Citizen Honor: Provolution

[Strider]

Shall we honor Provolution for his leadership abilities?

Nomination:

While he was active, he motivated many people and set forth game changing ideals that were unfortunately not implemented.

Secondation:

His ideals were great, but I think he was underestimated and still is to this day. Maybe one day, people here will realize what he tried to do for this game.

This Poll will run for three days

 

[Epimethius]

Leadership, no. I would vote for him getting a dedication or debate honor. He was definately distinguished, I just don't feel that leadership is quite the best field.

 

[Civman2004]

I'm not sure. A lot of provo's ideas were fantastic, and he had a great vision for the dg, but he got frustrated and didn't carry those ideas through when it got tough. If he was still as active today, yes (although I'm with Epi, maybe not leadership) but he's not... and the DG is worse off for that

 

[invy]

I don't like this idea of citizen honors in the middle of 3rd term. The demogame is not near the end yet and there is much more to do. We'd better wait for Term 5 before honoring citizens so we can see what they have actually done. This is just: let the office work and lets honor some people, no matter will they do anything else until the end of game.

Regardless of above, I voted no. Provo did have fantastic ideas but he gave up too early and too easily. I wouldn't award someone for giving up. If he would get back and play the game he would probably get the honor with large majority support. CT could also give up after CC but she didn't because she's dedicated enough. The easiest way is to give up from everything...

 

[Strider]

I don't like this idea of citizen honors in the middle of 3rd term. The demogame is not near the end yet and there is much more to do. We'd better wait for Term 5 before honoring citizens so we can see what they have actually done. This is just: let the office work and lets honor some people, no matter will they do anything else until the end of game.

Regardless of above, I voted no. Provo did have fantastic ideas but he gave up too early and too easily. I wouldn't award someone for giving up. If he would get back and play the game he would probably get the honor with large majority support. CT could also give up after CC but she didn't because she's dedicated enough. The easiest way is to give up from everything...

The point of Citizen Honors are not to award the people who manage to stay around the longest, or who becomes the most popular throughout the game. Your pretty much saying that we should wait untill the end of the game, and forget about those that deserve an honor, but had to leave the game for RL purposes.

Also, this is not a thread to discuss the Citizen Honor system, so don't even think about replying to this post. If you want to say something, then I suggest you take it to the discussion thread.

 

[invy]

Sorry for stating my opinion but thats the way it is..

 

[Strider]

Honor for Provolution has failed.

 

[Provolution]

I thank Blackheart, Zarn and Civman2004 for a decent epitaph, and is perfectly happy with their conduct in the Demogame, they all act in an organized and ethical fashion, with room for doctrinal innovation. And as I told Blackheart when he asked me when I spent so much time on the demogame, a story both Zarn and Blackheart know more about, is that I run a company with 14 employees, and that the waiting period for a project proposal has ended successfully. This means that IRL has taken its toll and I had to leave, several players were informed on that. Hopefully, young Invys isolated claim that I am a person that does give up does not hold water. When I lost a couple of reform moves in the very beginning of the game, I did not give up, and managed to work effectively with my deputies Blackheart and Civanator, who has turned out to carry doctrinal operational thinking we developed jointly. These gentlemen are standing in bright contrast to other hawks like MOTH and Invy, representing embryonic and unstructured military expansion, and these two leaders stand forwards as proponents that makes this game interesting for forum readers, contrary to the extreme hawks calling for constant blood and the extreme doves calling for extreme harmony.
The interesting part is discussing complex doctrinal concepts/plans and implement these. I will certainly nominate Blackheart and Civanator for an honor, as well as support Sir Donald III and Cyc, as well as Rik Meleet. These all made the game a structural ideological process in line with the core concept of the Demogame.
I also support Curufinwes and Striders reform attempts, that the slow and boring minds managed to halt to death, since the other side had no imagination to play with.

I am sorry that I stepped on Epimethius toes for commenting on election fraud, defamation tactics of proposed ideas, his wrongdoings in the Naming Office, and a tough debate style directly attacking the candidates and not their ideas.
I did not expect any mercy from Epimethius. But is happy that my election tactics the first two terms had a lasting impact on the quality of leadership in the DG5.

I now go own with my business, and maybe I pop in for a guest appearance from time to time.

 

[MOTH]

... These gentlemen are standing in bright contrast to other hawks like MOTH and Invy, representing embryonic and unstructured military expansion, and these two leaders [Provo's deputies] stand forwards as proponents that makes this game interesting for forum readers, ...

I take offense at this charactization. The time period to which you are referring I was extreme in asking for the Foriegn Ministry to make a poll on the subject to determine the WOTP. My personal concern was that the maintenance cost of our war footing (both Unit cost and maintenence on baracks) was too expensive not to got to war.

I understand that Provolution has RL demands and can not easily check my record and posts. If he were to get a feel for the whole body of my posts I think he may realize that I have not been exclusively hawkish and too have offered posts that help make the game interesting.

 

[Provolution]

ok Moth I stand corrected, but I would like to arrest any development that is more embryonic and populist and less operational and doctrinal. When I feel that I am attacked in post-game terms for actions conducted then, I need to emphasize that my ministries always had a dual footing, and that I gave Civanator operational control from the outset.

Yet, MOTH has a valid point, but he did not consult the ministries in the doctrinal matters, but went right for a WOTP session without consulting any Ministry or making reference to the doctrine of preparing for a timed war closer to Samurai.
We won the wars with swords, that is given, but a Samurai-driven war would cost much less, and we could have handled the Iroquois as well after that.

But again sorry for not reading all the posts out there, that is my fault, and I am one of the people here readily admitting faults, not putting on a stone-like facade and conducting cover up operations backed by powerful patrons.

 

[MOTH]

I will make no more posts on this subject. But first I must point out that I did consult the Foreign Ministry before I opened a poll to check on the WOTP. I opened the poll only after the Foreign Minister indicated that he would not poll the subject himself until after the next TC (whould was 2 TC's after my initial request).

 

[blackheart]

I was the FA Minister at that time and I explained my reason for not polling. We were simply not ready to handle any such war. I believe I did the right thing and decisively polled when our troops and the MSAV was ready. Being a minister, I had to balance requests of a citizen and the preparedness of the country to act upon that request.

 

[Provolution]

Again, Blackheart did the right thing with Civanator, and timed the poll in due time.
DG elections DO have primacy over grassroots initiatives if these are programmatically based on a doctrine. This is Japanatica, not Zambia, and this is how it should be run.

 

[invy]

The least I can say for that comment Provo is: interesting!? I am new player and I do make mistakes and I probably don't understand many things some older players do but calling MOTH and me extreme is really extreme. Stating something like we are 'representing embryonic and unstructured military expansion' is simple flaming without arguments, or to say better its offense.

I got impression you left too early from this game to get honor and I based my conclusion on my own opinion and other opinions on forums I noticed in time you were playing. This honoring thing is anyway dumb in the middle of the game.
I may have mistaken when saying you left too easily but you did leave too early to get an honor in my opinion and my vote would have been the same.
I don't have personally anything against you or any other demogame player as you probably think and thats why i stopped voting in such kind of polls. I had even posted somewhere that I wanted you to stay in the game because I liked some of your ideas..
If people want to honor someone in this period of game they have every right to do it. I am going to be out of this ...

 

[Provolution]

I agree with you Invy, I am also against Honors at this stage. But I felt a need to mention "embryonic and unstructured military expansion" on the basis of that you advocated too early war and continuous organic expansion in the same region. Just snuffing out Iroquois and Babylonians because they are close is a full term decision that will keep Japanatica busy with a longer war, and undermine any other intended projects. The doctrine should be and has always been "short, limited strategic wars with defined outcomes". This means to keep the game interesting and democratic, we should set up wars with detailed objectives except for extermination of a tribe. This detailed objective should reflect those of the Domestic building cities and so on. People could even vote on how ambitious war plans should be set into motions.

So when I refer to "embryonic and unstructured" I am in my full right to do so.
The call for war was an emotional one, and did not make any contingency plans but a demand to do action at a time we were still preparing. and calling for a continuous war to conquer Rome, Iroquois and Babylon is indeed embryonic, as Japanatica would turn out to be a constant war project.
It is unstructured since this demand is nothing but a greed for land and resources, and not backed by strategy documents and its like. And yes, it IS extreme to call for others to plan the war at once at three tribes in a row, and to snuff out strategic wonder builds. Comparing this to flaming and trolling is traditional American overreaction I can reminiscence from films like "Team America World Police" and so on. Concepts of extreme and moderate vary from person to person, as other words do. So, throwing out the flaming and trolling terms in order to call in the early moderator B2 airstrikes to snuff out critical voices with privilege napalm is a debating tool too often used by some debaters who feel they represent political forces with moderator support. Donovan Zoi and Rik Meleet has pointed this out.

So Invy, I will not bother this game too much, but when I rarely pop in to speak my mind, I do not expect some loose and hazardious gunslinger use of the terms trolling and flaming for a warranted critique, just to silence the other side. To your defense Invy, you have realized that your singular war mongering will produce a boring game, and you know look away from the "most effective war mongering and micromanagement camp for the quickest conquest of the planet" to some real challenges deserving doctrinal planning.