Opinion: The Last FM Debate In Review: Too Close to Call
analysis by United Vietussia, with input from GraVandius
Yesterday, the three First Ministerial candidates stepped into the ring together and had the first of two debates this cycle (the Second Ministerial debate is scheduled for tonight at 7 PM EDT). As I have before, I've opted to take a boxing style of scoring with these debates, giving all candidates 10 points per question and deducting points due to sustained damage (whether that be from others or self-inflicted). My analysis of this debate will be followed up with an update to the Chasing Gold model, so stay tuned for that shortly after the release of this article.
Given some of the individual nature of the questions within the debate, I will only be scoring questions which included some form of discussion or contention between the candidates unless an individual candidate potentially harmed themselves with their answer. I will make note of the other questions throughout, but they will not affect my final verdict.
Without further ado, let's get after it (you can find the debate transcript here).
Question 1: Prospects of a Shortened Term
"Should you be elected First Minister? Your term will be an abbreviated one. How has this reality affected your plans?"
Notable Quotes:
"In general, I would say, because this is a shorter-term, focusing less on ‘can I get 15 things done?’ and more on: ‘Can I make some specific, measurable shifts to, you know, provide the first President with a reformed domestic executive’." - McEntire
Analysis:
McEntire's leadoff quote sums up most of the answers of the candidates on this question: being more experimental with policy and bringing in newer players to the Cabinet given the shorter timeframe. No candidate really stood out or distanced themselves from the other three through conflict or a different viewpoint, which isn't all that surprising given the nature of the question.
Verdict:
No points assigned.
Question 2: Foreign Coordination and Cooperation through Comms (directed at Xecrio)
"Who are Europeia’s allies and how precisely will you coordinate your efforts with the Council of State to accomplish your goal?"
Notable Quotes:
"I just want to hit on the fact that I think that the content starts with content creators, so in terms of bringing in that content that we want to see, [...] I think that it’s going to be important to recruit individuals who can create that content. [...] I don’t think that comes from, you know, quote ‘coordination’ [...]" -McEntire
Analysis:
We see our first conflict of the debate on this question, as McEntire and Peeps are both afforded the opportunity to respond to Xecrio's answer. McEntire hits with the noted quote above in response to Xecrio stating that he would maintain "close cooperation via maintained communication with the Councillor of Foreign Affairs and the Council of State" at large. Peeps might've had a chance to land a shot on Xecrio, but his line of questioning ultimately allowed Xecrio to expand upon his ideas of cooperation in Comms by pledging to improve Europeia's relationship with NSToday on the heels of the recently signed agreement between the two. This may have helped Xecrio salvage a bit after McEntire landed a decent hit on his answer.
Verdict:
McEntire receives a 10, others receive a 9.
Question 3: Non-Political Content in the EBC (directed at Peeps)
"You [Peeps] want to incorporate more non-political content into both the EBC and on EBC Radio, in fact, you’ve gone as to suggest a 50/50 split. Explain the benefits this diversion from orthodoxy, if you would."
Analysis:
Peeps never really did answer this question and focused more on the fact that this is more in line with what radio is shifting towards, although this doesn't address the shift of orthodoxy in Communications content, which has largely been political in the past. This isn't necessarily going to hurt him, but it isn't going to help him either.
Verdict:
No points assigned.
Question 4: Integration (directed at McEntire)
"McEntire, your platform states: 'The latest Drew boom and relatively few new citizens who have stuck around have shown the need to improve our integration pipeline'. You’re the Minister of Interior- are the systems really the problem, or is the performance of the Ministry? And does the buck not stop with you, as the Minister?"
Notable Exchange:
"CSP: Thank you really much for that answer. Does anyone want to respond to anything in McEntire’s answer?
Peeps: Yeah, so, in general, while yes, integration needs to be a great focus, and I think all of us agree on that, I’m wondering that McEntire- if you could not achieve that in 70 days as Minister of Interior, what makes you can believe that and much more in 35 days as First Minister?
McEntire: *laughs* I appreciate that follow-up question from my fellow candidate, who was also, in fact, my deputy this term, for recruitment not for integration, but you know, it’s just if I can’t remove myself from the ministry, I don’t think that my deputy can either- remove themselves from the work that the ministry did this term. I mean, it’s a fair question, and if you don’t believe that I can do it, then you shouldn’t vote for me. But if you believe in the plan that I have, in the team that I have - which, I will be releasing my Cabinet picks tomorrow - and in what I’m kind of pitching for the region, then I guess there’s not much more to say about that."
Analysis:
This exchange was a loser for McEntire. His initial answer was good in accepting the blame for Integration struggles, but in response to Peeps, he engaged in tu quoque by turning criticism back on his deputy and not answering his question, which shows worrisome leadership tendencies by deflecting accountability to his deputy. McEntire even further notes that Peeps was not Deputy over Integration but rather Recruitment, an area that effectively used the Drew Boom to bring Europeia to a record nation count. McEntire quite simply got a little aggressive here and may have hurt himself by not only attacking his subordinate (who was not placed over Integration) but failing to answer what was a fairly straightforward question. Peeps certainly could have given some suggestion, but the blame doesn't really fall on him here, and the lack of answer hurts McEntire a lot more than Peeps. Xecrio gets out unscathed here, which may be a good thing.
Verdict:
McEntire receives a 6, Peeps receives an 8, and Xecrio receives a 9.
Question 5: Roleplay"How will these [roleplay] moderators be chosen, how will they be held accountable, will your administration be spending its time and energy helping them produce roleplays or are they sort-of autonomous and on their own?"
Analysis:
Xecrio simply got a chance here to expound upon his roleplay plans within his platform, which includes the appointing of roleplay moderators to preside over areas such as the newly formed West Europeia and continue to ensure that roleplay runs smoothly. This was a good chance for Xecrio to showcase a highlight of his platform that the other two tickets don't touch on, and he used it effectively.
Verdict:
1 point will be added to Xecrio's final score.
Question 6: Peeps' Platform
"It’s hard to not notice that you hit the redo button on your platform [Peeps], I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before; what’s going on there?"
Analysis:
Peeps had a real chance here to clear up any concern about the relaunch of his and Forilian's ticket, but that chance was not utilized, as Peeps failed to point out any real changes besides the addition of "tangible goals", even conceding that they had personal goals internally but did not release them initially. Overall, this has been a loser for Peeps, and while he tried to course correct, it didn't quite land here.
Verdict:
1 point will be deducted from Peeps' final score.
Question 7: Radio Deputies (directed at McEntire)
"McEntire- your idea to create deputies in Radio assigned specifically to the production of one show is an intriguing one, how do we ensure that the activity cycle of an individual doesn’t threaten the continuity of a show?"
Analysis:
McEntire gets a chance to show off what could be an interesting idea by having individualized deputies for Radio shows, but he instead likens it to the Columns system within Comms and says he's still "working with his Radio pick to flesh out" the idea. McEntire isn't going to hurt himself here, but this was a missed opportunity to provide some more insight to a policy that separates McEntire from the field.
Verdict:
No points assigned.
Question 8: Mentor Systems (directed at Xecrio)
"Mentor systems have been notoriously unsuccessful and there seems to be a consensus that the Discord Buddies program needs some life breathed into it - I think you all talk about the Discord Buddies system and wanting to make some improvements there - your [Xecrio] plan is to combine these two approaches into a single, larger mentor system. Why will this work when others before you have failed trying the same thing?"
Notable Quotes:
"Integration’s been a sore subject for a long time now and there’s no point in sitting down and saying ‘oh there’s nothing we can do’, so we’ve come up with a number of plans for integration, the mentor system being one of the major ones." - Xecrio
"Thank you to all of our candidates for not being candidates who are saying that there’s nothing we can do about integration, because that is a bad take and that is a guaranteed way to make sure that I will never vote for you." -CSP
"We’re talking about mentorship programs which have not worked for as long as I have been in the region, which was 2009 at the beginning of the Obama administration [...]" -McEntire
Analysis:
All the candidates got the chance to weigh in on this issue, which McEntire points out has been an issue plaguing the region for over a decade. Xecrio tried to step up a bit and defend his system by laying out a great idea, but leaves some questions unanswered regarding its efficacy. Peeps takes the chance to mention his own program of reaching out to new players weekly and trying to cut down some of the steps of progression in the region. Overall, all the candidates got a chance, although Xecrio may have come up just a little bit short compared to his competitors.
Verdict:
Xecrio receives an 8, all others receive a 9.
Question 9: Weekend Games (directed at Peeps)
"Your [Peeps] Culture plan leans heavily on reinvigorating the Weekend Games program. It has been pointed out that you will face the same challenge faced by prior administrations on this front. Namely, that there aren’t an abundance of free games at our disposal. Your running mate’s [Forilian's] answer to Sopo’s question was, “okay, everyone should let us know if they find any”. Have y’all found any? If not, how do you plan to?"
Analysis:
A preface: I'm not assigning points for this (there isn't much to analyze here anyways), as I'm going to delve into more opinion territory rather than analysis here given the position I've served in over the past term and gotten to spearhead firsthand. Let me start this analysis by saying that Steam Games have been an idea since April 2015. If we haven't figured out how to make them work in 5 years, perhaps it's time to consider that they may just not work at all. Quite simply, we don't need more games, but rather we need more accessibility to our games and innovation in the competitive nature of them (which I attempted by tracking results over the term, something I believe worked out fairly well with a few expected hiccups given the initial implementation of the idea). Over this past term that I served as deputy for Weekend Games, I noticed that skribbl.io and Trivia were head and shoulders above the rest of our games in terms of popularity (Uno is an honorable mention). What do these three games have in common? In short, there's three main components of these games: 1) they're easy to pick up and play, 2) there are no hindrances to signing into these games (such as creating an account or having to pay for something), and 3) from a technical aspect, these games require little computer power by virtue of being browser-based games and thus make it easy for people using various devices to play them without experiencing lag, crashing, or other technical issues. Frankly, there's no discussion to be had about why a game is popular if it meets these criteria because they're both easy to play and accessible. If anyone claims to be expanding the pool of games, I frankly view that with a skeptical eye, as we've exhausted almost all games that meet these three criteria (sadly, CAH was taken from us unexpectedly with the removal of EuroDeck, a technical issue out of our hands). Krunker.io was an option we experimented with to some success, and Battleship also netted some good success in terms of turnout, though it could certainly use a process rework for some smoothness (which I expected given this was the first time to my knowledge that we attempted to implement this in a large scale WG scenario). If a candidate says they'll bring Steam Games to the forefront, I seriously have to doubt it after 5 years of failure on that front to make it a consistent staple of Weekend Games. I tend to view such a candidate as one that is out of touch with the reality of how Weekend Games works by trying to feign innovation when this has been a tried and true failure for so many years. If a candidate is serious about helping Weekend Games, they would work towards expanding the accessibility of our games by bridging the America-Europe split of timing so more Europeians can play games and continue the usage of Weekend Games as a foreign affairs tool to reach out to other regions, something we saw great success with during EuroPride and while hosting Kantrias. Weekend Games is frankly not broken as some may claim, but rather needs a breath of fresh air into it that can be achieved simply by making games playable for as many Europeians as possible and continuing to use this Culture staple as an olive branch for foreign affairs relations.
If I rambled a bit here, I apologize, but it's a reflection I've been wanting to put out for a while now that my tenure as WG deputy comes to a close for the term after experimenting with a few new things and getting to witness the inner workings and planning firsthand. I'll get back to analysis now.
Verdict:
No points assigned.
Question 10: Comms Training (directed at McEntire)
"Training has been a primary focus of many a Minister of Communications. It hasn’t led to more EBC content. Do we need better writers or do we need more content and how does the answer to that question reconcile with putting this kind of emphasis on developing writers?"
Analysis:
McEntire gets an age old question that has divided many Ministers of Communications past: should we prioritize training or output? McEntire sides more with training here, citing the development as a writer he received under former Minister of Communications Deepest House, but also notes the high output that the Ministry of Communications currently enjoys and not wanting to disrupt that too much. He aims for "higher standards for writers" via "hands-on editing and feedback". Solid answer for McEntire, though it wasn't particularly a highlight of the debate.
Verdict:
No points assigned.
Question 11: Gameside Activity (directed at Xecrio)
"Xecrio, several of your policies prioritize creating activity away from our regional forum. Why is activity off-forum better for our community than activity on-forum?"
Notable Quotes:
"I often feel that Europeia feels split between the forums and NationStates itself." - Xecrio
Analysis:
Xecrio's platform includes a section about gameside activity, a nice advantage for him to distance himself from the competition. Here, when asked about it, he comes up just a bit short of why it is an important aspect to consider or what kind of steps he would take to harness this activity. Xecrio had a chance teed up here to really hit one out of the park, but in the end he'll be heading back to the dugout.
Verdict:
No points assigned.
Question 12: Cabinet: Potential vs. Experience (directed at Peeps)
"Peeps, one of the first substantive items in your platform is that you intend to appoint a Cabinet of newcomers based on their “potential”. Amazingly, nobody has asked you about this yet, as far as I can tell. Is Minister a good job to give to folks based on their inexperience and potential, as you see it? Assuming the answer is yes, unpack that a little bit for us."
Notable Quotes:
"I just believe that newer players can provide a great perspective, a newer perspective on our ministries that they might have not necessarily been a part of as well." - Peeps
Analysis:
Peeps gets a question that he's able to firmly grasp regarding whether it's a good idea to appoint a Cabinet based on potential rather than experience. Citing the fact that these players have all contributed in fairly large ways to their respective Ministries by using his running mate as an example (and likely also considering the shortened term), Peeps defends what may be one of the highlights of his campaign (a Cabinet full of newcomers) with a solid answer.
Verdict:
1 point will be added to Peeps' final score.
Question 13: Activity (directed at McEntire)
"McEntire, you have the longest track record in this race. That comes with many advantages and some disadvantages too. Sustained activity has, at times, been an issue for you - and I understand that me asking you this question is ironic - but what assurances can you give voters that the task before you will get the attention it deserves for the full balance of the term?"
Notable Quotes:
"I think that I proved that I am in it for the long [haul] and I think that I’ve matured a little bit over the years and changed as we all probably have." - McEntire
Analysis:
McEntire dispels one of the main issues that consistently plagues him during campaigns by pointing to his work as a Senator and as Minister of Interior, two jobs where most of Europeia has approved of his work. This was an effective counter and will certainly help McEntire's image by not only refuting the idea of inactivity surrounding him but also assuring the public of the work he's done as of late for the region.
Verdict:
1 point will be added to McEntire's final score.
Question 14: Management Style
"Describe your management style. How will you organize yourself and your staff, assess progress on your directives, address shortcomings, etc?"
Analysis:
You can almost view this as a spectrum of answers. On one end, with hands-on work, you have Peeps, promising to lead by example. On the other end, with freedom for Ministers to achieve goals as they see fit, you have McEntire. Somewhere in the middle, you have Xecrio, wanting to maintain close contact with his Ministers and provide help as needed. McEntire gives the best answer here in my opinion, as he is able to intertwine policy with practice by pointing to the work of Interior under his leadership this past term. Peeps may be the relative weakest here (though that's not too bad of a place as the answers here are largely subjective due to personal style), as he provides little substance beyond the work he would personally do and doesn't speak much to the expectations he has for his Ministers.
Verdict:
McEntire receives a 10, Xecrio receives a 9, Peeps receives an 8.
Question 15: Innovation
"Describe a time, in Europeia, where something didn’t work or didn’t exist and then you made it work or exist."
Analysis:
McEntire refers to his time as Minister of Interior by speaking of a time when he created a dummy nation, which led to him receiving an outdated telegram from Europeia. While not explicitly stated, McEntire seems to imply his work spearheading the rewriting of recruitment telegrams over the past term, which helped the recruitment push during the Drew Boom. He also refers to some of the reform pushes that he's made in the past, though these didn't quite stick as well with me personally as the points he made about his work in Interior. Peeps points to his time as Mayor of Arnhelm, where he talks about his efforts to "revitalize Arnhelm", an effort that largely worked and helped propel Peeps into the spotlight. Xecrio gives a bit of a different answer here. He refers to his time as Minister of Communications and admits initial fault with low Upvote Squad output during the first half of his term, but highlights the rebound effort he undertook during the second half after speaking with his Deputies despite low membership, a claim later confirmed by Sopo. Overall, I slightly preferred Xecrio's answer the most personally given his willingness to admit fault but show his ability to not back down from the challenge he received at midterm, but all three answers were excellent and highlighted some of the best parts of the past experience of all three candidates.
Verdict:
Xecrio receives a 10, all others receive a 9.
Question 16: FM/President Emulation
"I would like to have you tell us about a First Minister or President that you personally admire, why that is, and how you will seek to emulate those sort of things that they did."
Notable Quotes:
"I’d like to close this little section with a quote from [Writinglegend's] first presidential platform. 'It is now the time to put our faith in newcomers and let them develop to be the best that they can be.'" - Peeps
Analysis:
Peeps opens by choosing Writinglegend, and he may have won the question before the other two could answer with a solid quote from WL's original Presidential campaign in reference to newcomers, an aspect of Peeps' campaign that has been heavily emphasized. Xecrio cites Calvin Coolidge as his pick, wanting to emulate his style of staying in contact with his Ministers and providing support as they need it. McEntire chooses CSP, hoping to emulate his strong leadership and sense of direction to guide the region in his desired direction. While all three gave solid answers, it's Peeps' answer and quote that stuck with me the most, so I'd have to say that he won this question.
Verdict:
Peeps receives a 10, all others receive a 9.
FINAL SCORE (UV):
Xecrio (9-9-8-9-10-9) (+1) - 55
McEntire (10-6-9-10-9-9) (+1) - 54
Peeps (9-8-9-8-9-10) (0) - 53
Conclusion
In the end, it's hard to say that any candidate really pulled away from the other two in this debate. Each candidate had some moments to shine as well as some less than ideal moments that detracted from their performance. It's easy to make a case to say that any of these three candidates won the debate in their own respective ways, but I suppose that Xecrio would have to come away the winner from a debate that may do little to move the needle given the current lead he and Ervald enjoy. Whatever the case, the SM debate could provide something further for us to chew on, and that will get going in a few short minutes, so get on down to Discord and tune in for that.
Model update to follow...