Today, Sopo, HEM, and I discussed the entirety of the First Minister debate. We went through and scored each response on a scale of 1-5, and excluded candidate rebuttals from the scoring. I hope you enjoy our analysis. You can read the transcript here, and listen to the show here.
Calvin
Before we get into the debate, I wanna collect our thoughts on what each candidate's position is going into this (or right after, whatever). Does anyone have to win this? Can anyone afford to lose?
Sopo
I think Peeps needs a breakout performance based on the latest polls. He is lagging behind, though perhaps the full impact of his new platform is not yet accounted for. McEntire could potentially move ahead of Nate with a strong performance or if Nate flounders. Nate probably has the most room for error--given his weak performance last time around, he may need it.
Calvin
I think McEntire needs to establish himself one way or the other as the last candidate to enter the race, since he's stuck right now between a falling Peeps and a rising Nate. Peeps needs to halt the fall, and Nate just needs to not lose.
HEM
We obviously have Lime's new poll, but my hot take is that while Xecrio is probably in the lead, McEntire is probably not as far behind as he looks in Lime's numbers. There's still a lot of dust to settle, but if I had to guess I'd say Xecrio is at 45%, McEntire at 40% and Peeps at 15%. Peeps has the most to lose in this debate, because all the polls in this election have him running behind. But the other candidates have shit on the line too. I think Xecrio has seen a little bump since declaring, but those people could easily flee elsewhere. McEntire probably actually has the least to lose?? As long as he stays in shouting distance of Xecrio, I think he can camp out in second and plot out his runoff strategy.
Calvin
With that in mind, let's get into the first question. This one was for all three, and asked about the shortened term. What's our take on how each did?
I think Peeps and McEntire do well to mention how they are using this opportunity to bring in newer players into their Cabinets. Nate's answer is uninspiring as he talks about playing it safe. McEntire goes into more detail than Peeps, though, so I'll rate him higher. McEntire - 4.5, Peeps - 4, Nate -3.
HEM
McEntire - 3/5 I think McEntire did fine here. He explained how the shortened term impacted his thinking and defined success in broad strokes. He also spun it as a positive which seemed faux cheerful but hey, why not?
Xecrio - 2/5 I wasn't impressed with Xecrio's answer that basically amounted to "we also wrote a 70 day plan that you'll never see plus we have a great staff". Pretty weak!
Peeps - 4/5 I feel like Peeps was the only one to give a real example of how the shorter term tangibly impacted governance. The fully younger cabinet is an interesting idea, and a shorter term does make sense to try it out. I found it most compelling of the three answers.
Sopo
Everything here is pretty vague, though maybe to be expected with a pretty broad question. Peeps highlights new Cabinet members, as does McEntire, with Nate sort of broadly describing adaptability and achievement. None were particularly inspiring to me, but all were decent. McEntire - 4, Peeps - 4, Nate - 3
Calvin
Now we have our first individual question, to Nate, as CSP asks about his communication strategy abroad. How'd he do?
HEM
I have to subtract a point up front by not mentioning The North Pacific, who is probably the most natural partner for this sort of thing. And then he says he will coordinate with the Council by....."close coordination and communications." Honestly, kind of a mess here. I'm giving a curve because I do think this type of question is hard to give a lot of detail on, so 2/5
Sopo
He stumbles a bit--I can't tell from the transcript if that's related to nerves or not being able to hear--but he does a decent job with his answer. He mentions the Watch, which I think could be a great way to incorporate foreign happenings into Comms. His definition of an ally is a bit off (really should just be people we have treaties with), but this also is not a foreign-facing position. In terms of coordination, I think this is another example of why the split is confusing and overcomplicates things. Overall, not a very clean answer, but he gets his point in there. 3/5
Calvin
I think it's a bit of a blunder that Nate doesn't mention TNP as one our closest allies. It's good he mentions the Watch as a resource, though, so I trust that he has a strategy. Nothing else specific is said, though, and as FM he really needs to work with the Council of Coordination for this sort of stuff, but that also doesn't factor into his answer at all. 2.5/5
Calvin
Next, CSP asks Peeps about his Communications strategy, and his desire to add more non-political content. What did we think of his response?
Sopo
I'm not sure about his idea--having the EBC be 50% "fun" or non-political content seems like a lot--but I think he's correct that the EBC needs to better engage its audience and that such content has worked well on Radio. Frankly, I think content can be both "fun" and "political" (see... power player drafts)... anyway, I just feel like it's not so black and white. But 50% non-political content feels like way too much for a political game. 3/5
Calvin
This is a great question from CSP that I think the crux of is ignored by Peeps. He says that Radio has had more non-political content of late, but does not justify why it needs to be such a large portion of the output from EBC and Radio. Yes, fun is fun, but is it worth 50%? I don't know, and Peeps doesn't tell us. 2/5
HEM
I'm trying to separate out my disagreement with the policy with the idea. I think it would be a stronger idea if Peeps had some numbers to back it up, like: "wow, surprisingly cultural content actually gets more posts in reply than news recaps - so i want to divert resources". That would be really convincing. As it is, not sure the policy is even a good idea or what problem we are trying to fix... Frankly, I think politics is the "fun" of the game and I rarely read anything else unless it's super compelling! 2.5 / 5
Calvin
From here, CSP asks McEntire about integration, and if he, as Minister of Interior last term, is willing to accept the blame for the lack of success in that area recently. Our thoughts?
Sopo
McEntire is really doing the best he can here, but the facts aren't really in his favor. Owning up to failure is important. It doesn't erase the failure, though. Luckily for him, he can pivot to the outstanding job done with recruitment. And he seems to have somewhat a plan for integration now. It's a good answer given the context, but I'm not sure that voters won't continue to punish him for the lack of integration this term. 3.5/5
HEM
I truly believe that McEntire would be better off politically if he just seized on GraV's data and said no amount of integration would've helped and just wash his hands of this. Frankly, I think there is a coherent argument that a very very small fraction of the Drew Boom was destined to stay in such an ephemeral increase, so at the end of the day it was more a numbers game to get as many nations as possible for the small handful that would actually like the game and stay. Instead he keeps doing this 50% apology, which is that, "yes I take responsibility, but here's also a sideswipe at Peeps who could've done more too, and also I did great work, but of course it's my fault. It's just weird to me! I'm also not really even sure what he's learned....I agree we need to rethink Integration, but if information being provided was all it took the Newcomer's Handbook would've been a panacea years ago. The transcript doesn't immediately present this answer as a trainwreck, but I think it was, 1.5 / 5
Calvin
I like McEntire's answer a lot. It accepts the blame in the last term for not prioritizing integration, but he shows that he knows how to prioritize it if he becomes First Minister with a nice piece about providing opportunities and resources across the board, rather than focusing on just one program. 4/5
Sopo
i kind of like that McEntire pushes back at Peeps since he is also in Interior even though Peeps was a recruitment deputy. don't think that helps either of them tbh.
Calvin
I do think it shows Peeps' strategy in this debate, and his position in the polls that he's being proactive on this issue. Despite his own involvement in the Ministry.
HEM
I just think there's an awk tension between "i take responsibility" and "you, a deputy over a separate portfolio should've done more"
Sopo
I mean, Peeps certainly could have spoken up if he saw it as a problem. He and McEntire were likely collaborating a lot. But yeah, it was not his job to make integration work. It was McEntire's, and he failed.
HEM
I guess I'm saying that I don't think McEntire should've ever accepted responsibility lol
Sopo
I honestly don't think that would have worked better. Even looking at GraV's numbers, there were many people who were on the forums and Discord who were not engaged and dropped off. I'm willing to overlook the people who posted cit apps and left immediately and the people who never made it to the forum.
Plus, he clearly made a feeble attempt to course correct by making SEC a deputy for integration, though I have no idea if SEC did anything at all in that area.
Calvin
Yeah, Peeps probably would've been the better pick there, but he had already made him recruitment deputy. I think it more shows how McEntire emphasized recruitment, giving it the more experienced deputy.
HEM
Yeah i just think he's stuck in the worst of both worlds trying to take full responsibility but also defend his record? An unenviable position to be sure
Calvin
Moving on, Nate gets asked about his plan for roleplay, and roleplay moderators. How did he do?
Sopo
YES! I really like Nate's answer and leadership in this area. That roleplay really ran amock last term until HEM used my brilliant idea to save it. I like that Nate wants to be involved, and I think the FM should be given how many nations are RPing there but are not involved in the region otherwise. If we keep them engaged and managed they may trickle up to the forum eventually. And that's really the whole point of gameside engagement. 5/5
Calvin
Nate definitely separates himself from the pack with this answer, as it highlights a plan he has that the others don't, and he shows that he's ready to get it rolling. Does roleplay matter? Probably not, but it's good someone is thinking about the RMB, especially given its recent activity. 4/5
HEM
Personally, I'm skeptical the roleplayers will want or even accept help from the government BUT it is a crop of nations who are active almost daily to try to integrate. It's worth a shot, and I think Xecrio actually has the best idea to do it (integrating moderators into their community to get to know them better) - 4/5
Calvin
Next, Peeps gets asked what's going with the second platform. Did he clear up any confusion?
Sopo
Whew. OK. I know we were critical of Peeps's platform in the radio show but a second entire platform is just wild to me. I was expecting some addendums and additional policies. I give credit for the attempt at course correction, but politically it just feels like he admitted defeat and is desperate to regain ground. 2/5
Calvin
Frankly, I don't know what the new platform brought to the table, because there was no indication of what was added or removed. It just looks like he wanted to respond to the criticism, but didn't know what to change, and hoped we would like the effort. A missed opportunity to clarify what was "revamped". 1/5.
HEM
I think Peeps would've done himself some more favors to give more specific examples of his platform (i.e. was the criticism was, and what he changed). i haven't fully reviewed the new platform, so I can't speak to any improvement there may be, but admitting you didn't have "goals" probably isn't the strongest play......1 / 5
Calvin
Moving on to Radio, where McEntire talks about deputies for individual shows? How'd we like it?
Sopo
Hm... there's really not much there to sink your teeth into. I'm not sure I'm fully imagining what this looks like. What are the show categories he'd have people working on? Radio is really all over the map, and I like being able to work on all types of content. Not to mention that the Showpo doesn't really fit cleanly into any category. For once, radio actually seems to be doing pretty well, and I'm not sure McEntire does a good job selling the value added from this idea. 2/5
HEM
It's not a very exciting idea, but seems to make sense to me -- especially for a Ministry where frankly, people very often struggle to come up with any ideas at all for their platform. 3/5
Calvin
McEntire really dodges the question and provides no real answer. He says that was inspired by the columns idea in Comms, and that the plan is still being worked out. If we knew what those categories would be, I would feel better about this answer. 2/5
Calvin
Next, Nate is asked about Discord Buddies, and is pressed on why it will work now.
Sopo
This answer was pretty rambly. I don't think he really explains why his mentor program will work while others have failed. I appreciate the focus on data, but throwing up barriers to participation (i.e. forcing folks to track interactions in a spreadsheet) usually end up doing more harm than good. I hope he's right, but he doesn't really present any evidence that this is a good plan, he just rehashes what the plan is. 2/5
Also, for the record, I think McEntire uses his longevity to his advantage here... more or less pointing out that this approach has never worked.
HEM
i would venmo everyone $3 or do 89 shots on EBC Radio to never ever hear anything about a mentor program again. Seriously though, I don't think Xecrio manages to provide any backing that a mentor program will work this time. I respect the data-driven side of it, which is something we tried in the Internship Program and saw some interesting trends but never seemed to be worth its while... Also I think McEntire uses his long history to his advantage in discrediting the idea a bit, whereas Peeps uses the opening to plug his own program. Overall, I'd say both of them did better than Xecrio: 2/5
Calvin
I think Nate lays out a good idea of what the Buddies can be, but I remain unconvinced that this program is the best thing for integration. Nate both acknowledges and dismisses the ineffective history of this program, so I'm left unclear why he think this time will be different. 3/5
Calvin
After this, Peeps has an answer on Weekend Games. What do we think?
Sopo
sTeAm GaMeS aRe ThE fUtUrE... ok seriously though I'd like to ask the ERI to do an article on how many platforms have mentioned Steam only to do nothing about it. OTHERWISE I think he expands a bit on how we can use games like Minecraft that many people own rather than relying only on free games. Still not confident anything is going to change but... 3/5
HEM
I hate being so negative but I think this answer was Not Good. Peeps pretty much ignores the question about what new weekend games his ticket has found -- to the point of CSP just moving on to the next question. A lot of Peeps' campaign seems to be trying hard to appeal to the casual, social player. "We are all just here to have fun! more fun articles, some fun games, let's have fun!" but there's no connection to how these things actually help us, and do Europeians really find these things fun? (besides minecraft which is obviously a sensation -- but even there, people have struggled to draw a clean line on how it helps us, or how it could help us more). 1.5 / 5
Calvin
I'm going to be honest, this question is so old and boring, and nothing ever changes in Weekend Games. Do we need new games? I don't know if we do, really. We have variety, we have things people like. Steam is the great white whale of Culture, and the more time passes without it ever being touched the less I care about it. Peeps briefly touches on Minecraft, but doesn't really devote any time to how Minecraft has revolutionized gaming in Euro. Peeps isn't alone in his mishandling of this question, but that's no excuse. 1.5/5.
Calvin
Moving on to McEntire's question dealing with training writers, let's weigh in on that.
Sopo
I like the idea of writing skills being important and transferable. I also like the idea of high quality content over more content. I guess that's it... he answered the question. 3.5/5
Calvin
McEntire is a good writer himself, so I think he understands how the training should work, and I trust him to oversee it properly. I think he missed a chance to talk about different kinds of writing, particularly dispatches, an often overlooked area of Communications, however. 3/5
HEM
CSP asked a lot of good questions in this debate, but this one was kind a snoozer. I think McEntire did...something with it, but not very memorable or interesting -- unless McEntire manages to snag Deepest House's endorsement with the shout out. 3/5
Calvin
Anyway, the next question goes back to Nate and his plans for off-forum activity. Did we like his answer?
Sopo
I think Nate kind of squandered an opportunity to emphasize a pro of his platform, gameside activity. He doesn't really explain why it's good to engage gameside (bring people to the forums!) rather making it seem like a good in and of itself... which I'm not sure is true. Do we really need to cater to people who will never join the forum and our government? 2/5
HEM
I think I understand what Xecrio is saying, which is what by having us spend time on Nationstates.net we can get some folks offsite, but unlike his roleplay moderator idea, this seems a little half-baked and not explained well. I don't walk away completely understanding why we should shift activity from the forum to gameside -- why does it benefit us to make those sides not feel split up? Also I desperately want to know more about what "controversial topics" Xecrio will post in the Grand Hall to get more gameside people interested. 2/5
Calvin
Nate again gets a chance to show off the most unique part of his platform, but I didn't like this answer as much as his roleplay one. It's not awful, but I'm not seeing much of a vision represented for this admirable goal. Maybe it's enough to try, but I'm not blown away. 3/5
Calvin
From here, CSP asks Peeps why he is prioritizing a newcomer Cabinet for his term, and if Minister is a good entry-level position. How're we feeling about it?
Sopo
Peeps does a good job justifying his picks and pushing back on the premise of the question. He's emphasizing that they are the newcomer-y-ist ticket wtthout being in over their heads. 4/5
HEM
Imho, Peeps' goal of stuffing the Cabinet with newcomers is the most memorable part of his campaign and platform. I feel like he could've gone into more detail about the vision behind this decision -- maybe wax poetic about the next generation etc. Overall I'd say he got the job done, but nothing special. 3.5/5
Calvin
I think this was a pretty softball question, and Peeps doesn't disappoint in his answer. He defends newcomers, and as a newcomer himself, I can tell this is something he cares about. Not his most impressive answer, but it's solid. I have my own opinions on Forilian's performance in Culture, but I won't hold that against Peeps' answer here. 4/5
Calvin
Next, CSP asks McEntire about his long record of activity problems across his long career. Does McEntire's answer wave off any doubts we have about that?
Personally, I think McEntire's activity has been fine during his term as Interior Minister and Senator, and it hasn't been a concern of mine during this campaign, as a result. I suppose this has to be asked, but McEntire isn't going to stumble on this question, it's pretty standard. 4/5
Sopo
You can never remove 100% of doubts, but I think McEntire has found a pretty good balance for himself. He's been a solid minister and senator, and I have to hope he won't bail on a 35 day term. Good answer. 4/5
HEM
I think McEntire had a solid answer here pointing to his recent track record. Anything can happen, but McEntire has a solid track record over the past few months and i think it should assuage any activity concerns. 4/5
Calvin
Now we return to a question for all three candidates, and it's about their managerial style. Thoughts?
Sopo
McEntire gives the clearest answer in my opinion. Given his own experience in game, it makes sense he has a clearer idea of what CSP is asking for here. Nate does an OK job as well, sort of circling a managerial style, but I'm not sure Peeps fully "got" the question. McEntire - 4/5, Nate - 3/5, Peeps - 2/5
Calvin
Peeps emphasizes his activity, and says he will lead by example. I think that's probably true, but risks burnout in a leadership role like FM. Nate acknowledges that he can't lead things alone and emphasizes constant communication between departments. McEntire gives a similar answer to Nate, and discusses communication and clear expectations. All of these are fine answers, though. Peeps - 2.5/5, Nate 3.5/5, McEntire - 4/5
Calvin
This is followed up by another question for all three, this time asking the candidates to describe a time they improved something in the region.
HEM
McEntire has the longest experience to lean on here, and it shows. He's able to cite something from this term, and something from years and years ago. Solid answer 4/5. I think Peeps' answer works pretty well here too. Besides leading by example, he doesn't really connect the experience to being First Minister, but the example of tapping folks with expertise to help out is a solid one. 3.5/5. Xecrio's answer is interesting because it admits a failure and how he worked to course-correct. I wish he had gone into more detail on how he fixed the upvote squad besides people just working together to do it, but still not bad. 3/5
Sopo
So, I think Peeps really shines here, highlighting his recent and exemplary service as Mayor of Arnhelm. He also mentions he's willing to seek help when he needs it, which is humble--and necessary. McEntire draws on his term in Interior again as well as some very old examples related to reform, which are a good tie in. Nate discusses his time in Comms and... maybe I'm wrong, but I do not remember the Dispatch Squad being a highlight of his term. Did anyone fact check? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, I'm not sure either of his examples have had huge staying power since--dispatches have continued to be problematic and I don't recall any private media awards recently. Peeps - 5/5, McEntire - 4.5/5, Nate - 3/5
Calvin
McEntire gives a mixed answer here. The Interior Minister part gives no details of how he fixed anything, just an example of a time he started doing something. The Senate part is better, yet it doesn't show much individual leadership. Peeps gives a better answer, talking about Arnhelm and his work there, showing how he can make a difference when he's given the reigns. Nate I think gives the best answer of the group, giving a specific example of the Upvote Squad, and how he responds to public critique, and makes things even better for his team. McEntire 3/5, Peeps, 3.5/5, Nate 4/5
HEM
McEntire had the strongest answer, using an example of his work in the Interior as an example. This honestly might be the strongest answer he has in the debate: giving a clear example from the past, and showing how it would apply going forward. 5/5 Peeps' answer is...fine here. I think he's openly saying that he's a bit of a micromanager, which isn't everyone's style but the self-awareness is good. He's a little vague on how he'd "step in" and help, or what course corrections could be made before firing someone. But...fine answer i think? 3/5 In terms of Xecrio...I get what he is saying but the question was about management, and management inherently can't always be about "involving everyone". I think he's expressing more a governing philosophy, but not a lot of detail on running his government besides being open to firing people. 2/5
Calvin
We've reached the final question of the debate! Once again for all three, they are all asked to name a President or First Minister they would like to emulate if elected.
Sopo
I rather like this question as well as the responses. It's a softball, but a fun one to end on. Peeps really hits on his newcomer theme with a good quote from Gleg. Nate highlights some of Calvin's (few) good qualities. McEntire's answer, though, emphasizes the importance of leadership over just management, which strikes me as more profound than the other two. McEntire - 4.5/5, Peeps - 4/5, Nate - 3.5/5
HEM
This is a softball, but a fun softball imo. I think Xecrio and McEntire both pulled out tangible things they were looking to emulate. Peeps picked someone outside of his "lifetime" in Europeia, which I think also shows some wisdom -- and even uses that person as a source to support his tentpole initiative of elevating newcomers. For those different reasons, they are all a 4/5
Calvin
A fun ending, and an interesting peek to see who these potential leaders admire. The names are all expected ones, but the qualities each choose to emphasis play very well into each candidates' platforms and sales pitch. Peeps emphasizes WL's approach to newcomers, Nate emphasizes Calvin's communication with his ministers, while McEntire emphasizes CSP's overall vision for the region. They each get 4/5
Calvin
Okay, here are final overall scores!
McEntire: 67.5 / 90 (75%)
Peeps: 63.5 / 105 (60.5%)
Nate: 63 / 105 (60%)
So, McEntire, according to our scores won this thing pretty commandingly. Does that sound right?
Sopo
I mean, with the caveat that he's more experienced in the region and that really seems to be what makes people a better debater
Calvin
Yeah, we've seen time and time again that the most experienced player almost always wins, and wins big in these debates. Will this matter? Does it change anything about the race?
Sopo
I'm not sure it will do much to help Peeps's position. The real question is whether McEntire gains ground from this, or if Nate's support is pretty solid. I don't think anyone's performance was abysmal--our job was to nitpick--so I'm not sure this is enough to sink Nate.
Calvin
Peeps really needed a win here, and not getting it is very bad news for him. Otherwise, I agree, that I don't know if Nate did poorly enough to lose any ground, or that McEntire particularly hurt anyone else's chances. It will be interesting to see if the Second Minister candidates change the race any tomorrow, knowing the stakes.
HEM
Until the very end, nobody really pulled away for me. All candidates had some strong moments and some weaker moments. Nobody ran away with this, and frankly, with McEntire's much longer history of doing this I think even this moderate win for him should be a disappointment. That being said, maybe it's enough for him to pull into a tie with Xecrio, and certainly nothing happened to knock him back. The only question is whether Peeps can still upset the applecart, and whether this stunts any Xecrio momentum which would almost surely lead to a runoff.
Calvin
Last question, what do we expect to see in tomorrow's debate, if anything?
Sopo
It's probably Ervald's to lose, as both monkey and Fori are pretty new to this. Though I'd bet more heavily on monkey than Fori purely based on Q&A in platforms so far.
Calvin
I expect to see Forilian come out swinging. In past campaigns, he's not been afraid to challenge other candidates on their stances in their platforms, and given the position his ticket is in, I don't see him playing it safe. Ervald likely has the edge, having the most experience in the region, and Monkey will likely just try and not do any damage.
HEM
I think Monkey could surprise tomorrow, while Forilian may err on the side of being too aggressive. But we'll see! I think it'll be interesting.
Thus concludes this panel analysis! What did you think of the debate? Have any predictions for where things stand now, and what will happen tomorrow? Let me know! Until then, this is Calvin Coolidge, ready to moderate the Second Minister debate tomorrow on Discord at 7pm eastern.
Calvin
Before we get into the debate, I wanna collect our thoughts on what each candidate's position is going into this (or right after, whatever). Does anyone have to win this? Can anyone afford to lose?
Sopo
I think Peeps needs a breakout performance based on the latest polls. He is lagging behind, though perhaps the full impact of his new platform is not yet accounted for. McEntire could potentially move ahead of Nate with a strong performance or if Nate flounders. Nate probably has the most room for error--given his weak performance last time around, he may need it.
Calvin
I think McEntire needs to establish himself one way or the other as the last candidate to enter the race, since he's stuck right now between a falling Peeps and a rising Nate. Peeps needs to halt the fall, and Nate just needs to not lose.
HEM
We obviously have Lime's new poll, but my hot take is that while Xecrio is probably in the lead, McEntire is probably not as far behind as he looks in Lime's numbers. There's still a lot of dust to settle, but if I had to guess I'd say Xecrio is at 45%, McEntire at 40% and Peeps at 15%. Peeps has the most to lose in this debate, because all the polls in this election have him running behind. But the other candidates have shit on the line too. I think Xecrio has seen a little bump since declaring, but those people could easily flee elsewhere. McEntire probably actually has the least to lose?? As long as he stays in shouting distance of Xecrio, I think he can camp out in second and plot out his runoff strategy.
Calvin
With that in mind, let's get into the first question. This one was for all three, and asked about the shortened term. What's our take on how each did?
I think Peeps and McEntire do well to mention how they are using this opportunity to bring in newer players into their Cabinets. Nate's answer is uninspiring as he talks about playing it safe. McEntire goes into more detail than Peeps, though, so I'll rate him higher. McEntire - 4.5, Peeps - 4, Nate -3.
HEM
McEntire - 3/5 I think McEntire did fine here. He explained how the shortened term impacted his thinking and defined success in broad strokes. He also spun it as a positive which seemed faux cheerful but hey, why not?
Xecrio - 2/5 I wasn't impressed with Xecrio's answer that basically amounted to "we also wrote a 70 day plan that you'll never see plus we have a great staff". Pretty weak!
Peeps - 4/5 I feel like Peeps was the only one to give a real example of how the shorter term tangibly impacted governance. The fully younger cabinet is an interesting idea, and a shorter term does make sense to try it out. I found it most compelling of the three answers.
Sopo
Everything here is pretty vague, though maybe to be expected with a pretty broad question. Peeps highlights new Cabinet members, as does McEntire, with Nate sort of broadly describing adaptability and achievement. None were particularly inspiring to me, but all were decent. McEntire - 4, Peeps - 4, Nate - 3
Calvin
Now we have our first individual question, to Nate, as CSP asks about his communication strategy abroad. How'd he do?
HEM
I have to subtract a point up front by not mentioning The North Pacific, who is probably the most natural partner for this sort of thing. And then he says he will coordinate with the Council by....."close coordination and communications." Honestly, kind of a mess here. I'm giving a curve because I do think this type of question is hard to give a lot of detail on, so 2/5
Sopo
He stumbles a bit--I can't tell from the transcript if that's related to nerves or not being able to hear--but he does a decent job with his answer. He mentions the Watch, which I think could be a great way to incorporate foreign happenings into Comms. His definition of an ally is a bit off (really should just be people we have treaties with), but this also is not a foreign-facing position. In terms of coordination, I think this is another example of why the split is confusing and overcomplicates things. Overall, not a very clean answer, but he gets his point in there. 3/5
Calvin
I think it's a bit of a blunder that Nate doesn't mention TNP as one our closest allies. It's good he mentions the Watch as a resource, though, so I trust that he has a strategy. Nothing else specific is said, though, and as FM he really needs to work with the Council of Coordination for this sort of stuff, but that also doesn't factor into his answer at all. 2.5/5
Calvin
Next, CSP asks Peeps about his Communications strategy, and his desire to add more non-political content. What did we think of his response?
Sopo
I'm not sure about his idea--having the EBC be 50% "fun" or non-political content seems like a lot--but I think he's correct that the EBC needs to better engage its audience and that such content has worked well on Radio. Frankly, I think content can be both "fun" and "political" (see... power player drafts)... anyway, I just feel like it's not so black and white. But 50% non-political content feels like way too much for a political game. 3/5
Calvin
This is a great question from CSP that I think the crux of is ignored by Peeps. He says that Radio has had more non-political content of late, but does not justify why it needs to be such a large portion of the output from EBC and Radio. Yes, fun is fun, but is it worth 50%? I don't know, and Peeps doesn't tell us. 2/5
HEM
I'm trying to separate out my disagreement with the policy with the idea. I think it would be a stronger idea if Peeps had some numbers to back it up, like: "wow, surprisingly cultural content actually gets more posts in reply than news recaps - so i want to divert resources". That would be really convincing. As it is, not sure the policy is even a good idea or what problem we are trying to fix... Frankly, I think politics is the "fun" of the game and I rarely read anything else unless it's super compelling! 2.5 / 5
Calvin
From here, CSP asks McEntire about integration, and if he, as Minister of Interior last term, is willing to accept the blame for the lack of success in that area recently. Our thoughts?
Sopo
McEntire is really doing the best he can here, but the facts aren't really in his favor. Owning up to failure is important. It doesn't erase the failure, though. Luckily for him, he can pivot to the outstanding job done with recruitment. And he seems to have somewhat a plan for integration now. It's a good answer given the context, but I'm not sure that voters won't continue to punish him for the lack of integration this term. 3.5/5
HEM
I truly believe that McEntire would be better off politically if he just seized on GraV's data and said no amount of integration would've helped and just wash his hands of this. Frankly, I think there is a coherent argument that a very very small fraction of the Drew Boom was destined to stay in such an ephemeral increase, so at the end of the day it was more a numbers game to get as many nations as possible for the small handful that would actually like the game and stay. Instead he keeps doing this 50% apology, which is that, "yes I take responsibility, but here's also a sideswipe at Peeps who could've done more too, and also I did great work, but of course it's my fault. It's just weird to me! I'm also not really even sure what he's learned....I agree we need to rethink Integration, but if information being provided was all it took the Newcomer's Handbook would've been a panacea years ago. The transcript doesn't immediately present this answer as a trainwreck, but I think it was, 1.5 / 5
Calvin
I like McEntire's answer a lot. It accepts the blame in the last term for not prioritizing integration, but he shows that he knows how to prioritize it if he becomes First Minister with a nice piece about providing opportunities and resources across the board, rather than focusing on just one program. 4/5
Sopo
i kind of like that McEntire pushes back at Peeps since he is also in Interior even though Peeps was a recruitment deputy. don't think that helps either of them tbh.
Calvin
I do think it shows Peeps' strategy in this debate, and his position in the polls that he's being proactive on this issue. Despite his own involvement in the Ministry.
HEM
I just think there's an awk tension between "i take responsibility" and "you, a deputy over a separate portfolio should've done more"
Sopo
I mean, Peeps certainly could have spoken up if he saw it as a problem. He and McEntire were likely collaborating a lot. But yeah, it was not his job to make integration work. It was McEntire's, and he failed.
HEM
I guess I'm saying that I don't think McEntire should've ever accepted responsibility lol
Sopo
I honestly don't think that would have worked better. Even looking at GraV's numbers, there were many people who were on the forums and Discord who were not engaged and dropped off. I'm willing to overlook the people who posted cit apps and left immediately and the people who never made it to the forum.
Plus, he clearly made a feeble attempt to course correct by making SEC a deputy for integration, though I have no idea if SEC did anything at all in that area.
Calvin
Yeah, Peeps probably would've been the better pick there, but he had already made him recruitment deputy. I think it more shows how McEntire emphasized recruitment, giving it the more experienced deputy.
HEM
Yeah i just think he's stuck in the worst of both worlds trying to take full responsibility but also defend his record? An unenviable position to be sure
Calvin
Moving on, Nate gets asked about his plan for roleplay, and roleplay moderators. How did he do?
Sopo
YES! I really like Nate's answer and leadership in this area. That roleplay really ran amock last term until HEM used my brilliant idea to save it. I like that Nate wants to be involved, and I think the FM should be given how many nations are RPing there but are not involved in the region otherwise. If we keep them engaged and managed they may trickle up to the forum eventually. And that's really the whole point of gameside engagement. 5/5
Calvin
Nate definitely separates himself from the pack with this answer, as it highlights a plan he has that the others don't, and he shows that he's ready to get it rolling. Does roleplay matter? Probably not, but it's good someone is thinking about the RMB, especially given its recent activity. 4/5
HEM
Personally, I'm skeptical the roleplayers will want or even accept help from the government BUT it is a crop of nations who are active almost daily to try to integrate. It's worth a shot, and I think Xecrio actually has the best idea to do it (integrating moderators into their community to get to know them better) - 4/5
Calvin
Next, Peeps gets asked what's going with the second platform. Did he clear up any confusion?
Sopo
Whew. OK. I know we were critical of Peeps's platform in the radio show but a second entire platform is just wild to me. I was expecting some addendums and additional policies. I give credit for the attempt at course correction, but politically it just feels like he admitted defeat and is desperate to regain ground. 2/5
Calvin
Frankly, I don't know what the new platform brought to the table, because there was no indication of what was added or removed. It just looks like he wanted to respond to the criticism, but didn't know what to change, and hoped we would like the effort. A missed opportunity to clarify what was "revamped". 1/5.
HEM
I think Peeps would've done himself some more favors to give more specific examples of his platform (i.e. was the criticism was, and what he changed). i haven't fully reviewed the new platform, so I can't speak to any improvement there may be, but admitting you didn't have "goals" probably isn't the strongest play......1 / 5
Calvin
Moving on to Radio, where McEntire talks about deputies for individual shows? How'd we like it?
Sopo
Hm... there's really not much there to sink your teeth into. I'm not sure I'm fully imagining what this looks like. What are the show categories he'd have people working on? Radio is really all over the map, and I like being able to work on all types of content. Not to mention that the Showpo doesn't really fit cleanly into any category. For once, radio actually seems to be doing pretty well, and I'm not sure McEntire does a good job selling the value added from this idea. 2/5
HEM
It's not a very exciting idea, but seems to make sense to me -- especially for a Ministry where frankly, people very often struggle to come up with any ideas at all for their platform. 3/5
Calvin
McEntire really dodges the question and provides no real answer. He says that was inspired by the columns idea in Comms, and that the plan is still being worked out. If we knew what those categories would be, I would feel better about this answer. 2/5
Calvin
Next, Nate is asked about Discord Buddies, and is pressed on why it will work now.
Sopo
This answer was pretty rambly. I don't think he really explains why his mentor program will work while others have failed. I appreciate the focus on data, but throwing up barriers to participation (i.e. forcing folks to track interactions in a spreadsheet) usually end up doing more harm than good. I hope he's right, but he doesn't really present any evidence that this is a good plan, he just rehashes what the plan is. 2/5
Also, for the record, I think McEntire uses his longevity to his advantage here... more or less pointing out that this approach has never worked.
HEM
i would venmo everyone $3 or do 89 shots on EBC Radio to never ever hear anything about a mentor program again. Seriously though, I don't think Xecrio manages to provide any backing that a mentor program will work this time. I respect the data-driven side of it, which is something we tried in the Internship Program and saw some interesting trends but never seemed to be worth its while... Also I think McEntire uses his long history to his advantage in discrediting the idea a bit, whereas Peeps uses the opening to plug his own program. Overall, I'd say both of them did better than Xecrio: 2/5
Calvin
I think Nate lays out a good idea of what the Buddies can be, but I remain unconvinced that this program is the best thing for integration. Nate both acknowledges and dismisses the ineffective history of this program, so I'm left unclear why he think this time will be different. 3/5
Calvin
After this, Peeps has an answer on Weekend Games. What do we think?
Sopo
sTeAm GaMeS aRe ThE fUtUrE... ok seriously though I'd like to ask the ERI to do an article on how many platforms have mentioned Steam only to do nothing about it. OTHERWISE I think he expands a bit on how we can use games like Minecraft that many people own rather than relying only on free games. Still not confident anything is going to change but... 3/5
HEM
I hate being so negative but I think this answer was Not Good. Peeps pretty much ignores the question about what new weekend games his ticket has found -- to the point of CSP just moving on to the next question. A lot of Peeps' campaign seems to be trying hard to appeal to the casual, social player. "We are all just here to have fun! more fun articles, some fun games, let's have fun!" but there's no connection to how these things actually help us, and do Europeians really find these things fun? (besides minecraft which is obviously a sensation -- but even there, people have struggled to draw a clean line on how it helps us, or how it could help us more). 1.5 / 5
Calvin
I'm going to be honest, this question is so old and boring, and nothing ever changes in Weekend Games. Do we need new games? I don't know if we do, really. We have variety, we have things people like. Steam is the great white whale of Culture, and the more time passes without it ever being touched the less I care about it. Peeps briefly touches on Minecraft, but doesn't really devote any time to how Minecraft has revolutionized gaming in Euro. Peeps isn't alone in his mishandling of this question, but that's no excuse. 1.5/5.
Calvin
Moving on to McEntire's question dealing with training writers, let's weigh in on that.
Sopo
I like the idea of writing skills being important and transferable. I also like the idea of high quality content over more content. I guess that's it... he answered the question. 3.5/5
Calvin
McEntire is a good writer himself, so I think he understands how the training should work, and I trust him to oversee it properly. I think he missed a chance to talk about different kinds of writing, particularly dispatches, an often overlooked area of Communications, however. 3/5
HEM
CSP asked a lot of good questions in this debate, but this one was kind a snoozer. I think McEntire did...something with it, but not very memorable or interesting -- unless McEntire manages to snag Deepest House's endorsement with the shout out. 3/5
Calvin
Anyway, the next question goes back to Nate and his plans for off-forum activity. Did we like his answer?
Sopo
I think Nate kind of squandered an opportunity to emphasize a pro of his platform, gameside activity. He doesn't really explain why it's good to engage gameside (bring people to the forums!) rather making it seem like a good in and of itself... which I'm not sure is true. Do we really need to cater to people who will never join the forum and our government? 2/5
HEM
I think I understand what Xecrio is saying, which is what by having us spend time on Nationstates.net we can get some folks offsite, but unlike his roleplay moderator idea, this seems a little half-baked and not explained well. I don't walk away completely understanding why we should shift activity from the forum to gameside -- why does it benefit us to make those sides not feel split up? Also I desperately want to know more about what "controversial topics" Xecrio will post in the Grand Hall to get more gameside people interested. 2/5
Calvin
Nate again gets a chance to show off the most unique part of his platform, but I didn't like this answer as much as his roleplay one. It's not awful, but I'm not seeing much of a vision represented for this admirable goal. Maybe it's enough to try, but I'm not blown away. 3/5
Calvin
From here, CSP asks Peeps why he is prioritizing a newcomer Cabinet for his term, and if Minister is a good entry-level position. How're we feeling about it?
Sopo
Peeps does a good job justifying his picks and pushing back on the premise of the question. He's emphasizing that they are the newcomer-y-ist ticket wtthout being in over their heads. 4/5
HEM
Imho, Peeps' goal of stuffing the Cabinet with newcomers is the most memorable part of his campaign and platform. I feel like he could've gone into more detail about the vision behind this decision -- maybe wax poetic about the next generation etc. Overall I'd say he got the job done, but nothing special. 3.5/5
Calvin
I think this was a pretty softball question, and Peeps doesn't disappoint in his answer. He defends newcomers, and as a newcomer himself, I can tell this is something he cares about. Not his most impressive answer, but it's solid. I have my own opinions on Forilian's performance in Culture, but I won't hold that against Peeps' answer here. 4/5
Calvin
Next, CSP asks McEntire about his long record of activity problems across his long career. Does McEntire's answer wave off any doubts we have about that?
Personally, I think McEntire's activity has been fine during his term as Interior Minister and Senator, and it hasn't been a concern of mine during this campaign, as a result. I suppose this has to be asked, but McEntire isn't going to stumble on this question, it's pretty standard. 4/5
Sopo
You can never remove 100% of doubts, but I think McEntire has found a pretty good balance for himself. He's been a solid minister and senator, and I have to hope he won't bail on a 35 day term. Good answer. 4/5
HEM
I think McEntire had a solid answer here pointing to his recent track record. Anything can happen, but McEntire has a solid track record over the past few months and i think it should assuage any activity concerns. 4/5
Calvin
Now we return to a question for all three candidates, and it's about their managerial style. Thoughts?
Sopo
McEntire gives the clearest answer in my opinion. Given his own experience in game, it makes sense he has a clearer idea of what CSP is asking for here. Nate does an OK job as well, sort of circling a managerial style, but I'm not sure Peeps fully "got" the question. McEntire - 4/5, Nate - 3/5, Peeps - 2/5
Calvin
Peeps emphasizes his activity, and says he will lead by example. I think that's probably true, but risks burnout in a leadership role like FM. Nate acknowledges that he can't lead things alone and emphasizes constant communication between departments. McEntire gives a similar answer to Nate, and discusses communication and clear expectations. All of these are fine answers, though. Peeps - 2.5/5, Nate 3.5/5, McEntire - 4/5
Calvin
This is followed up by another question for all three, this time asking the candidates to describe a time they improved something in the region.
HEM
McEntire has the longest experience to lean on here, and it shows. He's able to cite something from this term, and something from years and years ago. Solid answer 4/5. I think Peeps' answer works pretty well here too. Besides leading by example, he doesn't really connect the experience to being First Minister, but the example of tapping folks with expertise to help out is a solid one. 3.5/5. Xecrio's answer is interesting because it admits a failure and how he worked to course-correct. I wish he had gone into more detail on how he fixed the upvote squad besides people just working together to do it, but still not bad. 3/5
Sopo
So, I think Peeps really shines here, highlighting his recent and exemplary service as Mayor of Arnhelm. He also mentions he's willing to seek help when he needs it, which is humble--and necessary. McEntire draws on his term in Interior again as well as some very old examples related to reform, which are a good tie in. Nate discusses his time in Comms and... maybe I'm wrong, but I do not remember the Dispatch Squad being a highlight of his term. Did anyone fact check? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, I'm not sure either of his examples have had huge staying power since--dispatches have continued to be problematic and I don't recall any private media awards recently. Peeps - 5/5, McEntire - 4.5/5, Nate - 3/5
Calvin
McEntire gives a mixed answer here. The Interior Minister part gives no details of how he fixed anything, just an example of a time he started doing something. The Senate part is better, yet it doesn't show much individual leadership. Peeps gives a better answer, talking about Arnhelm and his work there, showing how he can make a difference when he's given the reigns. Nate I think gives the best answer of the group, giving a specific example of the Upvote Squad, and how he responds to public critique, and makes things even better for his team. McEntire 3/5, Peeps, 3.5/5, Nate 4/5
HEM
McEntire had the strongest answer, using an example of his work in the Interior as an example. This honestly might be the strongest answer he has in the debate: giving a clear example from the past, and showing how it would apply going forward. 5/5 Peeps' answer is...fine here. I think he's openly saying that he's a bit of a micromanager, which isn't everyone's style but the self-awareness is good. He's a little vague on how he'd "step in" and help, or what course corrections could be made before firing someone. But...fine answer i think? 3/5 In terms of Xecrio...I get what he is saying but the question was about management, and management inherently can't always be about "involving everyone". I think he's expressing more a governing philosophy, but not a lot of detail on running his government besides being open to firing people. 2/5
Calvin
We've reached the final question of the debate! Once again for all three, they are all asked to name a President or First Minister they would like to emulate if elected.
Sopo
I rather like this question as well as the responses. It's a softball, but a fun one to end on. Peeps really hits on his newcomer theme with a good quote from Gleg. Nate highlights some of Calvin's (few) good qualities. McEntire's answer, though, emphasizes the importance of leadership over just management, which strikes me as more profound than the other two. McEntire - 4.5/5, Peeps - 4/5, Nate - 3.5/5
HEM
This is a softball, but a fun softball imo. I think Xecrio and McEntire both pulled out tangible things they were looking to emulate. Peeps picked someone outside of his "lifetime" in Europeia, which I think also shows some wisdom -- and even uses that person as a source to support his tentpole initiative of elevating newcomers. For those different reasons, they are all a 4/5
Calvin
A fun ending, and an interesting peek to see who these potential leaders admire. The names are all expected ones, but the qualities each choose to emphasis play very well into each candidates' platforms and sales pitch. Peeps emphasizes WL's approach to newcomers, Nate emphasizes Calvin's communication with his ministers, while McEntire emphasizes CSP's overall vision for the region. They each get 4/5
Calvin
Okay, here are final overall scores!
McEntire: 67.5 / 90 (75%)
Peeps: 63.5 / 105 (60.5%)
Nate: 63 / 105 (60%)
So, McEntire, according to our scores won this thing pretty commandingly. Does that sound right?
Sopo
I mean, with the caveat that he's more experienced in the region and that really seems to be what makes people a better debater
Calvin
Yeah, we've seen time and time again that the most experienced player almost always wins, and wins big in these debates. Will this matter? Does it change anything about the race?
Sopo
I'm not sure it will do much to help Peeps's position. The real question is whether McEntire gains ground from this, or if Nate's support is pretty solid. I don't think anyone's performance was abysmal--our job was to nitpick--so I'm not sure this is enough to sink Nate.
Calvin
Peeps really needed a win here, and not getting it is very bad news for him. Otherwise, I agree, that I don't know if Nate did poorly enough to lose any ground, or that McEntire particularly hurt anyone else's chances. It will be interesting to see if the Second Minister candidates change the race any tomorrow, knowing the stakes.
HEM
Until the very end, nobody really pulled away for me. All candidates had some strong moments and some weaker moments. Nobody ran away with this, and frankly, with McEntire's much longer history of doing this I think even this moderate win for him should be a disappointment. That being said, maybe it's enough for him to pull into a tie with Xecrio, and certainly nothing happened to knock him back. The only question is whether Peeps can still upset the applecart, and whether this stunts any Xecrio momentum which would almost surely lead to a runoff.
Calvin
Last question, what do we expect to see in tomorrow's debate, if anything?
Sopo
It's probably Ervald's to lose, as both monkey and Fori are pretty new to this. Though I'd bet more heavily on monkey than Fori purely based on Q&A in platforms so far.
Calvin
I expect to see Forilian come out swinging. In past campaigns, he's not been afraid to challenge other candidates on their stances in their platforms, and given the position his ticket is in, I don't see him playing it safe. Ervald likely has the edge, having the most experience in the region, and Monkey will likely just try and not do any damage.
HEM
I think Monkey could surprise tomorrow, while Forilian may err on the side of being too aggressive. But we'll see! I think it'll be interesting.
Thus concludes this panel analysis! What did you think of the debate? Have any predictions for where things stand now, and what will happen tomorrow? Let me know! Until then, this is Calvin Coolidge, ready to moderate the Second Minister debate tomorrow on Discord at 7pm eastern.
