- Pronouns
- he / him / his
"In Close Decision, ENN Panelists Say Pierce Wins The VP Debate"
HEM
Editor-In-Chief
Below is a lightly edited transcript of ENN's panel discussion of this election's Vice Presidential debate. Read through our panelists' reactions to the candidates' answers to a variety of questions in one of the most exciting VP debates of this year. You can read through a full transcript of the Vice Presidential debate HERE.
HEM: Alrighty folks, here's how this is going to go. I'm going to post each question here chronologically, and we can discuss how you think the two candidates did on the question.
In your first comment, give a broad strokes thought on how each candidate did and then score them both out of "5" (with 5/5 being best and 1/5 being worst). Then you can make one additional comment responding to other panelists if you'd like. Let's get started!
OPENING STATEMEMT said:
Johnny Costello: I'm gonna say 4/5 for Pierce, 2/5 for Rach. Pierce really opened well by laying our an array of experience and built a good open with why Sopo choose him, being "drive." Rach seemed more nonchalant in her open. She didn't lay any plans out just kinda gave an introduction like at a Networking event.
JayDee: The opening statements definitely set the tone for the rest of the debate. Pierce's statement is longer and more fleshed out than Rachael's. You can quickly tell Pierce is going for a more grandiose speech with a "call to arms" style which contrasts greatly with Rachael's simple and straightforward method. From experience, I would say Pierce's method is much more effective since it draw more people in while a statement as short as Rachael's tends to turn people away. However, the statement didn't seem to leave any information out so she definitely has a complete statement. On the other side, Pierce seems to go on the offensive on several occasions, including this opening statement. Something that will inevitably attract some people to his ticket, but nonetheless turn others away. Pierce: 3.5/5 Rachael: 3/5
Kari: Pretty basic by both. Though Pierce's is stronger it is somewhat analytical by citing the issues before the region, though he plays well by outlining his experience in detail within and outside of Europeia in detail 3/5. Rachael appeals more to the "community" and her belief in its capabilities, which could play well 2/5.
Le Libertie: Based off of my own personal opinion, I would rate Pierce as a 5 and Rachael as a 4. Pierce’s statement was clearly prepared beforehand, and he immediately begins addressing some of the loudest concerns the citizenry have regarding him. Displaying his political skills in detail and showing preparedness is precisely what he needs to do to address concerns about his status as a newcomer. Rach’s reply also addresses the concerns of the citizenry, which check off what I would consider to be the base requirements for a good reception. But in comparison to Pierce’s reply, it seems rather small, and seemingly not prepared beforehand. One thing that concerns people about Rach is her hesitance to fully engage in politics directly, which I think somewhat shows in her reply.
HEM: Great: any responses to fellow panelists?
Le Libertie: Out of curiosity, what would fellow panelists have rated as a 5? Your ratings seem to indicate a somewhat low level of approval, so what is the ideal introduction?
JayDee: I'm looking for someone to convince me. At this point, neither side has convinced me 100%. If one of the candidates manages to convince me to their line of thinking then I give them a 5. As it stands, both opening statements were the pretty generic run-of-the-mill "I love Europeia" schtick
Kari: Pierce gave an average opening statement for a seasoned politician, if one new to euro, hence 3. Rach gave a poor and sparse statement with little detail hence 2.
Johnny Costello: I'd touch on what Kari says about Rach appealing to "community' and urge us not to downplay that tactic. I've seen it work greatly in RL politics and can go far. As for LL asking my lower scores. I rated Rach a 2 based on her seeming preparedness of her statement. I'd rate a 5 more structured and having Experience, future plans, and a small conclusion to the opening statement
OPENING FINAL SCORES:
Piece: 15.5 / 20 ***WINNER***
Rachael: 11/ 20
QUESTION ONE: What kind of experience do you have to be VP? said:
JayDee: There's no doubting that, despite her reservations about politics, Rachael has definitely involved herself in more regions than Pierce. Pierce, on the other hand, seems to prefer a more narrow approach, involving himself heavily in one region; KoGB in this case. I think in terms of raw NS experience, they both bring an equal amount to the table. However, Rachael has much more experience in executive roles, such as her time as Grand Admiral, whereas Pierce seems to gravitate towards the legislative arena. If I were to grade the two on experience relative to the title of Vice President I'd have to go with this. Pierce: 3 Rachael: 4
Kari: Overall the use of initialisms throughout by both Pierce and Rach here was a mistake on their parts, it reads like gibberish to anyone not in the know and they could stand for anything. Outside of that it was the very generic "this is what i have done" by both. Though Pierce's jab of "What differentiates me is that I've been in serious positions..." is a very note worthy early attack on the suitability of Rach and her experience. The discussion section, however, paints a clear picture for the flow of the rest of the debate, with Rach citing her experience and how it is not just confined to the NS Military followed by Pierce attempting to discredit it as well as attack Rach over her apolitical stance, resulting in Rach needing to defend her experience. Pierce 4/5 Rach 3/5
Le Libertie: My rating here follows a similar pattern: I rate Pierce a 3 and Rachael as a 3.5. Both candidates basically listed off their past positions, which was already done in their platforms. They also both do a mediocre job at explaining how their positions better prepare them for the job of VP. However, Rach points that she has direct experience in Europeia, which Pierce does not, which was the slight tip in scales towards her. I don’t think Pierce adequately explains why he is especially unique compared to her.
Johnny Costello: Rach took hold here by offering a wide array of tasks at home and abroad, also citing Empress, which may not be our President or VP but it's a high level. She, however, missed the opponent part of that Question. I'd rate 4.5/5.
As for Pierce, I feel he saw Empress and rolled with Rachs punch. While acting PM is good he talks about the championing of legislation. He also missed the mark for Opponent in this question. I'm rating 4/5.
HEM: Okay, any responses to your fellow panelists?
JayDee: As a note, I'm a bit hesitant to give Rachael a four, but I believe her time as Empress of TGO, tumultuous as it may have been, definitely gave her more experience. Pierce does have experience as Prime Minister, but that was only for two weeks and he was more of a lame duck than anything.'
I don't believe we should be putting any of their positions on a pedestal where they don't belong, but both candidates did a good job of presenting themselves as experienced to someone who may not be as familiar with their history throughout NS which is why I think the other comments are a bit more positive than mine.
With the exception of Libertie, who does a pretty good job of digging a bit deeper on the responses than any of us really did.
Le Libertie: I'll add that I also felt a sense that Pierce was 'jumping the gun' with his more attack-oriented statement against Rach. Although I would challenge notions that this was a harsh attack.
Johnny Costello: To Jay. I did not know his PM role was only 2 weeks, (acting could mean anything) but I'd say that hinders Pierce a bit more. You did rate Rach a 4 while holding a high leadership spot, what could make her at 5?
JayDee: I would rate her a five if she could tell me what she accomplished in her positions and why those positions give her the experience necessary to fulfill her role as VP.
Le Libertie: I did not have any contextual knowledge regarding the positions outside of what is Europeian. I'll reiterate that simply stating positions isn't going to convince me unless those positions are adequately explained and justified. I do acknowledge and understand the hindering effect of the time limit though
Q1 FINAL RESULTS:
Pierce: 14 / 20
Rachael: 15 / 20 ***WINNER***
QUESTION TWO - The Leadership Development Program said:
JayDee: Pierce and Rachael are both clearly in favor of it, but Pierce mostly just gives us a bunch of fluff while Rachael seems more willing to get down to the details. It is evident that Rachael has a plan in mind for the LDP whereas Pierce seems a bit unsure of himself which is why his answer appears so broad. I can see that Sopo and Pierce plan on putting someone in charge of the LDP to run it as their sole portfolio, but Pierce doesn't seem to address any problems that have arisen with the LDP. Problems that we know exist based on Rachael's response. That being said, while it doesn't affect my score, Rachael does seem to lose focus on the debate a bit on this portion. Nothing too glaring, but these minor slip-ups can have major consequences down the line.
Pierce: 2
Rachael: 4.5
Kari: Pierce supports the program but fails to bring his participation in it to play, his stance on it would also seem to indicate that he would wish to funnel a large amount of the region's limited resources into the program and effectively create a mini-ministry by appointing a head of the LDP by itself. 2.5/5
Rach would support the LDP but wants to see the region's training materials revamped first. This would be less taxing over the region as a whole as each ministry could just do their part rather than having a dedicated person trying to funnel all major training through the LDP only. Rach then went on to fumble the point by failing to properly read Pierce's response which probably cost her with those watching. 3.5/5
Were it not for the fumble I would score rach a full point higher.
Johnny Costello: Pierce opens by telling us what the LDP is, while hinting about perhaps a LDP director? Or leader? The answer held no substance for me as I already knew that, what we wanted to know was how he would use it.
Rach kinda does the same thing but addresses what is wrong and how to fix it. She offers a plan to step in and help as well. She even mentions seeing the problem while being GA.
Then the discussion opened and got jumbled, I won't hold that in any lack of esteem but I'd say this is where discussion died. It seemed both candidates weren't into it anymore.
I'd give Pierce a 1/5 and Rach a 3/5.
Le Libertie: I rate both candidates as a 2.5 on their responses to this question. Both overall give a very basic analysis of the LDP, containing very little detail regarding specific failures or strengths of the program. Rach’s statement basically boils down to simply updating information, while Pierce says a overseer of the LDP will be appointed. Other than those two facts, both statements could be considered to be ‘fluff.’ While Rach does specifically mention a particular ministry, I don’t think either have demonstrated a thorough enough understanding of the LDP which assures me that the program will be revamped successfully.
HEM: Great. Any responses to your fellow panelists?
JayDee: It seems I was a bit more optimistic about Rachael's response than everyone else. That being said, I don't think we should get stuck on the word "revamp." The LDP is pretty much dead right now and nothing short of a revamp is really going to change that. My biggest concern was substance, and Rachael definitely had substance along with a plan of action whereas Pierce didn't really seem to have much.
Johnny Costello: I must say we all have a trend to give the W to Rach here. What made you even on the response LL? You mention Rach having a bit more understanding if I understand correctly
Le Libertie: One of the most pressing facts that I recall when participating in the LDP as a content creator/mentor is that most of planned lectures/exercises remained uncompleted (including mine), and there is a high possibility given the political turnover that this remains a problem. I really wanted the candidates to address motivating ministers to guide mentors to the LDP process, but they did not.
Like I said Johnny, given the potential of importance of the LDP, I expected more in depth analysis of the program rather than referring only to one ministry or making a somewhat vague statement. I think these problems weigh evenly among both candidates.
Johnny Costello: Ok. I can see that
JayDee: It was natural that Rachael would only refer to one ministry as she's only held a position in said ministry. There's also the time limit we have to think about, otherwise I'm sure Rachael could have covered other areas as well.
Q2 FINAL SCORES:
Pierce: 8 / 20
Rachael: 13.5 / 20 ***WINNER***
JayDee: The responses here are a pretty big 180 in terms of substance compared to the last response. Rachael is very clearly caught off guard by this response so she gives the generic "make ministries work with each other" spiel that every single VP in recent memory has given. It has pretty much become their unofficial duty to make sure ministries work with each other. Pierce, however, delivers a much stronger response here. Personally, I really like Pierce's idea and hope it is implemented one way or another and for the same reason Pierce briefly listed in his response. We definitely need to improve our outreach and I feel like Pierce has a pretty good grasp of that. However, the idea of mentors has been tried on multiple occasions to no avail, so I'm skeptical of it working for the LDP.
Pierce: 4.5 (5 without the LDP mentor idea)
Rachael: 1
Kari: While i think Rach's all level ministry cooperation could work in certain instances, it also has the potential to quickly devolve into everyone doing work for every ministry, and the Cabinet should already be working like this to a degree. 1/5
Pierce's different code for FA updates is a solid idea, but i wonder who he is going to find to do it in the already sparse ministries. Weekly NSGP updates are also a solid idea, but one that has been floating around Euro for months now.
His LDP idea seems to be an attempt to take most of the training away from the ministries themselves and to instead centralise it. While this could work i would also worry about putting too many eggs in one basket and it resulting in no one getting trained adequately at times, as has happened before when "mentorship" has been tried. 4/5
Johnny Costello: Rach here more than fumbles. She didn't even catch the question. The idea is fine as I personally believe that will work. The issue is it has nothing to it. It's too much "Fluff. " and Pierce attacks it in the discussion.
For Pierce I'd say he had a good idea. I'm unsure how it would work or if I agree but the fact he had an idea he was outlining was phenomenal. He pulled "coding" "weekly updates" and "LDP" I'd say he fluffed the LDP idea but I can't fault him as he had an idea.
The discussion went similar.. Pierce came swinging well and crumbled Rach's idea.
Rach 0/5
Pierce 5/5
Le Libertie: I rate Pierce as a 4 and Rach as a 2. Pierce conveys interesting ideas in adequate detail. His ideas show merit, although I question how effectively a mentorship extension could be implemented with our limited citizens. Furthermore, the LDP in essence is partly a mentorship program already, with ministers who are supposed to be guiding and teaching alongside lectures. As many have already said, Rach’s statement completely lacks substance.
HEM: Woo! Any comments for your fellow panelists?
JayDee: We all seem to be in agreement on both candidates here. That's all I have to say.
Q3 FINAL SCORES:
Pierce: 17.5 / 20 ***WINNER***
Rachael: 4 / 20
QUESTION FOUR - What if you have to become President?? said:
JayDee: No matter how well either candidate answers, there's always going to be the little ball of skepticism in me given that neither of them have held a position as large as the Vice President in any region. That's simply the nature of Europeia. However, there is a huge contrast in the two answers here. Pierce seems ready and energized by the question, he definitely wants to prove he has what it takes. Rachael's answer doesn't exactly turn me away, but it's definitely very unattractive and a bit too matter-of-factual. A trait which can be good in some cases, but I would like to see a little more substance. Pierce, on the other hand, has clearly thought this out and has a plan of action to ensure the region is still functioning.
Pierce: 4
Rachael: 1.5
Johnny Costello: Pierce took a good stand here too. He seems to trust his cabinet a lot though. He also mentioned "experienced" which I feel excludes new citizens who could come to an executive Minister role the first time. Makes a bit uneasy idea during times of reform.
Rach was in the short and sweet category here imo. She said "older citizens" which also makes me uneasy.
Discussion time Rach dodged the anti political argument from Pierce again by being more "human" politically it's bad. But for voters I feel she inspired some there.
Rach 2.5/5
Pierce 3/5
Kari: Responses are pretty generic here of "I'll keep the goals but in my own way." Pierce gives a more cogent and coherent version of it saying he will get his advice from his new VP and cabinet, while Rach goes on to extend this to "some of the older citizens" as well.
Pierce then goes to make an attack on Rach's apolitical stance, which at this point seems like the only card he has to play. Rach defends herself well saying it is not just about politics but about the region and community as a whole and that she is willing to fight for it.
Pierce: 3/5
Rach 3/5
Le Libertie: I give Pierce a 3 and Rach a 2.5. Both statements are practically identical, and there is not much substance that I would say would comfort a concerned voter. They both mention that they would use the cabinet and older citizens but neglect to specifically mention how. Both candidates also miss out on an opportunity to contrast significantly themselves with their upper ticket. I do appreciate that Pierce makes an effort to differentiate themselves, and how they both are reaffirming that they would continue their ticket’s policies. I challenge Rach’s argument that Pierce’s questioning of her was not related to the topic discussed.
HEM: Great - there seems to be two schools of thought here. Commentary to your fellow panelists?
Johnny Costello: I feel we all agree on Pierce relatively but we span Rach a good bit. What hold Rach in a more esteemed spot for you Kari?
JayDee: Johnny, you seem to be concerned about Pierce and Rachael gravitating towards a more experienced cabinet where you prefer one that has some fresh blood in it. However, I would personally feel much more comfortable with an experienced cabinet being lead by an inexperienced president than an inexperienced cabinet and an inexperienced president; that just leads to disaster.
Le Libertie: I do agree that there was a detectable disparity in the tone of the two candidates regarding stepping up which I initally overlooked, and could see how this influenced your ratings.
Kari: Rach's defence of herself plays well and was well handled, even if the first sentence should have been removed, and she showed her intent to stand up and fight for it.
Johnny Costello: I can say I'd expect more "youngblood" from Sopo/Pierce than Izzy/Rach. I can agree with the experience for Rach
Le Libertie: I partially disagree, Kari. Like I said before, Rach's challenging of the legitimacy of his questioning was not the ideal, in my opinion.
Q4 FINAL RESULTS:
Pierce: 13 / 20 ***WINNER***
Rachael: 9.5 / 20
QUESTION FIVE - Where are all the JMs?? said:
Kari: No real difference between them and very generic answers, it's essentially the same delegation statement reworded. 2.5 each.
JayDee: Rachael seems to go for a more bottom-up approach where duties are passed up to her rather than down to DMs. This may work for a few days, but she will quickly get burned out and commit multiple errors. Pierce seems to have a better understanding of delegating authority down to the lowest level in order to keep ministries active and prevent burnout at the higher levels. That being said, both responses were rather generic, both candidates are clearly getting tired.
Pierce: 3
Rachael: 1
Johnny Costello: Rach gave a idea already given. But no strong answer, Pierce offers an Assembly line, imo a idea we already use if I understand. Also a lack of discussion.
Both 2/5
Le Libertie: Pierce gets a 3.5, and Rach a 3 from me. I think that Pierce’s response is somewhat interesting, since it almost sounds like he would encourage the Eurworks program, a program that has been proposed by previous candidates. Rach repeats an idea I regard as somewhat weak and which does not adequately address the question. I think this demonstrates her overall lack of experience regarding integration. Both lack detail though.
HEM: Great - any comments for your fellow panelists?
JayDee: We all seem to agree both of their responses lack any sort of detail. And the lack of discussion is somewhat odd given how different their answers actually were. If I were Pierce, I would definitely take this time to pick apart Rachael's answer.
Kari: I do agree that Rach's approach would probably lead to her being burned out or very quickly changing tactic but ultimately it is the same "we'll work to delegate" statement from both
Johnny Costello: The lack of discussion did throw me off, with it being this split on their ideas.
Q5 FINAL RESULTS:
Pierce: 11 / 20 ***WINNER***
Rachael: 8.5 / 20
QUESTION SIX - The Trump/Hillary "what do you like about each other" question said:
Kari: A weird question for this debate, but regardless.
Pierce showed no introspection here, he merely commented on the comments in the #Eurochat discussion of the debate. 0/5
Rach showed genuine introspection and critical though on her own actions and where she can improve, how she can do it, explained how she can/is attempting to do it and how far she has come. 5/5
Johnny Costello: Again I'll say I feel this built some structure of who gave the other more respect and dignity. I gotta say the likes were even. But Rach pulled me in with the reflection oh her growth. While Pierce made a joke.
Pierce 2/5
Rach 5/5
JayDee: First of all I would like to rate this question as a 0.5/5.
Not sure what there is to unpack here, they both seem to give pretty generic responses. Rachael is the GA so she's good at the military. Pierce is hard working so he works hard. I can't really fault Pierce for his self-criticism response. It may not be 100% serious, but these sort of questions have always annoyed me. That being said, it does seem to be a genuine criticism given the discussion that was ongoing in discord during the debate. Rachael seems to do a much better job of investigating her own faults and I believe she hit the nail on the head here given what I know of her.
Pierce: 2
Rachael: 3
Unfortunately, there's simply no way I can give either of them a score above three for the generic response they gave for each other's abilities.
Le Libertie: When I saw this question, I thought it was very unnecessary and would provide no useful information to voters. And after the responses were given, I was not surprised to say the least. I am hesitant to rate the candidates on this one, as the statements have little value. But since Rach gave more introspection, I'll rate her 4 and Pierce 3.
JayDee: I have to agree with Libertie, I almost didn't want to give a rating. I only did for the sake of not complicating things further, but this question is really unnecessary in the scheme of things.
Johnny Costello: I see where Jay is stopped at 3 for a celing. I'd also say we have a balanced agreement
Kari: Ya I have nothing to add or comment on really.
Q6 FINAL RESULTS:
Pierce: 7 / 20
Rachael: 17 / 20 ***WINNER***
CLOSING STATEMENTS said:
JayDee: "Thank you to my opponent, thank you to the host, I love Europeia, vote for me!" That seems to be the general response from both candidates. I mean, what can you really expect for a closing statement, I would have to challenge anyone to find a politician who doesn't close a debate like that in some form. In terms of being inspirational, Pierce seems to get a bit more personal which makes me gravitate towards him. Rachael certainly holds her own, but they both lack the political nuance to really drive it home and get the crowd going which is simply too important not to take note of.
Pierce: 4
Rachael: 3.5
Johnny Costello: To start, yawn. (Maybe I can't like closing statements)
They are so generic and just a glorified Thank you note.
This is where I felt the most critical and it's just kinda simple to me.
1/5 for both of them.
Kari: Rather similar hopeful responses here for the future and commenting on the "time of reform" and how they did not expect to be VP on a ticket this soon/ever.
Rach's has more focus toward hope for the community. Which i think come across as better and more about the region as a whole rather than the ticket. 4/5
Pierce's has more focus about the ticket. Comes of as a bit vainglorious and being overly focused on the ticket with the community being an after thought. 2.5/5
Le Libertie: I think it’s clear that Rach showed more introspection in her conclusion, particularly personally, while Pierce’s statement could be considered more typical with even less unique traits. I do think it is interesting that reform was a major focus of Rach’s conclusion, despite her ticket demonstrating a more reform conservative mindset. In the end, I think that both candidates did decently, so I’ll give Rach 4 and Pierce 3.
JayDee: Johnny, the whole point of a conclusion is that it's pretty much a glorified thank you note. It's an area for candidates to get any last minute thoughts in and convince people to vote for them one last time. I'm not sure what you were looking for.
Kari: Agreed, it's essentially just an opportunity to say "thanks for reading, vote for us."
Le Libertie: I do think there are some opportunities to make your closing with some unique touches, which the candidates didn't fully achieve. However, I primarily agree with you two.
JayDee: That's what I was looking for as well, that certain je ne sais quoi that sets one statement far above the other. Neither one of these quite accomplish it for me which isn't surprising as it's very difficult to master.
Le Libertie: I certainly agree.
Johnny Costello: I feel the closing argument can be you chance to go a bit outside and inspire and I kinda felt dead inside from both readings. Like I said perhaps I sm a bit more overly critical of the closing but I felt they could have pulled the opposing vote in the closing.
CLOSING FINAL RESULTS:
Pierce: 10.5 / 20
Rachael: 12.5 / 20 ***WINNER***
OVERALL DEBATE FINAL RESULTS:
Pierce: 96.5 / 160 ***WINNER***
Rachael: 91 / 160
Last edited:
