PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE RESULTS

HEM

HEM

former
Jorts Connoisseur
Honoured Citizen
Citizen
Pronouns
he / him / his
Basic explanation...there are four judges who will give four scores. After the scores are posted, some basic explanations will be given by the judges based on letter. Judges will remain anonymous unless they themselves disclose their identity.

Judges will give two scores: one based on the original post, and another based on rebuttals/further comments. If no relevant rebuttals exist, the original score will be weighted.

QUESTION ONE - RACHEL ANUMIA

Original Response:

(Judge a.) 12/20
(Judge b.)12/20
(Judge c.) 12/20
(Judge d.) 10/20

QUESTION ONE - POPE LEXUS X

Original Response:

(a.) 16/20
(b.) 14/20
(c.) 10/20
(d.) 13/20


QUESTION ONE - HENRY

Original Response:

(a.) 8/20
(b.) 6/20
(c.) 4/20
(d.) 4/20


FINAL SCORES

Pope Lexus X: 53/80
Rachel Anumia: 46/80
Henry: 22/80

*scores were weighted x 2 as no substantial rebuttals existed.
 
Q1 COMMENTARY - RACHEL ANUMIA

(a.) Rachel: Is a little more...purposeful than Henry. But honestly not much more vision. She points out what's wrong, states we must set goals, but does little to lay out actual plans, besides just "going on more raids"

(b.) Rachel has some good stuff there, but nothing really new per se. She's doing common-sense things that need to be done, but not much more.

(c.) Rachel: There's some decent understanding there, but there are some basic, practical concerns which arise out of the issues she's put forward which have reasonable solutions. Going on raids consistently is good. The only way to ensure that happens is to ensure your GA can do it. You have to know your people. Recruiting people is good... you have to make sure you have people who can do the recruitment and are willing to do it, and likely at this point you need some kind of internal navy award for it.

(d.) Rachel's response is a bit more concrete - she offers two missions a week and the promise of training missions for newer sailors. However, we are asked for the 'vision' of each candidate's ERN. I'm not going to give her anything more than a 5 out of 10. She appears to have an understanding of some of the fundamental problems with EuroNavy, but I think she also could do more with her response.

Q1 COMMENTARY - POPE LEXUS X

(a.) Lexus: Get's to lean heavily on what he did in the past, lending more credibility. Expresses the need for more raids in a very coherent way, and actually *gasp* proposes a new idea.

(b.) Lexus is slightly more specific than Rachel, but not enough to get him a much higher score. He elaborates a bit on training, but overall he isn't much more "big picture" than Rachel. And there's the idea, but it's not elaborated on enough to make it deserving of a higher score. After reading this I'm still left wondering how he's going to incorporate defenders into a raider Navy without compromising us.

(c.) I'm going to likely buck the trend here. The defender thing... it's an interesting idea, but it's not really ever been Europeia's cup of tea, and I don't think, if the invader navy is struggling as it is, that we'll really be able to give two differently-purposed organizations enough attention. I think training is important, and Warzones are decent training, but "on-the-job" training is just as effective, and tends to give better press. I'm concerned about a President who's concerned about "not offending" by invading when he's going to be Command in Chief of an invader army. No shock from a former Grand Admiral, I'm sure, but I think that while this is a fascinating platform, it's better suited to a region like Equinox.

(d.) I think that Lex does offer more than both Rachel and Henry on this issue though - and their lack of response to his comments make me feel like they don't either care, or can't be bothered with the issue at hand.

Q1 COMMENTARY - HENRY

(a.) I'm saying that he makes a decent point about only being able to so so much, but he he doesn't seem to have a coherent vision.

(b.) did Henry even answer question 1?

(c.) I'd give Henry a 2/10 on the response to question one. (Which (d.) has linked to)... There is no actual direction there. All it says is that he's going to try to work and urge others to do so as well, and maybe fire the minister if he has to. There's no direction, no ideas, and for a former military guy, that's pretty pathetic. I feel like he's not even making an effort here. He is a former military guy, I mean.

(d.) His only direct response to the question at hand is a rhetorical question which does not give us any idea as to what Henry's objective is, or his vision for Euro Navy. Obviously we need to examine the response as coming quite early in Henry's campaign - when he had little to no substance and certainly no vision for Europeia's future.
 
QUESTION TWO - RACHEL ANUMIA

Original Response:

(Judge a.) 4/20
(Judge b.) 2/20
(Judge c.) 0/20
(Judge d.) 0/20

QUESTION TWO - POPE LEXUS X

Original Response:

(a.) 10/20
(b.) 6/20
(c.) 10/20
(d.) 7/20


QUESTION TWO - HENRY

Original Response:

(a.) 8/20
(b.) 4/20
(c.) 6/20
(d.) 6/20


FINAL SCORES

Pope Lexus X: 33/80
Rachel Anumia: 6/80
Henry: 24/80

*Once again, no substantive rebuttals. So all scores out of 20
 
Q2 COMMENTARY - RACHEL ANUMIA

(a.) It wasn't a bad answer. Patriotic and whatnot. Just didn't answer the question at hand. 2/10

(b.) Rachel? Honestly? 1/10. She answered that question about as much as Bill Clinton didn't sleep with Monica Lewinsky.

(c.) Rachel's response reads like Funshine Bear knocked up a My Little Pony and it gave birth to rainbows and happiness. She gave a feel-good answer without even acknowledging the fact that people's time and energy are finite, and hard decisions always need to be made. She didn't answer the question, and she pandered to us at the same time.

(d.) I just felt like Rachel's typical charm fell flat on its face on that question... it's so sweet it makes me want to gag, and I -almost- feel like she's talking down to me here. Not to mention that there is a serious simplification of the issues at hand. I'm not in preschool, stop treating me like I am. If we can go negative, -1/10. Otherwise 0. :p

Q2 COMMENTARY - POPE LEXUS

(a.) Lexus at least puts some serious effort into answering what, frankly was, a dumb question. 5/10

(b.) Lexus barely hits on what the question is actually looking for. At least he provides some sort of semi-answer. I'm going to go 3/10.

(c.) It sounds like, in a roundabout way, Lex is going to be de-emphasizing working with the Senate as a priority, in favour of executive issues. For actually coming somewhere near the question at hand.

(d.) Anyways, Lex does a -bit- with the question... manages to get across the idea that he will be focusing on FA and Naval affairs, while deffering to Aurora on the Interior and Welfare. It's good that he's able to get that point across, it doesnt really go with the question... but at the very least we know what his VP will be doing, which is more than I can say about McEntire or Asperta, who has been MIA this entire election.

Q2 COMMENTARY - HENRY

(a.) Little focus, but at least gives and honest answer that...notes he read the question at hand.

(b.) I'm going to give Henry a 2/10. He doesn't really answer the question at all, but at least he explains his thought process for not answering it. Much better than the happiness and butterflies approach, but not by a lot.

(c.) In answering this question, I'd want to see the admittance that difficult decisions need to be made and we can't always emphasize everything, and I'd want to see some sort of idea from the President about he's going to manage his time to make sure the most best things get done without burning himself out. I wanted to see the Presidential candidate make some sort of decision. Henry recognizes the first, but fails on the second, preferring some sort of rambly idea that his priorities will shift as necessary, a reactive presidency rather than an active one.

(d.) Henry: he's bringing up the issue of priorities, but he's talking an awful lot about getting to the Office and then figuring out what needs to be done... not a fan of a man without any direction.
 
QUESTION THREE - RACHEL ANUMIA

Original Response:

(Judge a.) 12/20
(Judge b.) 10/20
(Judge c.) 14/20
(Judge d.) 8/20

QUESTION THREE - POPE LEXUS X

Original Response:

(a.) 13/20
(b.) 16/20
(c.) 16/20
(d.) 17/20


QUESTION THREE - HENRY

Original Response:

(a.) 2/20
(b.) 0/20
(c.) 0/20
(d.) 0/20


FINAL SCORES

Pope Lexus X: 62/80
Rachel Anumia: 44/80
Henry: 2/80

*scores were weighted x 2 as no substantial rebuttals existed.
**Asianatic's response on behalf of the Lexus ticket are marked under his name
 
Q3 COMMENTARY - RACHEL ANUMIA

(a.) Rachel: A slightly stronger question for her. Ideas of how to take an existing system and make it more efficient are a plus, especially as sheerly recruiting "more" isn't a real answer in of itself. I'll say a 6/10

(b.) As with the Navy, Rachel seems to be putting forth some common-sense solutions which, again, are nothing new. I do appreciate that she plans to use the IRP and work on our telegram. 5/10

(c.) With Rachel's responses, I often feel a bit like I'm being pandered to, but this answer at least has a little meat to it. She provides lots of important questions, but answers none, which is not necessarily an issue, but a little distressing. The recognition of trying to push for round-the-clock recruiting is good to see, but the answer as a whole is fairly based on a single facet--- do some research and see what happens. I give it a 7/10, for clearly understanding the issue at hand, despite not having the answers.

(d.) Rachel gets a 4 out of 10. She brings up some interesting issues, but most of them are prompted by the question at hand namely IRP, etc. She states some basic facts about recruiting which you can get from about 5 minutes of not-really-thinking.

Q3 COMMENTARY - ASIANATIC

(a.) Asianatic: Not many new ideas, but expresses a commitment to making a current system work even better. Common sense theories are expressed, and perhaps vitally so, if they aren't truly yet being done. The relationship between Interior isn't talked about nearly enough, and for that I give her a 7.5/10

(b.) I'm happy to see Aurora answering this question. This is obviously her area of expertise in this election, and I'm glad that Lexus is allowing his VP to take initiative on the issues that are important to her. For me, she highlights everything that needs to be done better than Rachel, and she makes it seem relatively simple. It's also great that she throws the relationship between Welfare and
Interior into the mix. 8/10

(c.) Lexus has apparently become Asian and Female, but I'm okay with that, personally. The answer demonstrates a clear understanding of the issues at hand, putting the emphasis on researching and understanding, like Rachel, but also putting a clear emphasis on some practical solutions which will be necessary no matter what the research discovers. Putting recruiter accounts in the hands of those most likely to be effective, continuing to generate "buzz" for recruitment; both show a strong working knowledge of the Interior and its intricacies. 8.5/10

(d.) Aurora has the best response. That's a real 8 out of 10 response; we get mention of integrating Welfare and the Interior, which no other candidate mentions but is a key point. There's actual content to her response, namely her interest in creating 'buzz' for recruitment and a culture of promoting citizen recruitment. Again, not the newest concepts but she does a better job than anyone else of
presenting it

Q3 COMMENTARY - HENRY

(a.) I just...I just...don't understand the purpose of his answer. He states the obvious, then states the obvious again, and then a third time

(b.) Henry really stands out here. He was the final candidate to answer the question, which should have given him a good idea of what to shoot for. Yet, he barely acknowledges the question. If I didn't know the rules, I would think he's just a citizen throwing in his two cents. There is nothing Presidential about Henry's answer. He needs to get back to the Republic Square if this is the best he can do. most disappointing answer to anything so far

(c.) Henry can't manage to find more than two sentences on this question? Downright pathetic, is he even trying anymore? The insight about the transition being "not what we're used to" as opposed to "bad" is interesting, but it doesn't answer the question to any degree, it certainly gives no insight into his plans for the ministry, and it suggests that he just doesn't care. I think if you're going to give an answer like that to a debate question, you should do yourself a favour and just drop out of the race instead.

(d.) Hi Henry. Bye Henry.
 
QUESTION FOUR - RACHEL ANUMIA

Original Response:

(Judge a.) 2/10
(Judge b.) 2/10
(Judge c.) 2/10
(Judge d.) 3/10

Rebuttal

(a.) 7/10
(b.) 8/10
(c.) 7.5/10
(d.) 8/10

QUESTION FOUR - POPE LEXUS X

Original Response:

(a.) 7/10
(b.) 5/10
(c.) 8/10
(d.) 8.5/10

Rebuttal

(a.) 10/10
(b.) 5/10
(c.) 9/10
(d.) 9.5/10

QUESTION FOUR - HENRY

Original Response:

(a.) 8/20
(b.) 8/20
(c.) 6/20
(d.) 9/20


FINAL SCORES

Pope Lexus X: 62/80
Rachel Anumia: 39.5/80
Henry: 31/80

*Henry's score weighted due to no rebuttal
 
Q4 COMMENTARY - RACHEL ANUMIA

(a.) ORG: Did she even...answer the question?

REB: Rachel: Much much better than her initial response. She branches away from her feel-good approach and actually carves some bold territory. I say a 7/10

(b.) ORG: Rachel's answers are getting fairly predictable. She says something nice to make everyone feel good, throws in a few buzzwords (in this case "motivated," "drive," and "leader";) without actual facts, and ties it with a nice little bow. This a debate. These are issues. Let's get some more substance here. 2/10

REB: Rachel really shows here that she knows what she's talking about. She brings home the big issues and really makes me feel like she has direction going forward. A landslide improvement over her initial answer. 8/10

(c.) ORG: Funshine Bear strikes again. Apparently Rachel isn't going to tell us how she's going to assure us, she's just going to assure us directly. Somehow I don't feel assured. Europeia should be a leader. That's great. Maybe show us a little direction instead of trying to make us feel good. 2/10.

REB: Rachel's rebuttal actually picks up on some of my concerns with Henry's answer. Europeia cannot simply demand its place in the world, it has to earn it, and Rachel seems to get that to a tee in her first response. Her rebuttal is thoughtful and accurate, and while it's a little on the light side, it's still very solid. 7.5/10

(d.) ORG: Rachel's original response is lacking compared to her rebuttal. very little substance; she talks about moving forward for sentimental reasons, which I think are bogus and add to that pandering we talked about earlier. She gets a 3/10 for her original response, but she'll pick it up in rebutal. Look, if this is the Rachel that is going to lead Euro, I'm going to be very scared moving forward.

REB: I give her a 8/10. Her response finally has substance behind it. I can see her passion for the most part for the first time, though obviously there are some details regarding this terms Foreign Affairs that just don't match up to the facts. Regardless, she's able to make it about her while still talking policy. Kudos to her for finally waking up and acting like a candidate.

Q4 COMMENTARY - POPE LEXUS X

(a.) ORG: Lexus: Kinda waffles a little through this one...He proposes the idea of a Council of State that leaves much to be desired. He seems to get a world picture though, which is vital for any leader. 7/10

REB: Lexus' response was exactly what I'm looking for in a Commander. Someone who isn't afraid to say politically incorrect things, get his hands dirty, and tell enemies of Europeia to get in line. A series of bold responses. 10/10

(b.) ORG: Lexus expands on the ideas presented by Rachel, giving a broader view while at the same time giving specifics. While Rachel's response leaves much to be desired, she benefits from the fact that she has been a key component in writing Euro's foreign policy to date. Lexus has not. I'd like some reassurance he still knows how to put Europeia first, not just that he wants to solve the issues of the

REB: Lexus, too me, seems more cocky than anything. He sounds like a disapproving father casting down an enthusiastic child. Maybe he does know better, but I'm not yet convinced. 5/10

(c.) ORG: Lexus hits the question pretty hard, and hits it running. Unlike the other two candidates, he suggests that while Europeia has laid foundations, it's still falling woefully short of its Foreign Relations potential. I am pleased to see Lex advocate for a Council of State; Foreign Policy decisions are important, and need to be taken with a variety of voices, and some degree of consistency over time, especially from government to Government. I think there's still some Europeian bluster in the answer which leaves me with the feeling he's maybe a bit overly optimistic in Europeia's ability to simply stand and lead, but he knows what he wants and he's got his course and direction set, which is better than any of the other answers. 8/10

REB: Lexus comes into fine form in the rebuttals and holds it right through. He's fierce in holding his own, and does very strongly. I give him a 9/10.

(d.) ORG: I like Lexus's response a lot more. I like his concrete yet ambitious goals and the possibility of creating an official Council of State. I'm a little concerned in terms of Lexus's discussion of how 'invaderism' is something that Euro stands for, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt because he's talking about actual policy and giving us an idea of what he wants to do. 8.5/10

REB: At the same time I like Lexus's response to her, and even more so to Skizzy, who comes in out of the blue only to be shot the fuck down. Lexus really goes above and beyond with his responses because on one hand he has ideas and backs them up, but also because he has experience and he's not afraid to remind you that he's done more for Euro than most any politician ever. 9.5/10 on his response

Q4 COMMENTARY - HENRY

(a.) ORG: I think he's on the right track here, but needs to dig much deeper into current projects and realities. 4/10

REB: N/a

(b.) ORG: Henry puts forward more thought for this question than most of the others he's answered so far. He's not terribly specific, but all things considered for him, impressive. 4/10.

REB:

(c.) ORG: I think that Henry needs to spend a little time in a feeder and get out into the game at large before he can say that Europeia has established its place in NS. He's showing an effort, which is good, but when he speaks of getting out there and enforcing Europeia's minds, I have to wonder; without much prior contact with the outside world, who's going to listen to an upstart region being uppity? It's lacking in perspective and that's going to hurt Europeia on the world stage, rather than help it.

REB:

(d.) ORG: Henry gets points just for showing up and taking himself halfways seriously this time. 4.5/10 for having an understanding of some of the ongoing projects that are happening in Euro, but I dont think Euro is as far as he claims it is, and most people would disagree that Europeia is quite as 'established' as Henry might imagine.

REB:
 
QUESTION FIVE - RACHEL ANUMIA

Original Response:

(Judge a.) 6/20
(Judge b.) 10/20
(Judge c.) 0/20
(Judge d.) 4/20

QUESTION FIVE - POPE LEXUS X

Original Response:

(a.) 12/20
(b.) 14/20
(c.) 10/20
(d.) 8/20


QUESTION FIVE - HENRY

Original Response:

(a.) 16/20
(b.) 16/20
(c.) 14/20
(d.) 12/20


FINAL SCORES

Pope Lexus X: 44/80
Rachel Anumia: 20/80
Henry: 58/80
 
Q5 COMMENTARY - RACHEL ANUMIA

(a.) Eh, 3/10. Not a great answer, but probably the weirdest question in Presidential debate history. So she gets a curve.

(b.) Rachel's answer is weak, although she didn't understand the question (and Swak totally ignored the clarifying question and just stroked his ego instead). I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume her answer would have been halfway decent had she been able to finish. 5/10

(c.) Rachel says: "What would I do? I would, like, do good. And stuff." She doesn't really answer the second part of the question, but that's Swak's fault, not hers. I give them both 0/10, because I can only grade what I can see.

(d.) I'll give her a 2... the question is bad but the attempt is worse.

Q5 COMMENTARY - POPE LEXUS X

(a.) Lexus really really really really ruined this question. Because, as fate would have it, he WAS President for a week. After Pez201 resigned he served for NINE days as President before winning his own election. Instead of citing this occasion he cites a much less relevant option. Still, his response is strong, but not nearly as strong as it could have been. 6/10

(b.) Better than Rachel, but still doesn't finish the question, again thanks to Swak. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he would have made a strong finish. 7/10

(c.) "I can't do anything in a week! Except keep things stable, do a couple Navy operations, and maybe kill Osama Bin Laden." --He's a bit of a memetic badass, but I think he's not sure whether he wants to say he's awesome or hide behind "
damnit, there was more behind the "there's not enough time!" problem. I give him 5/10, for trying, but failing to find direction on the question.

(d.) He gets a 4, just because he gets a bit specific. Not too much to write home about though, mostly pratcial stuff. No, he does mention it in passing..But yep, this question was written for him and he failed to hit it out of the park

Q5 COMMENTARY - HENRY

(a.) Henry spoke in broad terms, and actually managed to convince me he fully understands the idea of time, and the idea of responsibility. If terms were only a week, Henry would have my vote for President. 8/10

(b.) Henry did do a good job on this question. He answered the whole question and left me feeling more confident in him. He overtakes the others here. I give him an 8/10.

(c.) I give Henry his only passing grade from me for the entire debate. 7/10. He actually treats the question, recognizes that time is short but some things happen very quickly. He puts a distinct focus on the very practical issues that arise, where Lex treats them generally, and he shows a maturity that would have served him well if he'd shown it for the rest of the debate.

(d.) This is crazy talk but I think Henry won this question. For once, all his talk of RL actually works towards a point, and it's not a bad one.
 
TOP SHEET RESULTS

FINAL RESULTS

Raw Score:

Pope Lexus X: 254/400
Rachel Anumia: 155.5/400
Henry: 137/400

Percentage of Raw Points Garnered:

Pope Lexus X: 63.5%
Rachel Anumia: 38.9%
Henry: 34.3%

Comparative Score (what percentage of earned points did each candidate get):

Pope Lexus X: 46.5%***WINNER***
Rachel Anumia: 28.4%
Henry: 25.1%

OVERALL/FINAL COMMENTARY

(a.) Pope Lexus won, but with more thoughtful argument from the candidates and perhaps more...thoughtful questions this debate could have been better. The Lexus/Asianatic team looks the strongest (by far) from the teamwork and communication in this debate, but it is a far cry from elections and debates past.

(b.) This debate was a total and utter mess. Everywhere you looked there was... well, nothing. It was very disappointing. Each of the candidates had one moment or so where they really stood out, but there was no consistency in the quality of answers. The numbers will give you a winner, but I think this debate really only has a loser: the Europeian people. Demand more from your candidates. Don't let
this become the norm.

(c.) I think the debate as a whole was pretty weak. Answers were flimsy and directionless, and the moderator was too busy fellating himself to actually try to force anybody to answer. The questions have been up for about four days, and for this to be all we've seen in the debate is frankly pathetic. I think only one person really came out of this debate looking Presidential, and that's Lexus. Rachel comes out looking like a Carebear, and Henry comes out looking like that kid who showed up to all his exams stoned out of his head. I fear for Europeia if this is the best we can do.

(d.) Pope Lexus X was the clear winner of this debate. He and his Vice Presidential running mate were able to convey in a level headed manner what their goals are for the upcoming term in a way which made me feel more comfortable checking off his name tomorrow. Rachel failed to impress on the whole, overshadowed on every issue and only held her own in Foreign Affairs.

Henry was by far the worst of the three candidates, but let's not kid around here. Pope Lexus X showed up for most of the questions, and unfortunately that's enough to impress this citizen in comparison.
 
Oooooooo! A ghost from the past. Just posting to tell you I was on the panel, but I won't.. tell you.. which.. one. Maybe you'll figure it out, maybe you won't.
 
I was a commenter as well.
 
I... may have been. :evil:
 
Oliver Dion-Grey said:
Oooooooo! A ghost from the past. Just posting to tell you I was on the panel, but I won't.. tell you.. which.. one. Maybe you'll figure it out, maybe you won't.
Click to expand...
It's fairly obvious. I don't know anybody else who talks like you do when you're criticising someone.
 
Apparently I'm known for my quirky avatar so without that, probably not as obvious.

Though as far as I was aware, I was not a judge, as much fun as I would have had doing it. Just a head's up for next time B-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top