Term 1 - Nominations for Foreign Affairs Minister

[Chieftess]

These are the traditional duties and powers of all ministers:

Post polls and discussions to determine citizen desires for departmental policies, plans and agendas.
Cast a tie-breaking vote in the polls determining their departmental policies, plans and agendas.
Formulate departmental policies, plans and agendas based on citizen feedback.
Formulate departmental policies, plans and agendas of their own in the absence of citizen feedback (forum outage, low participation, etc).
Convey these policies, plans and agendas to the President for play in the game.

These are the duties assigned to the Minister of Foreign Affairs :

Organize decisions on declarations of war.
Organize decisions on peace treaties.
Organize decisions on construction of embassies.
Organize decisions on rights of passage.
Organize decisions on trade embargoes.
Organize decisions on mutual protection pacts.
Organize decisions on placement of spies.
Organize decisions on intelligence gathering, spying and sabotage.

Please Accept or Decline any nominations you receive.

 

[BCLG100]

i nominate immortal for this position and CivGeneral

 

[Immortal]

Accepted..

 

[GenMarshall]

I wish to accept my nomination

 

[Cyc]

I will second both Immortal and CivGeneral.

 

[Bootstoots]

A self-nomination here.

I accept, btw.

 

[Cyc]

I'll second Boots. Tough competition here.

 

[Sarevok]

I second CG and Boots

 

[Provolution]

I here by nominate the undersigned to the post as Minister of Foreign Affairs

Provolution

and accepts the nomination in full.

Program meeting the expectations of the position of office and the people:

Program of the Provolution Party

Provolution seeks to fulfill the obligations and objectives of the Ministry throught the deliberate handling of documentation, decision processes and throroguh reporting. The Ministry will establish an Intelligence Committee where various intelligence needs will be addressed and sustain these activities with a vigilant and focussed diplomacy. The Ministry will dutifully set the agenda, and caucus the consensus or majority for any given action within our mandate. Nevertheless, Provolution will set up the course for Foreign Affairs with a firm hand, and assure that a productive course will be followed, especially in the absence of qualified feedback.

Since we do not know what the CIV world will be like, I will generically set up the following Policy Memos, short and succinct for effective decisionmaking.

The ten memos, based on your input will be:

1. General vision for the National Interest of Japan
2. Plan for the Future Border and national ambition
3. Principles of Japan for International Agreements
4 Definition of Casus Belli and Sanctions
5. Trade Embargo Cooperation with Minister of Trade
6. National Security Advisory to Minister of Defense
7. Publication : "Japanese Enemy of the Millenium and Century"
8 Joint Memo with President Elect on the International Agenda
9. Final Report on the Provolution Ministry
10. Special Request for a small Foreign Ministry Force

I will support any Presidential alternative that can back up this agenda
So Presidential candidates

contact me at tobetested@hotmail.com

Yours
Provolution

 

[Noldodan]

Provolution, I like your preparedness! You've got my vote!

 

[Ankka]

My vote too. That looks like an official campaign there.

 

[Epimethius]

Well, what the hell, I have more than enough experiance here to give running a try. If people can run for seven positions at once, I guess I can run for three.

I self nominate and accept.

I have a great deal of experiance in the field of foreign affairs, having attended summer school on the subject (as a...er, punishment), and played numerous forum based geopolitical games. I'm also accustomed to the game (obviously), though not to this particular job. So I have experiance in the field, just not in the job. Probably not nearly as much as Provolution, but then my real field of expertise lies in Domestic Affairs.

 

[Sarevok]

Debate Question:

Lets Say the first Civ we run into is the Aztecs, and they are highly antagonistic. They also have nearby cities holding key resources. The Military can attack them and because of the acces to them will be able to defeat them. Would you try to go for Diplomacy or would you encourage "Agressive Expansionism"? Please give specific details on any plans you would have in dealing with a highly hostile neighbour.

 

[GenMarshall]

Personaly I would go for an agressive expansionism if we have enough military units. Since I am taking this scenario in view like we are still in the ancent ages, Alliance with other civs wont be advalible untill nationalism.

 

[Immortal]

Debate Question:

Lets Say the first Civ we run into is the Aztecs, and they are highly antagonistic. They also have nearby cities holding key resources. The Military can attack them and because of the acces to them will be able to defeat them. Would you try to go for Diplomacy or would you encourage "Agressive Expansionism"? Please give specific details on any plans you would have in dealing with a highly hostile neighbour.

As the Aztecs have an early UU, I would suggest diplomatic relations with them in the early period. However, if victory is ensured I would suggest aggression. I would of course poll the citizenry on their opinions of the Aztecs, then base my suggestions around this. Before my suggestions are given in the instructions thread I would hold a formal poll ensuring the majority of the citizens agree with my proposal and WOTP is upheld.

 

[Epimethius]

The Aztecs have an early UU, and are highly agressive. Unless these resources are essential (we don't have horses but they do, or something) I would suggest we not attack until a later time. Even if they were essential, I would suggest that we use diplomacy to try and gain these resources (which would, of course, take a while) or, more likely, continue exploration in hope that we could find unclaimed sources of the resources. If none existed, I'd declare war, but only until the resources are gained. Before doing so I would hold a public poll to make sure the public agreed with this decision.

 

[Bootstoots]

Debate Question:

Lets Say the first Civ we run into is the Aztecs, and they are highly antagonistic. They also have nearby cities holding key resources. The Military can attack them and because of the acces to them will be able to defeat them. Would you try to go for Diplomacy or would you encourage "Agressive Expansionism"? Please give specific details on any plans you would have in dealing with a highly hostile neighbour.

I would most definitely go for "aggressive expansionism," if it looked like victory was certain. They'd be a real pain for us in the future if we didn't, and knocking them out early and taking their resources would be a great help in the long run. Granted, they do have an early UU, but if as you said we will be able to defeat them regardless, there's no good reason not to go for war. I don't really see what diplomacy can gain that war can't in this case.

Of course, I'd leave the decision up to the people by posting a discussion and a poll, but I'd strongly push war in this case.

 

[Provolution]

Sarevok

I would operate in full on the basis of trying out less costly means, if we can trade their goods for an afforable price (cheaper than a military campaign), I do, if we can pressurize their border with new bordercities in order to grab the resource effectively without war. If either of these operations are untenable, we shold attack at aour time and choosing and get the resource.

However, if the same resource is way behind their border, and a prolonged war is the only way to get it, it is not worth the trouble. Yet , do not forget that we do not know the game world in detail, lay of the land and so on.
Furthermore, we also have ravaging barbarians at the Monarch level, so we may as well take it easy with the Aztecs if we have these to deal with.

What I learnt from the military education I possess, is that you never solve incomplete case studies without serious reservation. So when posing us trick questions, I would like to see more complete scenarios and risk environments.
Which other civs have we met, what is the situation, barbarian levels, more unexlored land, procimity of coast, defense positions in mountains, volcanoes,
distance to strategic resource and so on.

As we are not allowed to form political platforms for some strange reason, I could have put up a program explaining how I envision a CIV game to unfold with a particular CIV in a particular environment, but the sanctioning of such a freedom of organization (very undemocratic however), reduces the political interaction to become an ad hoc squabble of individuals.

Program platforms would be easier for newbees like me to find a ground in this game, without stretching widely into all directions. In fact, I would like to amend the bylaws in order to assure the right to organize program platforms in a regulated manner, now that they spend energy on legalities.

But I thank you for that question, and as a candidate for a military minister, in which I bet you would do fine, I think we could coperate quite well.

Yours
Provolution

Debate Question:

Lets Say the first Civ we run into is the Aztecs, and they are highly antagonistic. They also have nearby cities holding key resources. The Military can attack them and because of the acces to them will be able to defeat them. Would you try to go for Diplomacy or would you encourage "Agressive Expansionism"? Please give specific details on any plans you would have in dealing with a highly hostile neighbour.

 

[Sarevok]

Good answers people

Next questions:

2. We are doing well in our settler expansion, and we have explored much of the map. We are currently on a continent that at this point looks similar to Africa's shape (except we arent in the south yet). We have met the Persians, Indians, and Russians. The persians are dominating the west coasts, India is just south of them, Russia is in the north, and we are in the East. All of these nations share a common border except Russia and India. By strength, we are stronger than India, as strong as Russia, and weaker than Persia. We are rich in Horses and Iron resources along our Persian Border, while only India has the other Iron source seen on the map. Persia and Russia have large amounts of luxuries and Horses. Persia threatens us over Iron, What would you do?

3. Going off the previous questions description of the situation, Persia decides instead to threaten and invade India over their Iron. India is now offering you Iron and a decent amount of gold if you join the war in an alliance with them. Russia is staying out, more interested in barbarians and exploration. What would you do?

 

[GenMarshall]

2. I would ask the Military Department to build up an armed force so that we have a ranking that we are stronger than the Persians. Then I would ask the citizens if we should go to war to protect our iron interests in the region. If they desire for peace, I would then ask the culture department and the govenors to consider building culture related building to ensure that the Persian borders to remain away from us.

3. If the Iron is engulfed by the Persian culture border. I would ask the trade advisor to see if it is alright to go ahead to go along with getting the iron and gold with the alliance vs the Persians.