Join the new world

Edited with as neutral a slant possible, some text has been reordered so it makes sense, and some has been changed purely for grammatical purposes, I now present to you a debate between Jamesw and Dishmcds, hosted by Connor West and Roz on an IRC Channel this evening.

Q1 Connor_West> An anonymous APP member would like to know the candidates opinions on MM regulation. Is it pointless or impossible now? What can we do about the economy?

Dishmcds> The Monetary Market is quite a bit more difficult than it used to be, obviously. The changes have made it very easy to trade Gold into currency, but very difficult to trade currency to Gold with the abundance of currency out there (and the bot buying things off the market). While it's not pointless to trade currencies at beneficial rates, it's not a viable tactic to really "regulate" the monetary market like we used to. Overall, with their introduction to the health, land, and currency for companies, it's made the economy more self sustainable without needing to regulate the market.

jamesw> The traditional method of regulating the MM is now unworkable: through botscripts, a chance in the regulations and WAM: we will never see that sort of regulation again, unless we want to lose all our gold. That doesn't, however, mean that we can't try new things, to increase the value of GBP. First and foremost, the government has tried to do this by taking GBP out of circulation, and hoarding it. We've done it since the changes, and its pretty clear, its not enough on its own. This is where other, newer methods, of attempting to "regulate" the MM come in. Firstly, MPPs, land purchases, new companies: they all use GBP. They remove it from circulation (just as the government has done, by hoarding). However, they also increase the amount of GBP that citizens deal with, and hold themselves. Thats why I want to increase competition in our iron market, as well as give people a lot of GBP to help with startup costs: because not only does it keep it out of circulation permanently (which is already done by government hoarding) but it also enables that citizen to then effectively keep a much higher amount of GBP on their citizen, and thus, off the open market.Its things like this which will lead to an eventual rise in GBP: but if you think we're going to see a return to V1/V2 pegs where GBP is worth 0.03g+, then you'll have to get admin to change the module

Dishmcds> It's all well and good to say that you can just give GBP away to people, but as we've seen, things like the SBA and in my opinion this land scheme, only have small, limited successes. What I was talking about also uses money, removes it from circulation, and burns it, but it does so in an organised fashion, which is, in my opinion, a much more controlled way.

jamesw> This isn't an unorganised response: its a decentralised one. At present, the only removal of GBP we have, is taxing people. I would much rather also have a way of removing GBP, whilst also helping newer players get more companies, income, and thus fighting power/economic power, and also helping our iron market




Q2 roz> Question 2 is from betafoxtrot, "What are your thoughts on the parliamentary budget act repeal?"

jamesw> Firstly, its congress's right to repeal, etc. So on that part, I can't disagree. What I will say, is that I would've liked to see a chance to reform the budgetary committee, before consigning it to the dustbin. As I outlined in my economic manifesto, (http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-jamesw-how-to-fix-our-four-king-economy1-1789328/1/20) should PBA be removed, I would bring back MoF to allow congress the chance to have some meaningful oversight on economic matters.

Dishmcds> inre the PBA, I was all for giving Congress more power, since per the game mechanic the money belongs to Congress. Under the PBA, we've seen MoHA use more money and do more this month in terms of prizes, moving, and awards, we've actually assigned numbers to what manageable costs were for Alliances and military, and we've even begun working on improving funding to the military to give out more supplies. Those things all started with the first budget. If Congress chooses to remove it, personally, I don't have an issue with making sure we're spending for our citizenry. What I did have an issue with before was that people did bare minimum in most cases because they were too afraid of asking for a little GBP, which is ludicrous given the amount in storage. And, in the end, if Congress doesn't take the initiative to get involved in how money is spent, then I'm in agreeance with removing it, but I'd prefer if Congress were a bit more proactive.

jamesw> I'd firstly like to question how Dishmcds thinks that the PBA really involved congress. At the base level, all of the work, and analysis was done outside of the congressional theatre, in closed doors; ironically, how it was done under the executive-lead budget we had in the past. I'd much rather see congress actually offering oversight, as opposed to rubber stamping the work of people who aren't representing congress. Secondly, Why dish seems to think that people didn't ask for money out of fear, is beyond me: do you have any evidence that when our expenses become GBP-based, ministers couldn't, or wouldn't ask for what they thought they needed?

Dishmcds> As to the first one, Congress was presented an itemised list of expenses to each Ministry, and how they were used. They could have suggested any budget they wanted, changed things, or done anything they wanted, yet they didn't. They chose to use almost the exact same budget as provided. Can't criticise unless you're willing to look within first. Secondly, I'd dare you to ask the MoD how much he asked for before the budget was introduced, and why supplies were so limited. They'll tell you 10K per fortnight, and this actually let them give more out. Speaks for itself.

jamesw> You presented an itemisted list, and your "preferred budget" or "recommended budget" - how this will encourage congressional discussion, when the majority of our players have little hope of arguing with you, I will never know.




Q3 Connor_West> Alright, the next questions concerns our foreign situation. How do the candidates feel about the current foreign situation of the eUK? Should we stay neutral? Is neutral working? Should we try to move to a large alliance? What are your plans?

Dishmcds> For now, we're doing fine, but we're going to eventually be forced to realise which allies we want to side with. It may not be this month, or next, but whenever that is, the major question is, which is more important. We have our Alliance with Serbia and our old ONE PHX friends, or Germany and Argentina. Time will tell, for the most part, and our population needs to be united in this decision, because we can't repeat SaraDroz-style Foreign Affairs where we have the Government fighting for Sweden and the Population fighting for Germany. Essentially, we'll have to choose at some point, Strasbourg, or Serbia and Co, and the population, Congress, and Cabinet all need to be in contact to ensure we make the choice that the majority of the UK wants to make, not just the Executive and Congress.

jamesw> Firstly, i want to make a distinction: we aren't really neutral. That is what the really really shit countries say, because neither alliance will let them in. We have purposely decided to shun them both, for now. To be honest, so long as our allies are happy to keep a mutually-reciprocal relationship with us, I dont see the need for alliance membership. That said, if an attractive offer comes, I will put that to both congress, and the population, and if popular, (so long as it isn't doing something outrageous like joining EDEN, or Luna) then I am happy to commit to an alliance. Secondly, what we have now, on the whole, is working ok. We haven't ever really been without an alliance since the big split came, so I dont see the need to rush into ONE, or back into Terra. If the botched Terra membership joining, and leaving, didn't teach us that, then nothing ever will.

Dishmcds> Small correction, that should read Germany and France in the first line. And while I agree with jamesw on the fact that we're not truly neutral, we're also not in a position to really look at entry into one either. We're hardly prepared, in terms of military size, or commitment to any one group of allies to bother looking at full membership, whether we're asked or not. We need to stay where we are, find a way to improve the UK to a point of being "ready", and THEN look at which side helps us the most.

jamesw> I'm not so sure I agree, tbh. We are one of the few nations that hasn't been prepared to drop friends: thats admirable, but when alliances are concerned, as I have repeatedly stated, they are mutually exclusive, so the time will come where we need to prioritise one set of our Phoenix allies: so long as congress and the population are happy to do so, then so am I. Also, in terms of our military strength, we out-damage members of both alliances, so i dont see where we are atm stops us joining (as well as economic strength, etc). Also, I should add, I am referring to both our armies, and our total damage including alfa




Q4 roz> another foreign affairs question posed by aidizzle "In regards to Ireland, what do you realistically see us achieving by July 4th? Total wipe? Louth and fruit? Or original borders?"

jamesw> As always, I have a few tricks up my sleeve I hope to play. I don't want to forecast too far into the future: as we have seen, things can change drastically on a daily basis, as well as a weekly one. So I wouldn't want to try and inb4 admins, one off events etc by saying what i think we could do. What I would hope we can do is another matter: and that is, ofc, a wipe timed to hurt them the most. Both Dishmcds and I have committed to the Irish war, and we've both been involved at some level, with BCH: so I think this is something we're both pretty matched on

Dishmcds> It's awesome to say that you think you can wipe another country, but as my Northern opponent has mentioned, in war things change. Main goals for me aren't necessarily wiping Ireland, although if a solution doesn't present itself that helps the UK as much as possible then that would be the best possible outcome of the war. In the end, I care more about improving the UK and keeping it as fun as possible, and not ending the Irish conflict unless, or until a better option comes available. Even Ireland can't say this hasn't been good for their retention and economy, so it's actually helpful to more than us. The problem in Ireland, unlike us, is that they're broke, so they couldn't sustain it, whereas we could. I would bet before they were wiped they'd offer a solution, but that would remain to be seen. And I'd use any means necessary to come out with that outcome.

jamesw> They aren't broke, they have over 100k IEP, and although less gold by quite a while, they still have "adequate" reserves - also both the UK and Ireland aren't going to be the biggest damage contributors to this war, so any mis-match between UK/Ireland, whilst nice to know, and useful to try and tip it in our favour, it alone won't be the deciding factor

Dishmcds> 100K IEP isn't a "lot", and it barely covers their MPPs for two months (especially signing them with countries about to be wiped). I'd bet the UK is in a much much stronger position to carry on a long term war than Ireland is, certainly, and will be for a very long time.




Q5 roz> a further FA related question from UK's Finest "How will you deal with the diplomatic situation involving Germany and Poland? With potential war between Hungary and Germany/France, how will we respond?" and from deathrider: "Is there any chance that we would move closer to ONE?"i put them together because they are related.

Dishmcds> It's hard to say how you respond to a situation like that until it arises. Until now, we've kept Germany as our ally, and I would expect that to remain the same along with France and Germany unless something presents itself which is unique (such as France or Germany themselves aligning against us somehow). we haven't supported aggression into either country. And we won't unless our relations change drastically. I can't see why we would, either.

jamesw> The Germany/Poland situation also includes Sweden, and the only real impact we can have, is to not only utilise our friendship with MKD, Serbia, and to a lesser extent, slovenia/iran/indo/etc to try and lobby for a better deal for germany. As well as this, Poland are, and will continue, to seek better relations with us. I see no issue in using this to try to secure some concessions for germany, and ultimately, look to use the diplomatic route to get them regions back, as neither Terra nor EDEN seem to be helping them. In regard to France/Hungary, I would gladly support France in that war, but I'm not yet convinced France is Hungary's destination: they're looking at economic expansion, and for them, that is impossible because of the needs of Poland, Slovakia and Austria; nations they are committed to, diplomatically. (economic expansion referring to france's regions)

Dishmcds> Most of that, in specific sense, is correct, although I was referring to it in a broad sense. If we're looking at the entire alliance desires of ONE, then it would have been answered before in our question about alliances. If we're not in an alliance, we can pick and choose, which we wouldn't have to do (especially in that specific sense).




Q6 Connor_West> Alright, the next question concerns recruitment and/or retention. The eUK is a relatively small country, and is being outgrown by others around the world. Does either candidate have any innovate plans to boost recruitment/retention efforts? Feel free to expand on that.

jamesw> Well, recruitment-wise, there are a few options I'd like to discuss. Firstly, trying to fundraise for some ads on massive UK forums/communities like IGN. Another option, is to utilise political parties in game, to try and woo political activitists from both political based, and UK party based forums. Other than that, I can't see how we can really improve things recruitment wise. As for retention, I'm hopeful that my scheme to allow newer players to be able to afford companies of their own will keep players interested. As well as that, I'm going to announce a bit of a chance in the military that I'd like to see tomorrow, which will entice new players to not only get more involved, but hopefully, stay more involved. Other than that, another option for recruitment I'm currently exploring, is using the great SEO kumnaa has on the forums, for erepublik related terms; if we can take advantage of this, advertising in RL things would be pretty easy; because UK users who search erepublik are linked to our forums and presentation page, above the erep site itself.

Dishmcds> It's foolish to promise higher recruitment, or retention. I liked the offer of having incentives to get people to recruit for the forums, and overall we need to do a more creative job in trying to get people to join there, but we also need to continue to do the small things that kept us all here to begin with. The war has done a little, encouraging people to get involved with an MU, at least something to let them meet some of our older active players. The problem with having new players own more companies that the 4 they are given is that working in them takes away from damage, and rank that they can get first few days, so we need to just work harder on trying to get them involved, while looking for other ways to recruit that are outside of normal avenues. I'm sure with 200+ people on the forums, we should be able to find a way to get a few players into the game. It's not about recruiting 5,000 new players at once, it's about keeping the 50~ or so we get per day to actually stay.

jamesw> Different people stay for different things: its clear that the missions/etc are helping more stay now, but not everyone is transfixed with their strength or rank: offering an alternative reason to stay (economic success) can only help other than that, recruitment/retention is something that everyone has discussed for so long, that its hard to actually have an opinion that hasn't already been attempted, discussed, or ruled out

Dishmcds> I would tend to agree, but in the first few days, if we want to improve as a country, the simple fact is that 1400 rank points, which is just a few days fighting at a new level, is 3 ranks. Taking that away by trying to make them work at 29 companies is counterproductive.

jamesw> There is a difference between 1 company, and 29.

Dishmcds> They already get 4

jamesw> you cannot count shitty grain as a real company.




Q7 roz> this comes from the_grump and an anonymous TUP member "How will your administration differ from Artela's term?" and secondly "how long until you face your first impeachment?" 😛

Dishmcds> Everyone has their own style of management and how involved in each Ministry they are. From what I've seen, I intend to be a bit more communicative throughout the term than Artela has been (which started strong and waned towards the last weeks), and I intend to put more in game than the last few Administrations have done trying to get everyone involved, and work within each Ministry, each day off of a daily checklist posted in Cabinet for the Ministers and UnderMinisters. As for impeachment, I expect both of us to get the first one before the first week of office, although truth be told, all the parties in the UK are mature enough to know that whoever wins the vote will do the job, and true impeachment will be saved for when someone actually does something wrong.

jamesw> less ironing and cooking, more bold text and no-one will impeach me, otherwise who is there to blame? Oh, and like Dishmcds - more ingame reports/etc




Q8 Connor_West> Alright, moving on now: The next question has to do with PTO. This question came from an APP forum-user. "Can we set up an organisation with ATO responsibility so that it isn't so slap dash and IF things go wrong we then have people who can account for their actions rather than stupid bitching in PD about who's fault it was. If not can CPs start organising way ahead of time so we don't have a mad rush. It's no good waiting until PP elections as the PTOers now have enough to take over a party."

jamesw> I outlined my ATO stuff here: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-jamesw-how-to-beat-four-king-croatians-oh-and-cabinet--1787404/1/20 . To be blunt, I dont feel the need to appoint someone, I'm going to oversee it myself, and make sure its done well in advance. Its not hard, so long as you keep active lines of communication, make sure everyone is aware of what needs to happen, and pester people until they rage, until things are done

Dishmcds> To be honest, this ATO/PTO has been beat to death, and isn't as complicated as some make it seem. I've outlined that I'd like to create an official unit with the Military of blocker candidates from month to month, which will bring some continuity there, and doing things as soon as possible. For starters, they already had enough people to take a party, which they did a month ago anyway (UKWP). We moved some people around to prevent them from being in top 5. This time around, we just need to gather as many blockers as we can starting now through the military, and use them for ATO voting in parties. Once that's finished, then we move on to keeping lines of communication open, and barring complications, we could even move a party out of the Top 5 if need be. It just depends on what scenario presents itself.

jamesw> not complicated as some make it seem, huge posts. In regard to ATO: I am not ruling anything out, and as I said, i would throw everything, anything, anyone and everyone, at whoever, whenever, so that they're fucked whatever they try. Simple.

Dishmcds> And I think you'll find that we'd probably both use the exact same measures, to be completely honest in stopping the PTO, since we've both done so in the past, so you won't find much difference in methodology.

jamesw> pretty much i will just use more bold text
Dishmcds> And I'll use more pictures.




Q9 roz> the next question is a composite of many people's questions, it is in regard to ministry staffing. "Can you comment on who will be filling the various ministry roles? In particular, who will be your Vice and how large of a role will they have?"

Dishmcds> My Vice will be my Hermano, Frerk, as we're completely hivemind. I haven't completely set Cabinet, so it would be premature to comment on other positions, but Frerk's main responsibilities will be to be a Darkie while I'm not here, and be available since we're on opposite time zones. I usually put my VP's in charge of keeping on top of the MoHA, as the Domestic side, which Kara will attest to, and I don't see a reason to change that now. Otherwise, it will be the best of whoever applies for each position, regardless of relationship, party, or political affiliation.

jamesw> My VP is Emergy: his main role is basically the same as mine: do everything, help everyone, and just be around. He's also my early day-time coverage, and will be my MoF now that PBA has been repealed. In regard to other positions, I'm still receiving applications, and will wait until tomorrow before I confirm them




Q10 Connor_West> What do you view as the greatest issue facing the eUK? How would your administration tackle this problem, and what do you hope to have accomplished by the end of your term?

jamesw> We have a few, tbh. Firstly, the PTO is a pretty important one: we need to nip it in the bud, before they turn us into Ireland. By the end of my term, I'd hope that we have a much better military supply, a more informed, engaged and pro-active community, much more transparency and accountability, and above all else, some goddamn fruit. Focusing on one issue, over the course of a month, is aiming far too low; so i'd prioritise all of the above

Dishmcds> You really can't isolate any one issue that is "more important" than the other. We have the PTO, which we need to stop, the absolute apathy that we have as a country towards the game in general, our resources or lack thereof, and the improvements we could make in our military are all high priority and need improving to tackle them, you have to allow the community to be engaged, and keep their attention. You have to make each player intrigued enough to come back to the forums. It's not about being a "liked" CP. It's about peaking their interest, whether it's you pissing them off, or you giving them a bunch of money. I'd aim to improve our resources, military damage output, organisation, and try to actually leave the country a more excited, less apathetic place, that people actually give a shit enough to care about and show up each day.




Connor_West> Does either candidate have any closing statements before we open to public input?
I think that was a decent closing argument, outside of VOTEDISHVOTEDISHVOTEDISH

jamesw> I am going to be controversial, I have a question for Dishmcds. USA want to rent wales: would you do it for 100g p/m?

Dishmcds> Not straight for Gold, no. I'd prefer to ask for resources if we're going to go into a deal where we're giving away regions, especially with a neighbour we share borders with.

jamesw> lets pretend resources aren't an option because they dont trust us, and by lets pretend, i mean i will say what they said, 'for toast?'

Dishmcds> Then I'd go to France. Absolutely, but only if they have jam.

jamesw> They've made it pretty clear they dont want to, so unless you're invading, that isn't really an option :3

Dishmcds> I could rebut, but I'd be leaking from Congress, but you're wrong. :3

jamesw> There isn't any CP candidate who is more pro-UK than the past ones who have been unable to persuade their congress, so i will rebut your non-rebut ❤

roz> Connor_West and I will bring this to a close, thank you to the candidates for attending and providing such thoughtful responses, and thank you also to all that attended the debates.