I must apologize, because at the forums I visited before I came here no one complains much about negetive campaigning. And if they did, they meant real negetive campaigning, not taking someone literally. You said the first page. That's whats on the first page, and nothing more. I took your word on it. I don't think that is negetive campaigning. I pointed out that the most vocal supporters of yours support not you but the name you would give to a province. That is a simple observation, and I don't think that drawing a rather obvious conclusion from that is negetive campaigning either. I didn't campaign against you when I said you should vote for a platform, not a name. But rather than post your platform like I gave you numerous opertunities to do, which would have not only shut me up but also showed you're willing to actually do something, you just accused me of negative campaigning. If you thing this is negative campaign, you're a very naive person. Even in this shielded world without cursing or political parties that's naive.
So quit complaining about negative campaigning. I'll put up with not being able to say certain things, but I won't put up with this. If you can't handle a remotely competitive election, then don't run against someone with ten terms of experiance.
Since you're too lazy to do anything besides complain about my asking you to do it yourself, I've posted your platform for you. I'm such a nice guy, aren't I? Not only did I do my platform (three pages long), but I also copied Noldodan's and collected yours. All that work for nothing. And all because of a stupid asterix.
We are currently at war with a very close neighbor. Your city is near the border with another civilization (at peace), the neighboring city is their capital (!). Your city is the primary production city of the nation and currently has orders to build strictly military units. The war has been going on for some time now, the citizens are unhappy and will riot soon if any happiness (temple) buildings aren't going to be built. What do you do, defy orders and prevent rioting or keep the pour of troops constant?
It depends on the situation. If it gives the neighbor a good chance to flip the city (they have alot of culture) then a temple or similar improvement may be needed, but if the neighbor doesn't have much in the way of culture then I would just use entertainers in the city. I would remain open minded about any such situations and would listen to any advice given. If someone sees a better way of doing it, I'm all ears
Germany has just declared war on us, they are a stronger country than us but we could defeat them by holding them off and building military units. You are currently building large amounts of key improvements, most of them over the shield count for Swordsmen. You are certain that the immediate conversion to war-economy would do damage and slow down our development, yet without the key units steadily built up for the war, we will surely lose. What would you do?
I would switch the cities are building improvements not as vital (the ones not building wonders and much needed improvements) in a general situation, but numbers should be crunched before any action would be taken. I will also discuss production plans with other govs (if there were any).
How do you plan to decide upon buildqueues - will you hold discussions and polls on it or decide yourself, based on what the citizens and office-holders have expressed they need and want?
I'll poll where I have time and is a big undertaking (turnwise), and take advice for what I don't have time for or is somewhat trivial. On the other hand, I would put up polls once we have several cities to see what people want to do with each one such as military buildup, cultural buildup, or make some into settler, worker factories so I can get a general sense of what people want.
What do you consider more important: the stability of the government or the will of the people?
That's a hard one. This is a Democracy game. It's 'mob rule' my friend. I must go with the will of the people, right, wrong, or somewhere in between, it is what this game is based upon. I don't play to win, it's just a bonus when we do. Taking away the Democracy part ruins the game, IMHO.
Do you plan to use mayors actively as assistants who can help with preparation of instructions, or as merely figureheads who can promote RPG-type activity for their cities, or something else?
1) They will be assistants. They can do whatever they want RPG wise, but I need mayors I know will do their job. It would be their job to propose builds for their cities and citizen assignment (laborer, entertainer, etc).
Do you think micro-management instructions should be explicit (work this set of tiles) or generic (maximize food production for growth / maximize shield production)? In other words, do you trust the DP to use flexibility in balancing production to meet the type of goal you're after?
2) Micromanagement is one of the things that seperates a casual player from a higher level one. It is needed and should be done to max out what is needed. I trust the DP, but it isn't the DP's job to micromanage everthing. That's why there are Domestic jobs outside the 'federal' Domestic Department.
How would you respond if a DP makes a mistake on a build queue, worker action, or micro management? Assuming of course that there is no evidence that the DP did this intentionally.
3) People make mistakes, and complaining about it won't solve anything. If it is continuous, then there may be a problem. Since this is a game, it should be taken only lightly.
And of course, the on province name: "Zarnia, but Celeste is a close, close second. Maybe I should poll it."
There you go. Now, if you'd just been willing to do that yourself, there would have been no "negative campaigning," i.e. me urging you to do it yourself.
I hope you'll be more willing to do things yourself when in office, because I won't be your deputy.
