ENN Debate Commentary

O

Oliver

New member
Basic explanation...there are three judges who will give three scores. Judges will give a commentary on the whole question.

Vice Presidential Question

Colonel Mustard

All roles have been well-defined. Abbey Anumia's vision of the VP's role is the most intrusive in Cabinet affairs; while "lending a hand" can be appreciated, there's no telling how much friction that will create, as well as how much the Cabinet will feel they can let things slip knowing Abbey will be there. On the other hand, McEntire and HEM provided views that might actually free the Cabinet and the president some time to work on policy and initiatives. In the end, McEntire role is better defined and, IMO, more practical.

Abbey: C (5)
HEM: B- (7)
McEntire: B+ (9)
AA: NG

Mr. Green

While all candidates certainly answered the question, only McEntire answered in such a way that makes me seem like he has an actual idea of what he'll be seeking to accomplish this term. Because he enumerated specific roles, it's clear that there has been discussion between him and Ogastein as to his role. Both Abbey and HEM's responses are certainly sound theoretically, but in past experience, that kind of outlook is one that commonly results in the VP fading into the woodwork. Of the two, however, I think that HEM has articulated more of a direction than Abbey has.

Abbey: C+ (6)
HEM: B- (7)
McEntire: A- (10)
AA: NG

Professor Plum

As Vice President, I’d rather have someone that would take the initiative and lead something than be an extra helping hand. They should be backup for the President but be their own leader as well. They should take on some sort of project, not wait for one to fall into their hands. Abbey seemed to be more waiting for something to come to her, rather than going out there and getting it herself. I really answering the question and I like that McEntire seemed to have a better grip on really getting things done.

McEntire: B+ (9)
HEM: B- (7)
Abbey: C+ (6)
AA: NG

Average Grades

Abbey: C+
HEM: B-
McEntire: B+
AA: NG
 
Presidential Question on Welfare

Colonel Mustard

A very uneventful question, as candidate Sopo stuck to the current system while being egged on by Old Ogastein – who added very little in terms of their own policy – and basically ignored by Swakistek, who said nothing substantial but nothing controversial. Either there’s a large consensus on this issue or no candidate wanted to stick his head out with policy ideas.

Sopo : B– (7)
Ogastein: D+ (3)
Swak: C (5)
Blumenwitz: NG

Mr. Green

I'm applauding Sopo for staying somewhat calm during all of this- in contrast, Ogasten does come off as simply, rude. I'd like to have seen more interaction from Swakistek- at that point in the game, he should have responded to previous points as well as simply answering the question, and more policy from Ogastein, but some of Ogastein's points did have merit. Additionally, Sopo's defense of his policies did even more to convince me that in this instance, he is sticking to the status quo, in stark contrast from his vaunted policy and platform. Across the board, not particularly inspiring responses.

Sopo: B- (7)
Ogastein: B- (7)
Swakistek: C (5)
Blumenwitz: NG

Professor Plum

To start, I find it tasteless that rather than answering the question addressed Ogastein went after Sopo’s response. As Ogastein didn’t answer the question himself, he really should get an F in my book. I agree with Sopo that one gigantic forum would isolate members, and I think that less older members would bother to check it. Isn’t that what we have the “Introduce Yourself” for Sopo also defended his answer quite well. Swakistek’s idea seems to be do exactly what we’ve been doing for the last year, but isolate the members to one area (as Ogastein said when rebutting Sopo).

Sopo: A (11)
Ogastein: D (2)
Swak: B- (7)
Blumenwitz: F (0)

Average Grades
Sopo: B (8)
Ogastein: C- (4)
Swak: C+ (6)
Blumenwitz: F (0)
 
Presidential Question on Culture


Colonel Mustard

Swak and OO defined objectives and means that were very similar, and OO again had to focus on the opponement rather than the issue. At this point, the pressure of being #3 seems to be getting to him. Sopo brought NOTHING to the table, except good faith, while the question was very straightforward. Swak gains the upper hand, Sopo finishes a very soporific second, and OO completely implodes by going batshit for no reason.

Swak: A (11)
Sopo: C+ (6)
Ogastein: D (2)
Blumenwitz: NG

Mr. Green

In this one, I think Swakistek came out on top- he responded well under pressure and clearly detailed plans and answered the question. Sopo was a little more vague in his response, and I would've liked to see more specifics and thought, especially given the breadth that Swakistek used. Ogastein again comes off as aggressive and unsure of himself; while reading his response, I got the overwhelming sense that he was contradicting himself inside of his one post.

Sopo: B (8)
Ogastein: C- (4)
Swakistek: A- (10)
Blumenwitz: NG

Professor Plum

Once again, I feel like Ogastein stepped out of line and gave Swakistek some free points there. Swakistek handled himself quite well, as well as Sopo. I think I’d have preferred a bit more substance from Sopo and a bit less of a mouth from Ogastein, but I think all three candidates answered the question well, though none really did that fantastic with coming up with brand new ideas anyways.

Swak B+ (9)
Sopo: B- (7)
Ogastein: C+ (6)
Blumenwitz: F (0)

Average Grades
Swak: A- (10)
Sopo: B- (7)
Ogastein: C- (4)
Blumenwitz: F (0)
 
Presidential Question on Navy

Colonel Mustard

Sopo's answers improved with his replies, showing that either he can be pushed to think or he needs to be pushed to think. Swak is clearly the most competent and experienced of the four - but his program seems fixed and immuable, which raises the question of how he'll work with any GA that wants some leeway. The OOpocalypse is ongoing, even though the questions were more relevant than just personal attacks. I would've liked to see Swak focus more on answering the questions rather than belittling his opponments or citing confidentiality issues, but his mastery of the subject puts him in a class of his own. Blum had the sincerity to focus his program on precise types of Regions, which earns him points.

Swak: A (11)
Sopo: B (8)
Blum : B- (7)
OO : C- (4)

Mr. Green

Again, Ogastein is defensive right off the bat- at this point, I'm not surprised, just disappointed- is he really so insecure in own ideas that he has to immediately attack? Swakistek obviously has the most experience; at the same time, his inability to articulate what the Navy has been doing in even general terms is worrying- if this is how he is now, how can he possibly convince people the Navy is going to be revitalized? I understand the need for security, but he seems to have taken paranoia to a whole new level. Sopo seems to have a vague idea of what he's doing- near the end, his contributions actually approach something like solid ideas. Blum's response was interesting- it seemed to be half-serious and half-humourous, and I can't tell what he's going at.

Sopo: C+ (6)
Ogastein: C (5)
Swakstek: B+ (9)
Blum: B- (7)

Professor Plum

Ogastein needs to learn how to make his platform, and then go after his opponents. He’s lost points from me once again. He showed no intelligence in the Navy and has no experience to back up his lack of points here. He answered nothing about the military at all. Blum did better. And about Blum, let’s welcome him to the debate! He seems a bit extreme and a bit well..crazy. But hey, he answered. That’s impressive by itself. I think Swakistek, though, came out the best from this while. While Sopo got caught up into Ogastein’s foreign policy rant, Swakistek answered clearly and consistently in a way that sounded, well, logical. In the end, Swakistek was the only candidate who really came out knowing what he was talking about. Sopo seemed a bit..mixed up, and Ogastein sounded like a chemist speaking about foreign policy.

Swakistek: A (11)
Sopo: B- (7)
Blum: D (2)
Ogastein: D- (1)

Average Grades
Swakistek: A (11)
Sopo: B- (7)
Blumenwitz: C (5)
Ogastein: D+ (3)
 
Presidential Question on Swakistek

Colonel Mustard

Swakistek gave what seemed like a sincere and fully disclosed answer. Sopo deserves many points for pointing out the problems of the Office of President and Swak gave sufficient, albeit weak, guarantees he won't join the HoF of Presidents Who Resigned (HoFPWR). B (8)

Mr. Green

Swakistek came out only making me feel slightly more confident in him, but then, that has nothing to do with how well he defended himself and everything with my inability to completely forget the past. I think he had to walk a fine line between being genuine and us confusing that confidence in himself with his old pompous-ity, but at the end of the day, I do come out slightly more reassured. B+ (9)

Professor Plum

I like Swak's confidence, and I like that it isn't the only thing backing what he's saying. I like that he has Abbey on the ticket, and it quells a bit of my worries. B+ (9)

Average Grade
Swakistek: B+ (9)
 
Presidential Question on Foreign Affairs

Colonel Mustard

The question itself might have pushed the candidates to provide a technocratic, systemic answer. Sopo remained on the technical aspects of the matter while Swak provided more insight, too much of it beginning with a variation of "back in my days" to inspire any sense of change to a real problem. OO raised a very good, if somewhat rough question by pointing out the fact that everyone relied on their platform much more than on the issue itself. OO's answer provided some interesting ideas that were not more thoroughly examined. All in all, we get the feeling the candidates remained in their zone of comfort and feared to venture too far from their platform.

Swak: B+ (9)
Sopo: B (8)
OO: B- (7)
Blum: NG

Mr. Green

I don't understand. Is Ogastein mentally incapable of answering the question without first taking a potshot at his opponents? All the candidates basically answered the question the same way, talking about increased responsibility to the ambassadors. Swakistek came out slightly ahead- he was able to articulate actual incentive and opportunities for advancement; still, however, a thoroughly boring question.

Sopo: B- (7)
Swakistek: B+ (9)
Ogastein: C+ (6)
Blumenwitz: NG

Professor Plum

I liked the fact that Ogastein addressed the EAAC here, though I don’t really agree with him on that. Also, if he can’t address Europeian politicians respectfully, how the hell is he going to deal with annoying other Heads of States? No one really seemed to stand out in this position as better than the rest--they all seemed to be saying the same thing as the rest.

Swak: B (8)
Sopo: B (8)
Ogasten: C+ (6)
Blumenwitz: F

Average Grades
Sopo: B (8)
Swak: B+ (9)
Ogastein: C+ (6)
Blumenwitz: F (0)
 
Presidential Question on Interior Affairs

Colonel Mustard

Swakistek did some good work here, providing what seems like a coherent plan that takes into account the corollaries of Interior Affairs. The policy is clear and ideas support initiatives. Sopo and Ogastein had a good moment there, with concepts being put on the table and bold avenues being -almost- open, as the OO answer should have included the obvious consequence of his ideas: why keep an Interior Ministry in the first place?

Swak: A- (10)
OO: B (8)
Sopo: B (8)
Blumenwitz: NG

Mr. Green

I feel like I should throw a party or go dance on a tabletop- Ogastein actually answered a question without attacking somebody first! I think all candidates did fairly well on this question, if they all were (again) recapitulations of the same theme. Sopo stands out a little with an actual enumerated idea; otherwise, all candidates did the same thing equally well.

Swakistek: B (8)
Ogastein: B (8)
Sopo: B+ (9)
Blumenwitz: NG

Professor Plum

I think Sopo does well, but doesn’t go far enough with non-traditional recruitment. Swakistek, on the other hand, does well with revitalizing the current recruitment but not a single..out of the box idea. Ogastein seems to entirely want to shut down Interior and focus on Foreign and Welfare; the problem with that is that interior is still a ministry that needs a strong focus on it’s own. Sopo wins the round for his creativity.

Sopo: A- (10)
Swakistek: B (8)
Ogastein: C+ (6)
Blumenwitz: F (0)

Average Grades
Swakistek: B+ (9)
Sopo: B+ (9)
Ogastein: B- (7)
Blumenwitz: F (0)
 
Presidential Question on Ogastein

Colonel Mustard

Unfortunately, the debate veered towards the announcement of the GA candidate rather than a bonafide discussion about the very real lack of military experience on the OO ticket. However, he can't be blamed for Sopo and Swak not taking it to him, so OO gets a B+ (9).

Mr. Green

I'm kind of confused as to how this entire question ended- after reading it all, I feel incomplete and waiting for the punchline. Ogastein did a...semi-decent-ish job of answering the questions. I feel like I should spank Sopo and Swakistek, honestly, for not digging into it more- Ogastein...did adequately with what he had, though, like Sopo, I leave it feeling not at all reassured...just confused. I'm surprised Blum actually read this thread, and Swak's late entry makes me feel like he isn't comfortable engaging- just posting long and drawn-out responses. B- (7)

Professor Plum

I feel that Ogastein did not adequately answer the question, nor relieve worries from me. His answers seemed sketchy and he seemed to be hiding something. B- (7)

Average Grade
Ogastein: B (8)
 
Presidential Question on Sopo

Colonel Mustard

A refreshing change of pace, as Sopo was forced to defend his bold new approach and OO managed to keep him cornered. Sopo did not manage to recover from the fine questioning, proving that aggressivity is not necessary to KO someone. Sadly, Swak did not participate.

OO: A- (10)
Sopo: C (5)

Mr. Green

Sopo manages...somewhat, to redeem himself at the end of all that- though the build-up was certainly fun to watch, I think that Ogastein finally articulated what these commentators have been realizing ourselves, reading the debate responses. A solid notch for Ogastein- an instance when the questioning actually seems genuine and well-placed, as opposed to overly aggressive.

Sopo: C+ (6)

Professor Plum

I think that Sopo should fire his slogan maker. While the effects are nice, when you clean away the flashy words OO’s right--there isn’t that much bold or new there. His slogan was incorrect, but the rest of his platform seemed alright. Oga did well here in questioning and Sopo came across as more dismissive.

Sopo: B- (7)

Average Grades
Ogastein: A- (10)
Sopo: C+ (6)
 
Final Thoughts and Overall Grades

Colonel Mustard

In closing, the debate centered around Sopo's new approach against Swak's experience. The latter's relative aloofness allowed him to look rather in control - sometimes too much, as his reluctance to answer questions gave the impression that he was unsure or unable to articulate some ideas. Sopo needed a strong showing, and while it happened, it wasn't the blow-out that was expected to keep the polls at their current level: expect a drop after tonight. OO's strategy was to question his opponements, but he forgot to make himself look good in the process. While questions are relevant and must be asked in a debate, intensity can be mistaken for unnecessary roughness and pointing out the straw in one's eyes is not alway sthe best approach if you don't take some time to convince voters that you don't have a beam in yours.

Global performances:

Swak: B+ (9)
Sopo: B (8)
OO: B- (7)
Blumenwitz: NG

Mr. Green

Overall, I don't come out of this feeling particularly enthused or confident about any of these candidates. Swakistek was prone to avoiding actual debate, except in the case of the navy, preferring instead to ignore that this was a debate. Sopo's policies, when forced to defend them, seemed very much like the same-old status quo, and in contrast to Swak's rambling answers, Sopo employed quite a bit of vagueness throughout the entire debate that didn't exactly translate into a strong vision for me. Ogastein spent too much times on the defensive as opposed to actually answering the question and presenting his own ideas, leaving me to wonder if he is just hesitant about presenting his own ideas or if he simply doesn't value them. Conversely, none of the candidates did so badly as to make me want to tear my hair our or go launch a massive smear campaign. Overall, this debate left me perhaps disappointed equall in all the candidates. (And I'm just ignoring Blum's existence.)

Global Performances:

Swak: B- (7)
Sopo: B- (7)
Ogastein: C+ (6)

Professor Plum

I really am not impressed by this debate at all; I felt like the candidates did a mediocre job at really being Presidential. Swakistek seemed to fear conflict, OO seems overly aggressive, and Sopo seemed, well, nothing out of the ordinary but able to present himself. No one seemed to be truly firm in their idea s, not really that strong as a candidate. We need a President, to lead us--not one to be argumentative nor to be a wet noodle. There’s a balance, and it doesn’t seem to be seen in any of the current candidates. No one was out of the gate creative, or inspiring. Sopo’s leading, but he seems to absolutely colourless. Overall?

Sopo: B (8)
Swak: B+ (9)
Oga: B- (7)

Average Grades
Sopo: B (8)
Swak: B (8)
Ogastein: B- (7)

ENN declares this debate too close to call!

Comment is now free; anybody can comment here. Don't forget to do the Post-Debate Poll!

Thank you, and good night.
 
We should kick beehives, but not during Presidential debates? :p

I thought this debate was a good contest to be honest, so in that regard I guess I disagree with the panel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top