- Pronouns
- he / him / his
HEM @ 1:05 PM PST: Is this thing on? Yeehaw, opening statements are starting.
HEM @ 1:07 PM PST: Xecrio and Lime are moderating this discord chat debate, and Calvin starts with his opening statement.
HEM @ 1:08 PM PST: Calvin's opening statement: "I was a really bad President last time I gave it a shot, but please let me redeem myself so my memoirs can have a happy ending."
HEM @ 1:10 PM PST: Pichto's opening statement: I crushed it First Minister. I was a killer Chief of State. As Vice President, I hauled ass and took names. Now you better give me this top job or ELSE!"
HEM @ 1:12 PM PST: The first question is an easy one: Why should we vote for you? Both answers lean a lot into the bios of the respective Presidents and VPs, though Pichto also slides in some policy with examples of their "creative approach" with the monopoly program (ok) and naval training (??).
HEM @ 1:15 PM PST: No followup questions here. I feel like these debates are one of two extremes: either every question gets a billion extraneous followups (aka the Kuramia method) or there's a lot of crickets throughout the debate
HEM @ 1:18 PM PST: Next question is on leadership style.
HEM @ 1:22 PM PST: I honestly feel like both of these answers are a little lame. Calvin emphasizes "being open" and "strong communication" so that Ministers can pursue their own goals in addition to overarching administration goals.
Pichto gives literally almost the exact same attributes, saying he "communicates actively" and sets "goals" but also lets Ministers pursue their own aims as well. Very generic no real insight from either candidate in how their management might vary, or how that might impact Cabinet dynamics — which are underrated as an important governing factor.
HEM @ 1:23 PM PST: Oh my god these questions are really boring so far. Next one is on ensuring enough "Minister collaboration"
HEM @ 1:26 PM PST: Pichto LOVES "communicating openly," which he mentions again in his response here. "Communicating" and "making Ministers aware" of collaboration seems to be his key points. Notably, Pichto also says that the President and VP will be personally responsible for collaboration. Weakish answer, but weaker question.
HEM @ 1:28 PM PST: Calvin gives some more specific examples of initiatives he's proposed that require collaboration. He also demonstrates an understanding that integration is vital in every department, which while not a mindblowing observation, is important to say out loud every now and then.
HEM @ 1:29 PM PST: No follow-ups.
HEM @ 1:30 PM PST: Okay, next question is on the Navy and the reserves.
HEM @ 1:33 PM PST: Editorializing, I don't know what led people to want to separate out the reserves again into another entity. Like, what is the benefit to having them being sequestered from the action and the fun? We've had some really good Grand Admirals these last few terms who have taken the Navy far beyond where I did last year, so not trying to start anything, but seems really bizarre we are here again. ANYWAY.
HEM @ 1:35 PM PST: The reserves used to have their own ranks, idk why this was undone and Calvin's answer is fine and good but idk how we are even here??????
HEM @ 1:36 PM PST: If Pichto is trying to buy my vote with his answer here, I want to make clear that it's working!!
HEM @ 1:37 PM PST: Calvin questions Pichto (amazing!!!) about how clearing up the reserve system would directly contribute to a larger active duty force.
HEM @ 1:38 PM PST: Pichto's answer isn't exactly supppperrr clear here. Basically, I think he's saying that if the reserve organization is more clear, reservists will be more likely to be involved and eventually elevate to active duty. He's confusing me by bringing holds into it, but again, I think the big point is... More clear system = more communication with recruits = more opportunities to get reservists in active duty.
HEM @ 1:43 PM PST: I have....no idea what Pichto just said.
HEM @ 1:47 PM PST: MINECRAFT
HEM @ 1:52 PM PST: Both candidates both mostly shut down the idea of a Gaming Ministry. Another instance where both answers are eerily identical.
HEM @ 1:53 PM PST: Pichto gets a specific question on his platform's promise to "research" other online communities integration strategies to improve Europeia's.
HEM @ 1:57 PM PST: This answer is a wild ride. "The research will be the research to help us determine whether research will help us improve the integration system"
HEM @ 1:59 PM PST: It seems like this was an idea from Pichto's Minister of Interior nominee who really wanted to see it in the platform, but now Pichto is forced to defend a half-baked idea and it comes off as...half-baked.
HEM @ 2:02 PM PST: For what it's worth, I think drawing insights and inspiration from other online communities is a good idea. But I think you should either (1) come to the platform with some preliminary insights already to prove value or (2) not run on the idea, and just make it a side project — not a core part of your agenda.
HEM @ 2:03 PM PST: Next question is challenging Calvin on running for President after he originally was Dark's VP.
HEM @ 2:05 PM PST: Calvin took a long time writing his response to this one. Calvin's answer is probably as good as it gets though, cites an example of a time he didn't run again just to run. Effective response to a reasonable question.
HEM @ 2:10 PM PST: Pichto doesn't challenge, moving on to another Pichto-specific question, this time on gameside integration.
HEM @ 2:15 PM PST: Pichto makes a really smart point, saying gameside isn't just the RMB...but then declines to elaborate on what exactly the rest of gameside is specifically (I'm guessing he's alluding to dispatches, telegrams, WFE etc.) but definitely missing a connecting point there. I think his point about RMB dialogue being low effort/low reward is probably right.
HEM @ 2:17 PM PST: Next question for Calvin is a bit of scorcher just in the question text: "Do you have a plan regarding integration, and if so, why did you not include this in your platform?"
HEM @ 2:19 PM PST: Calvin has a good answer here, which is that integration is present throughout his platform and lives through every department. Fwiw, the fact that standalone integration ministries in Europeia are so often tried, but so often fail, is a testament to a more integrated approach.
HEM @ 2:22 PM PST: Pichto declines to follow-up, but emphasizes that his platform a dedicated section AND Integration lives through the whole thing — so there!!
HEM @ 2:32 PM PST: Next question is on EBC articles, and how we get more of them.
HEM @ 2:34 PM PST: Pichto mentions a shift to a leaner comms staff, but also makes a point of quality over quantity (e.g. routine weekly update content was reasonably easy to produce but didn't receive much engagement). A reasonable point.
HEM @ 2:35 PM PST: Calvin is actually making a point with the weekly updates, suggesting that they shouldn't have been cut, and if Pichto is prioritizing "buzzier" content, what does that mean for his comms priorities?
HEM @ 2:42 PM PST: I think the disagreement here comes down to whether the weekly updates were high quantity, low quality content (Pichto's point of view) that got cleared out to make way for better articles, or high quality content that wrongly got axed for not attracting enough eyeballs (Calvin).
The debate is a little confusing, because Pichto used the weekly updates as an example of something getting cut for not having enough eyeballs, which prompted Calvin's follow-up question on what Pichto's comms priorities are. But it's clear Pichto is fine with content not getting as much attention if it's high quality (and expressed it as a bummer that some high quality articles don't get as many views).
HEM @ 2:53 PM PST: I skipped the backhalf of the comms discussion because it was just reiterating the summary I have above ^^ if you are the one voter for whom weekly updates are your top issue and you want them back, vote for Calvin.
HEM @ 2:54 PM PST: Calvin getting scrutiny not on the video concept, but on why there's less videos in his new platform with Sopo.
HEM @ 2:56 PM PST: Decent answer here. Nothing special. Pichto declines to rebut (interesting).
HEM @ 2:57 PM PST: TIME FOR CLOSING STATEMENTS.
HEM @ 2:57 PM PST: Pichto refers viewers to his campaign thread, and to his radio town hall with Kuramia which he probably (correctly) perceives as more successful than this debate.
HEM @ 2:58 PM PST: [insert boring closing statement from Calvin]
HEM @ 2:58 PM PST: Some concluding thoughts: A little less sass in this liveblog than previous ones because the one-on-one debate had less content than the threeway elections we've had recently, also both Calvin and Pichto are savvy politicians who didn't fall into any really embarrassing stuff.
But I think Calvin won the (boring) debate pretty decisively. Pichto had some weak moments with the Naval Reserve (which seemed to go on forever and get progressively worse) and the integration research idea. Calvin parried some relatively tough questions about his video program, his candidacy in general, and integration. Pichto declined to challenge him on any of them, leaving Calvin standing with unchallenged, impressive responses.
I also think Pichto missed out by failing to seamlessly integrate his bio where it made sense. And not just..."I was comms Minister" but like, actual accomplishments because he has a LOT. Pichto's terms as First Minister was much better than Calvin's, as an example, but that story really never got told. I feel Pichto was so much more effective in his town hall in answering questions (maybe because of the voice medium? Or just more casual??? idk)
On the whole, I felt like Pichto never "fell down" but was constantly on his heels -- partially because of Calvin's questioning, but a lot of it self-inflicted. That being said, there were no knockout punches, and the majority of the debate was so boring
Grades
Calvin: A-
Pichto: B-
Last edited:
