:
Arnelos: Is not a warmonger, but sees the merit of war with Germany due to their tech leader status. Would consult with SMC on whether alliances with other civs against Germany would be useful and suggest them to Senate if so. Would also suggest alliances to Senate against Germany for civs we don't want allied to Germany during the conflict ("divide-and-conquer" strategy). Would only support ending such a war when the war objectives have been met, which he assumes would be either (1) annihilation of Germany or (2) elimination of Germany as at technological contender. Considers it paramount for the Senate and SMC to establish this before the war so that he has a basis for determining whether it is time for peace.
adaMada: As of now, still undecided. Sees benefit, but also sees benefit of peaceful buildup. Would have to consider the ramifications more deeply before making a decision as to support. Sees that public seems to support it, however.
Issues Where a Partial/Technical Difference Exists
What Each of us would Delegate:
Arnelos: Vice-Minister, Deputy for Researching trade possibilities (at least double-checking them), Deputy for Information/Intelligence, and a Senate committee with FAM Advisory and Oversight ability
adaMada: Plans to have deputies for (1) Intelligence, (2) Advice, (3) Executive (vice-minister). Would consider merits of appointing a Senate representative.
Espionage:
Arnelos: Will likely delegate the mechanics and the "intelligence side", open to using spies to incite wars against us (for democracy war weariness benefit as well as any MPP benefit if we ever have one) if other options are unavailable.
adaMada: Considers espionage very expensive and risky. Otherwise, "I really can't say much meaningful about it now".
(issue requires President or Senate consultation)
Giving Away Workers:
Arnelos: Would largely defer to the judgement of the Domestic Minister on whether that individual feels it is in the national interest to be buying workers or whether he can spare workers for sale. However, would (if Domestic Minister agrees) be willing to sell workers to reduce the monetary costs of techs.
adaMada: Seen trades where we've saved consider money by selling workers. Plans to request that we use them whenever there is a benefit to do so. Would also actively look to buy workers from other civs.
(issue requires President or Domestic Minister consultation)
Tech Purchases:
Arnelos: Willing to pay large sums for needed tech. Considers it critical to be able to research tech no-one else already has... willing to pay extra for techs that will get us toward that ability.
adaMada: A lot of these decisions will be case-by-case depending on the value of things at the time. Strongly believes in flexibility.
Resource/Luxury Sales:
Arnelos: Would like to consider supply and demand more. Considers selling a valuable commodity to a small civ for 4 GPT when it could have been sold to a larger one to reduce the price on a tech or for more money down the road to be a mistake. Would also consider denying key resources to some civs (such as potential military targets) valuable to do, even if we lose GPT income to do it.
adaMada: Thinks we should continue "to liberally trade" our excess luxuries and resources.
(FAM has exclusive authority)
GPT deals -vs- Cash Deals:
Arnelos: Generally prefers Cash to GPT, but would make GPT deal with a civ we're about to go to war with in order to skip on payment.
adaMada: Prefers cash to GPT deals. If we're just about to go to war with a civ, would consider GPT. But considers this risky because of possibility we actually won't end up at war with the civ. If going to war with a different Civ, GPT must clearly be avoided at all costs.
Issues Where It is Unclear if a Difference Exists
Institutional Transparency:
Arnelos: A campaign theme. Considers it his duty to post any plans made ahead of time for public scrutiny. Is a "stickler" for institutional transparency, meaning that the people know what the people running things are up to and why. Sites how he handled last turnchat's report as example.
adaMada: Did not comment on issue
Collaboration with Cabinet:
Arnelos: Considers it critical to consult with any elected official potentially impacted by a policy and, at the very least, obtain their opinion on the issue. Executive leadership style is "focused on consensus-building", in contrast to legislative leadership style  
adaMada: Doesn't mention it specifically
Tech Sales:
Arnelos: Would like to establish unsellable technologies in the future (suggests Atomic Theory and Electronics as the top candidates), but unsure if this is possible. Would consider putting any military target on a list of civs not to sell ANY tech to (such as potentially the Zulus) until just before war (to empty their treasury).
adaMada: Doesn't address issue directly.
Issues Where No Substantial Difference Exists
Right of Passage Agreements:
Arnelos: Does not like RoPs. Would only sign one if an ally we NEED cannot reach the battlefront (highly unlikely), if a civilization halfway round the world would give us a significant cut on buying a tech for one.
adaMada: Was a proponent of the RoP with Persia and says he has learned by experience do refrain from RoPs. Willing to make exceptions for the Lost Civs or an ally in war.
(issue requires Presidential and SMC consultation)
Giving Away Cities:
Arnelos: Cannot ever see it happening, count on it not happening under his watch.
adaMada: Considers it useless.
(issue requires President or Senate consultation)
Mutual Protection Pacts:
Arnelos: Does not like them. Would only suggest to Senate if about to (1) Build U.N., (2) If about to incite a target to declare war on us and we want target's neighbor to be allied with us for sure (although singing military alliance after war starts would be less risky, it's also harder to accomplish), (3) If the SMC does a deplorable job and we need the protection (consider this to be near on to impossible)
adaMada: In general against them, thinks they involve an unecessary risk of being dragged into unwanted wars.
(issue requires Senate approval)
Time/Availability Issues
Arnelos: Currently taking college courses and very free for the foreseeable future.
adaMada: Would prioritze FAM over the Gazette if they came into conflict for needing time. However, does not believe they will be a problem because he only publishes the Gazette, while Meshelic does much of the editorial legwork. This is in contrast to Unorthox, who was both publisher AND editor.
Relations with the Zulus:
Arnelos: Luxuries for Enlightenment. What form that "enlightenment" will take is up to the Senate
adaMada: Would love to have better relations with Shaka, as long as he doesn't mind Thud landing our military there.
Worldmap Sales:
Arnelos: No more strategic value to maps (all land masses discovered), thus map is useful as monetary source alone. Would mapwhore to whatever extent we can. Would like to keep all civs having the same WM so that trades between AI civs become (slightly) less likely.
adaMada: (Although not addressed specifically, I assume Continue liberal sale of WM's)
Getting us out of Middle Age:
Arnelos: At the earliest possible date. Will spend what is necessary of available funds to get out of the Middle Ages and to a point where we can research something no-one else already has.
adaMada: Wants to buy ourselves out as soon as possible. A lot depends on the science slider vote.
Priority of Nationalism:
Arnelos: Would probably purchase it, but might use Medicine to reduce cost (IF we can get Medicine before everyone with Nationalism does). Considers Nationalism and Steam Engine to both be military necessities before our next war.
adaMada: An important tech. Willing to put a significant amount of money toward it as soon as possible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
adaMada
|
|
"The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Mar 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
Wow. Great job Arnelos. I'll probably still type up a statement about why I'm running for FAM, but I think Arnelos basically covered just about all the issues .
In the near future, I'll plan to make statements on everything in the "Issues Where It is Unclear if a Difference Exists" category. In the meanwhile, though, there are several places above places where the table above doesn't totally cover my thoughts, due to my own unclarities in the campeign thread. I sincerely thank Arnelos for bringing these issues to my attention, which (as I've said) are all my fault. (Arnelos, I don’t know if you want to update the above post or not – I have no complaints either way)
Issues Where a Clear Difference Exists
- Collaboration with Senate: I do want to greatly collaborate with the Senate. The major reason I'd have to consider whether appointing an official is worthwhile is mainly because I'd don’t want to create an extra layer between the FAM and the Senate. I plan to provide the Senate with as many factual resources as possible through the Intelligence Branch, and would clearly consult with them before any major policy changes. I had no plan of creating a Senate advisory committee, but think the idea deserves some thought after reading Arnelos’ posts on the subject. Again, my main concern is not creating unnecessary layers between the Senate and the FAM, which is the reason I’m unwilling to commit to providing either a Senate Representative or Committee without giving it a lot more thought.
- Campaign Themes: Again, I worded something very badly in the campaign thread. I don’t plan to keep the FAM structure exactly the same – but I do plan to keep the concept behind the Office the same. As Vice-Minister advised Togas to adapt an Intelligence-Executive-Advisory structure, which he has done – I want to stick to that structure. Having said that, I would defiantly add positions and make changes within that structure – I’d just keep the same base concept .
Issues Where a Partial/Technical Difference Exists
- What Each of us would Delegate: I’d create a three-branched structure (again, Intelligence-Executive-Advisory), with all deputies fitting into one of the branches. This is basically what you said above, but I wanted to clarify that I intend to have three branches, not three deputies.
- Resource/Luxury Sales: As Arnelos is, I am a strong believer in ensuring we get the Maximum value out of all our techs, and would make a major goal of ‘synchronizing’ deals so that they all come up for renewal in phases, allowing us to combine resources. Having said that, if we can’t get what a resource/tech is worth by combining deals, I’d be in favor of liberally trading it away to make any profit. One thing I’ve learnt in my time in the FAM’s office is that the pennies add up – a principle that has helped us to achieve the massive surplus we have today.
Everything else Arnelos posted is perfect, and everything above is a result of my own unclarities, not any misinterpretation by Arnelos.
As I said, I will post answers to all of the ‘unclear’ issues in the near future, as well as a general statement as to why I believe I’m qualified to be Foreign Minister.
-- adaMada
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-11-2002 04:28
|