Term 1 - Election for Minister of Science

[koondrad]

Right, stop the spam. That includes you, Condor . I'm back now but unfortunately I seem to have missed a lot. I’m happy to answer any questions and I hope we can start a sensible debate here. I’m currently preparing my platform, but I don’t suspect it will be finished until tomorrow as I'm shattered from traveling.

 

[koondrad]

(koondrad answered none).

Yeah, I noticed. Unfortunately, I am unable to be in two places at once. However, I will now answer the questions in the other thread for the undecided voters.

 

[Alphawolf]

Koondrad's platform has been posted.

-the Wolf

 

[koondrad]

Another question for candidates:

How would you go about making decisions? This question is aimed mostly at the process you would follow, not on the technical details of what data is needed for the decision.

I would:

1. Look at the situation
2. Consult other Ministers to discern if they need certain techs
3. Consider the options
4. Make an official poll that is carried by simple majority

i have a question:

when aiming for techs, which catergory do you think you will be aiming for the most, military, economic, religious etc.

As I have said in my previous posts, I feel that each aspect must be balanced with the others and that all aspects should be researched in moderation. All are required to win. If a certain Minister, or the citizens, wish to go one way, I will do my best to accomadate them. Once again, I feel the Minister of Science has to be able to adapt to new situations. If, for example, we are surrounded by aggressive neighbours, it would be wise to think about researching techs for defense.

Here's a question for the canidates..

If you feel taking the religion path is risky, then how do you weigh in:

1 - The lack of monastaries that we'll have?
2 - The lack of a potential shrine to give 1 gold per city with our religion?
3 - The lack of religious espionage?
4 - The lack of atleast a few points in good relations with the AI?
5 - The lack of temples to keep our citizens happy?

I personally have no problem with the religious path. Everything must be taken in moderation. I feel the game was designed this way. If you ignore certain aspects of your civilization, you will be left at a disadvatanage.

So, how do you justify disregarding religion for a short term worker gain?

As I said above, you can not neglect religion, but equally you cannot afford to have idle workers. It is very much a balancing act where you must judge what is required at the time. Bear in mind though, that it is not as simple as just choosing a tech from a different branch each time. You must decide what is appropriate at the time, whether it be a religious, military, social or economic advance.

Let me try and ask his question another way -

What opening 3-4 techs would you consider a priority for any civ to have, whether they be the initial techs or researched?

-- Ravensfire

I feel the most important are (in no particular order):

1. The Wheel
2. Agriculture
3. Mysticism
4. Hunting/Mining/Animal Husbandry/Fishing
   

1) Roads are essential. I feel it is benificial to develop roads early on.
2) Essential to growth.
3) The obelisk is very helpful to early culture and the tech leads on to religions.
4)As has been mentioned previously, your starting location affects your choice of tech. I feel early growth is very important, so all of these techs are in some way related to harvesting resources. It simply depends on what happens.

 

[Cyc]

I voted for Blkbird simply because he had the heuvos to repoll the "No-Cheating" issue. I had no idea he was so far in the lead.

 

[Question Mark]

Man has faced many walls and seemingly insurmountable challenges in the name of science. Man discovered how to use lenses to look both towards and away from earth. Man learned of atoms and how to split them, harnessing their power. Man succeeded in putting beings in to space and on the moon. Man ascertained how to clone cells and organisms.

And women did nothing? Koonrad still has my vote though, for stressing the importance of democracy, cooperation and flexibility. But I must say that the pompousity of that platform, combined with the (probably unintended, but still) sexism, made me doubt.

 

[Blkbird]

And women did nothing? Koonrad still has my vote though, for stressing the importance of democracy, cooperation and flexibility. But I must say that the pompousity of that platform, combined with the (probably unintended, but still) sexism, made me doubt.

I have to defend my fellow candidate Koonrad against the unfounded accusation of sexism here. He said "man", not "men". The singular form of "man" clearly means "mankind" in this context. Had he meant (even subconsiously) to single out the male sex only, the plurar form "men" would have to be used.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (here), "man" can either mean "1 a (1): an adult male human" or "1 b: the human race; mankind", but never something like "the male sex".

 

[koondrad]

the (probably unintended, but still) sexism, made me doubt.

lol. Yes, it way unintentional. 'Man' is just a convention that still exists in our politically correct world. It was just a random spiel I wrote as I tried not to fall asleep. Cheers for the vote but it's a bit late now.


@Blkbird - His profile says he's in Norway, so English may not be his first language? Thanks for that.

 

[Mike Lemmer]

I also defend his choice of words as non-sexist. The insistance of rewriting such terms to "men & women" disrupts the flow of the sentence and brings attention to the difference between the genders, twisting the motivation behind the equality movement and making political correctness seem even more repulsive.

 

[Question Mark]

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (here), "man" can either mean "1 a (1): an adult male human" or "1 b: the human race; mankind"

Of course. The English language, like the Norvegian and many others, is in it self sexist. I myself has also looked up "Man" in my dictionary (The Penguin English Dictionary) and found the following usage note: "Man should not be used unthinkingly in any context to mean "men and women" or "the human race". Substitutes are humanity, human beings, the human race, people, etc. Many compounds with "man" can be altered to gender-inclusive forms: man-made to artificial or synthetic, fireman to firefighter, etc.

The insistance of rewriting such terms to "men & women" disrupts the flow of the sentence and brings attention to the difference between the genders

Whats wrong with "humanity"?

 

[xyourxmomxcorex]

Im going to concede the election.
Good luck, Blkbird

 

[xyourxmomxcorex]

And women did nothing? Koonrad still has my vote though, for stressing the importance of democracy, cooperation and flexibility. But I must say that the pompousity of that platform, combined with the (probably unintended, but still) sexism, made me doubt.

There is NO sexism in there. Moses would be sexist on that basis. Well, the person who transilated mose's works into English. Anywho, "Man" means mankind in the context. I am dissapointed this issue even came up.

 

[Blkbird]

Dear voters, dear fellow citizens who have decided not to vote,

Thank you very much for your strong support. As a rookie to the Demogame, I'm overwelmed by the confidence you've put in me. This fantasitic election result, achieved despite a high number of qualified competitors, must taken as a sign of my upcoming responsibility towards all citizens of our great nation, which I will serve to my best ability.

The appointment of my deputy will be annoucing shortly. Until then, thanks again.

 

[Alphawolf]

Official action by the Censor: Blkbird wins the position of Minister of the Science; welcome to the Cabinet.

-the Wolf

 

[Blkbird]

Dear fellow citizens,

It is with great pleasure that I welcome Mike Lemmer as the Deputy Minister of Science and thank him for accepting my offer of this position.

Mike didn't just made a great campaign as a fellow candidate in this election, he has also been a very active participant of the Warmup Demogame. His knowledge about the game of Civ4 is just as proven as his ability to make precise and comprehensive analysis of game situations and to offer insightful and well founded recommendations. Since Mike and I have already agreed with each other most of the time during numerous Warmup Demogame discussions, I can now look forward to a pleasant and successful collaboration with him during this election term.

Let's do this, Mike!

 

[Mike Lemmer]

You know I'm itching to see the start. Of course, we won't know exactly what to research until we choose a settlement and see which resources are within range, but we should be able to propose a 3-tech plan from the initial turn.

 

[koondrad]

Congratulations Mr. Blkbird and Mr. Lemmer on your victory.
I'm sure you'll both do an excellent job.



Peace out,

 

[Blkbird]

The Ministry of Science has been set up in the Government subforum as required by Code of Law 3.A.I.A. For further discussions please go there.

 

[Question Mark]

Blkbird and Lemmer, congratulations to the both of you! Having read your platform, I trust you will do very well.

Now, I know I probably shouldn't bother you all with my off-topic feminism (at least not in this forum, perhaps we should move the debate to the off-topic forum?), but I find the discussion very interesting. So, back to the "Man" discussion:

Moses would be sexist on that basis. Well, the person who transilated mose's works into English.

Well, what do you expect? Religions (monotheist religions at least, I know little of polytheist ones) are generally highly patriarchial. Christianity surely is: Two thirds of the trinity are male, as are most priest (and ALL Catholic ones). Eve is made from one of Adam's bones. Paulus says clearly: "The man was not made from the woman, but the woman from the man. And man was not made for the woman's sake, but the women for man's"

I am dissapointed this issue even came up.

By all means disagree, disagreement is required for any real debate. But please, don't be dissapointed that there is a debate about subjects people disagree on.

"Man" means mankind in the context.

Yup. And mankind is a sexist word in almost all contexts, as the focus is put firmly on only one half of the persons. To use "Man" is even worse though. I would again like to promote the word "humanity".

 

[Mike Lemmer]

Well, what do you expect? Religions (monotheist religions at least, I know little of polytheist ones) are generally highly patriarchial. Christianity surely is: Two thirds of the trinity are male, as are most priest (and ALL Catholic ones). Eve is made from one of Adam's bones. Paulus says clearly: "The man was not made from the woman, but the woman from the man. And man was not made for the woman's sake, but the women for man's"

If you thought that was bad, you should see the stories that didn't make it into the Bible. The first woman, Lilith, was made from the dust as Adam was and argued this made her his equal. Adam refused, so she left the Garden of Eden and sired demons' children instead.

Yup. And mankind is a sexist word in almost all contexts, as the focus is put firmly on only one half of the persons. To use "Man" is even worse though. I would again like to promote the word "humanity".

And I argue promoting that term will ultimately fail. One language trend is the compacting of common words to cut down on size and syllables: television to TV, compact disk to CD, refrigerator to fridge, etc. Political correctness constantly fights this trend, and the result seems unnatural and forced. Changing 'he' to 'he or she' drives writers up the wall and sticks out like a sore thumb. 'African-americans' has finally been accepted after decades of promotion, but it has a whopping five syllables, double the standard 2-3 syllables used to describe race. And 'humanity' will constantly be abbrievated to 'man' for reasons that have nothing to do with prejudice. That's what happens when political correctness clashes with language flow.