Rather than quoting the points made by Zeonymous, I’m going to number them off and have R(and number) designate the response to that particular point, as it’d be near impossible to read if I simply responded to the format they have going.
1: Depending on the decisions of the leaders, and the people, it is suggested it would be a dynamic and growing experience. It could indeed cause corruption, but this would fall on the people, rather than just the nobility. It could ensure power to those within the respective faiths, but this cannot be suggested that main takeaway will be corruption entirely.
R1: The Vittori faith is one based upon the faith of Christianity, while benevolent in nature, Christianity had a very similar potential to allow the people to decide if the theocracies that had elector status would be corrupt or not, and the simple answer was, that they in fact did become corrupt. The critique was more directed towards handing out power to a religious organization that can not be reined in by him personally, much like was the case with the HRE, the critique was meant to provoke the thought of “How will I prevent this?” not to imply that it would happen, in fact, Maulvorn even addressed this in his response. You seemed to have missed the point here.
2: A plan of action would be again, a dynamic and changing experience that would have be taken on a case-to-case basis. It is not that there is not a plan of action, but that the main focus would more likely be to keep up with the times.
R2: It may not be a big deal or not if a King Candidate has a plan going into the election to you, however I’d like the man/woman elected to have a general outline of a plan for foreign policy and state policy, as well mercantile policy. This is not a giant impossible requirement, this is not asking the world of him, this is asking for a general plan of action, something a ruler should have in all circumstances.
3: The focus here can be revistied in my previous statement, a keeping with the times. Something that would be proposed to stay more distant from due to the dynamic nature of economics. Something that would have to be tried and tested in order to acmomplish properly. Not making promised he cannot keep.
R3: Refer to R2.
4: As long as they're following the rules and not busting knees, they are free to play as they please. Even so, I can agree that this is more of a carrot on a string approach, but this is still an early statement. Subject to a revisiting from an on-the-spot answering.
R4: While I’ll concede that there really is no solid solution to this AS OF YET, as he’s no idea whom he could potentially have under him as a Duke, this is something he should be keeping in mind for the very near future, as I stated at the very start of the original critique post, this is meant to be constructive and focus on points to build upon, not simply destroy each candidate.
5: That would be expected from a canidate's fist statement, on the chopping block as the frontrunner of the interviews. I too would like more information on this kind of policy. Such as the emphysis on religion, but as there is no set foundation of how this would be managed when the time comes. More of a blanket-statement approach, but this is to be expected from the opening act.
R5: Is this not setting the bar low? To have no expectations of a candidate and their plans for a Kingdom when they aspire to rule it? I’m fine with a change in policy as it goes on however I’d prefer they release a statement that they may continuously refine as time goes on.
6: In my direct opinion: The focus on religion, it sounds to me that its not the content that is lacking, but the emphysis on how the political system would be intigrated to the religious goal would be needed in order to paint a picture for those who wish to join the community. It may be interesting to see play out, if all goes well for Maulvorn.
R6: Is that not the same thing? I want him to explain how he will do so, not just vague statements of what he will do, is that not content?
7: To lose your own freedom to choose, such as speech, inherintly strips the common man from making a decision for themsleves. Such as, I beleive MickDude is taking the approach to let the people of the kingdom decide their own direction. Taking all voices into account to be heard as equal. Though not manditory that you submit to a specific playstyle, you would be given the option to choose, as a community within the kingdom a style of play everyone can either agree on, or change to better suit those who disagree with the majority.
R7: The PLAYER, is nonexistent, in Elyria you take on the role of a single member of a tribe in a feudal era, renaissance thinking has not made an entrance and the masses are oppressed, the PLAYER, has no power. There is no player as far as anyone is concerned. The only people with control are those with a will to power, whom will do anything and everything they can to drag themselves out of the gutter and into a position of power, to cement their family in history. Nobody will remember the man whom shovels shit on the street, nobody will remember the stable boy. There is no immediate Player privilege, your player privilege is the innate real life knowledge you have.
8: Such as in the previous post, the people would speak to the common elyrian, of course have their own power in say, but if they choose wrong, and go against the word of the people, Mickdude suggests that their voices will be heard. Regardless of the say of their direct political monopolies that are in effect. Something that no other kingdom has spoken about. A valiant goal.
R8: As of game start, to put it simply, the people do not matter, we are in a era of Gods and Kings on launch, nobody will listen to a Bar Maiden over a Princess, just because they think they’re treated unfairly, that is a concept unique to Players, and to put it simply, we’re out numbered.
9: Such is anyone else's. They will soon come to that realization. As we have come to in agreements time and time again, if you do choose to subjigate your people, eventually if they are ignored long enough, people have a habit to band together. The throne seat will not last long. Those are the true Kings without Kingdoms.
R9: If you think yourself a simple figurehead and you are attempting to become a King you are undeserving of the title, you’ve no Will to power and lack the basic requirements of a man whom would lead the people, a King is meant to be a cut ABOVE all else, not a man who would sit idly by and watch what happens to all he rules over without a care unless it took place on his direct property. Peasants in a feudal society are not centralized and well spoken enough to band together, hell, they can’t even read and write for the most part.
10: Personal relection here is that there is a lot of thought, and for all voices to be heard would be an undetaking, but again, it a voice of one man, and how he chooses to listen to his people. Not the voice of a King, but a King amongst men.
R10: While the sentiment of everyone’s opinion and voice being heard is nice, it is impossible and will not happen, not at game launch and likely not for at least 5 years, we are starting in a period comparable to the early middle ages. The King is the end all be all in all discussion within a Kingdom, this is impossible to dispute.
11: I simply fail to see the problem with how the basis of how the workload is supposed to be handled.
R11: A King has a council through which he seeks advice, he does not delegate his own responsibilities to another, he finds a man whom can assist him in his duty and completes it. In admitting imperfection as a King you admit to the people that you are not perfect, if you are not perfect in the eyes of the people, you are no different from them, this is the kind of thought that leads unto revolution and disorder. This is also a shirking of responsibility, as simply “delegating down” what you are not good at, is a lazy approach. What if you are “not good” at anything? Would you be a king whom simply existed then? Whom passed no policy?
12: I again fail to see how being safe within your own walls when there is no war is any concern of your own. If you enjoy being safe, and having a booming economy with focus of that of the common person, then this is the choice for you.
R12: A good infrastructure does not equate to safety, a good infrastructure means it is all the easier for the enemy to march upon your walls, I care not for the quality of roads if they are still easily traversed, I care that the walls of my town are made of solid and quality stone, that the Lord’s army is trained to perfection, if these aspects have reached the maximum quality that one can ensure, the infrastructure will naturally improve through booming trade, due to businesses investing in a kingdom where their interests are assured to be protected. As a business owner, whom would you rather invest in, a kingdom with stone roads and bad security, or a kingdom with bad quality roads, and solid security? I know which I would pick.
13: If they excel, then they are the 'important' in this sense. Your comparisons to janitorial work is appauling.
R13: If I excel at shoveling horse droppings and I’m treated the same as the single brightest genius in the Kingdom then there is a problem.
14: If someone were to want to choose their own path to be that of trade, and becoming the best at this, in whatever regards to profession, Cheshire has a strong foundation of how exactly this is going to be acheived. Why does this cause a problem in this critique? Aside from the facts not being rightly available to the common reader, this is nothing short of slander.
R14: He’s proposing a bare minimum military position with a hard focus on trade, this is unfeasible in a world where there are kingdoms that claim to have a high amount of autonomy while centralizing through Policy (coughvornaircough). It is impossible to compete in such a scenario. Due to the prior fact this is hardly slander, but rather rightful critique, how would you propose I critique it if not in a blatant manner? Would you rather I sugarcoat it and state that it is simply the best idea in the world, while some may be satisfied being yes men, I can’t claim to be one of them. If this were slander I would’ve simply said that the Socialist socio-economic plans he proposes for the long-term are a sham and that he need only look to real life examples to see evidence of their inevitable failure. However, instead, I provided insight into how the common man of the time thinks.
15: Oh my, an interesting take on the uprising of those who were enslaved for so many years. Very dynamic. Much mystery shrouding the lives of the commonfolk.
R15: While I will agree that it is an interesting take, I can not find my self to agree with how it approaches common law.
16: Kind of sounds like a more realisitc approach on daily life. A down-to-earth take on the cruxes of man. Something that would make for a thrilling story, and if this didn't take in the end, it would certainly make for a wonderful book on the uprising of law.. If the players choose to do so in the end.
R16: Realistic in what aspect? When would I rather keep contracts as law than common law? In the scenario that a man is payed to murder my entire family over a small grudge or land dispute, what is the public reaction? Is that man celebrated as an enforcer of the law, or rather vilified?
17: Bounty tokens and contracts. A mercinary's dreamland. Such are the slums of many places of poverty, and coming from a totality reign, should honestly be expected following the lore of the previous kingship. Again, this is probably one of the most realisitc approaches in the runnings. Dont want to die? Hire one of the thousands of people skilled in the sword. Unless you're scared. Don't worry. There's always another Kingdom to choose from!
R17: That is part of the issue, whom wants slums in their Kingdom? A slum means that you have a part of the population that is not meeting the full potential of their life, and that you as a king are not utilizing a valuable resource. Having to hire personal guards just to live on a day to day basis is not a realistic way to live in these times. The jeering and poking at the end totally validates this point and has defeated my entire critique, congratulations my good sir, for thee hath bested me!
18: It is an interesting take to say the least, and I wouldn't mind seeing how it plays out in the end. Good luck targeting these folk. They would be the hardest of all to take down. Their very life depends on their own malice, and it would be no easy task to overthrow them. As they say... "Honor amongst theives"
R18: While I will agree it is an interesting take, I do not think it is a take that should be tested on a Kingdom wide basis, maybe a Barony or County, however a kingdom of this size lacking Common law and instead focusing on Contractual law is a freebie for a neighbour, especially considering that they will likely have multiple kingdoms following a religion that states their lifestyle is filled with sin, giving a VERY early and reasonable Casus Belli.
19: Dynamic changes. Welcome to CoE, OP.
R19: Addressed in the Maulvorn response, but once again you seemed to have missed the point on that.
20: Why not just state that you beleive all Kingdoms will have one religion? This is a statement based on personal beleif. Such as, you would fit in perfectly.
R20: I will confess, I had Ecclesiocracy and Theocracy reversed in this and as such will revise this original point, however, you seem to lack an understanding of what the two mean, as such I will provide their definitions.
An ecclesiocracy is a situation where the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation
Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives, a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
Now that I’ve laid that definition before you, I will continue. Through the stated means of governing they will be advocating one religion, even if they want to grant religious freedom they will inevitably bias towards one or another. I do not believe that all Kingdoms will have one religion, however I believe all will have one STATE religion. Your point was followed by a further attempt to discredit me by claiming personal bias, remarks like this don’t help your point you know?
21: Welcome to a kingdom that cares for the well being of its people.
R21: I’ve mentioned my preference for a Kingdom which has a King at the helm whom has a general outline in his head before he’s even in power before, and don’t believe I need to go into specifics again.
22: Reccuring consensus from OP stating that everyone needs to immediatly govern a kingdom they just learned about a week ago. Good show, OP.
R22: I’ve stated that this critique is meant to be constructive and give points to improve upon, I am being realistic in stating that they need to have at the very LEAST a general plan of what they want to do in a post victory scenario, I’m not saying they need to immediately and effectively govern the nation, only have an idea of HOW they’d like to, they are after all attempting to become the RULER of it. Another snide remark that does nothing to further your points follows that statement.
23: this point can be ignored - You got it.
R23: To address this I will expand upon the original point, you have a foreign Noble house running to restore a lineage that was overthrown (rightfully so, might I add), whom fled to their holdings in Kairos as to avoid being wiped out, am I to take it any other way than that they have become a foreign asset and would be biased towards Kairos in all matters? Especially considering they hold not one but two duchies within that Kingdom?
24: Stated the entirety of the views for the previous and entire foundation for the Kingdom in which this entire event was created from. Fake news.
R24: If you could take a minute and highlight where in this they state their policy and actual values I’ll concede this point to you, go right on ahead, I’ll wait.
The time has finally come to avenge the Mad King of Xeilias' defeat. After many long years of exile, House Xeilias has re-emerged as a power in the dance of dynasties once again. The current ruler of the house, Phyllain, has learned that the free kingdom was ripe for the taking. Not since the Mad King’s defeat had there been a time where House Xeilias had the means and opportunity to regain what it had lost. Now with the help of Phyllain’s loyal followers and through their strength of arms, he would bring peace to The Free Kingdom.
25: If your King died, don't you think you'd feel similar? This is not a bold statement, meerly factual.
R25: They want to avenge a man whom enslaved men women and children, whom drafted unwilling citizens, and whom was finally overthrown by those same citizens. I think were I given the choice I’d spit on his grave and bury the very memory of him.
26: Welcome to the reality of the dance of Dynasties.
R26: This was meant to further highlight that clearly the deranged nature of this lineage hasn’t dulled with age, however you needed to respond to it for some reason?
27: PvP is a critical part of the economic structure of this game and will cost a LOT more than most beleive. In currency, and time, as well as organization of those willing to fight. Its a tough spot to fill, but I am not so sure it will be as accessable as many beleive it will be. Thus, we have an empty seat. If Phyllian wants to seize the oppourtunity and reclaim what they and their followers beleive is rightly theirs, who can blame them? This is human nature at its finest.
R27: You do remember this is a critique right? Thought while saying this throughout my original critique I had several points that actually praised people, I’ve conceded those points and edited them so as to add critique to them.
28: Suddenly OP contridicts their entire post. Ignored.
R28: How do I contradict myself? I stated I like the idea while thinking it impractical due to corruption that will likely take place. This is the same as what was said about Maulvorn giving the church power, all I said differently was “I like the idea”. This contradicts nothing stated prior.
29: All running in this campaign should feel this way.
R29: You see every candidate has made this mistake and I don’t think I’ll say anything about it until one of the candidates notices why I call this a mistake, all I will say however, as that this is the view of somebody whom hasn’t checked all the facts.
30: Failing to see OP's crtisizm here.
R31: The critique is that something like that should go UNSAID. Whichever candidate is the KING, should be loyal to the kingdom. There is only one Candidate that could be called disloyal to the Kingdom potentially, and that’s because they’ve been a foreign noble up until this point, instead of attempting to integrate into the new order of the Kingdom.
32: OP confirmed for fear of change, and dynamic change at that.
R32: This critique was conceded to and admitted to being a populist appeal, I responded further detailing why I made this critique in a response to Eadward on the first page of this thread.
33: Not so sure the reason OP would even suggest a critism of this campaign. I would like to see what campaign that has enough substance for this person to feel filled with information with a week of prep. Why dont you run, OP? You got this.
R33: I’m not here to hold the hands of every individual running a campaign and sing Kum Ba Yah, I’m here to ask for more, for details. I want to know what each individuals main plans are before I support one, is this not what everyone SHOULD be thinking? Rather than supporting a candidate whom hasn’t taken any official stances.
34: You know the further I get into the critisms of this post, the less credibility I can give to you.
R34: I worked with the subject matter I was given which was summed up in the points I provided, with more subject matter I could’ve provided more valuable critique however I am not a miracle worker, and can only use what I am given. The critique for this point, however, is still valid, a community matters not to a King, a King does not interact with his subjects on a day to day basis, that job is further down the totem poll.
35: Problem? This will be the litteral basis for the exposition of this kingdom.
R35: I should’ve expanded upon that further to be honest, as stated it was rather bare bones and I’ll edit it in the future to fix that, however the critique here should’ve been more clear and focused on foreign policy, in that stating he wants anyone to be able to join at any time is a negative to the Kingdom’s defense, as it could very well let foreign infiltrators in quite easily.
36: Kypiq or Dras prefered - No mention of anyone masking the fact of altirior motive once they are awarded their own Kingdom?
R36: To be quite honest this point shouldn’t be included at all in retrospect, this would fit more in a summary of each campaign rather than a critique. This has no place in my original post and I will be removing it as such, this candidate in general has a lot of points made about them in my original post that aren’t critique so much as me including some of their policy just for it to not look as empty. I actually do have to thank you for drawing my attention to these.
37: Well, arent you full of radiant points yourself?
R37: I’m playing devil’s advocate, not running for king.
38: I see no problem with someone putting their neck on the line in order to create a community in which everyone can thrive. It would be another great undertaking, but to discredit someone for trying makes me again wonder... Where is your campaign?
R38: I’ve no desire to be a monarch, as I don’t plan to spend 10 hours a week managing a Kingdom. The whole “Just because you don’t have a campaign going means your point is invalid!” thing is getting repetitive at this point.
39: Do I really need to comment, again..?
R39: Yes, you do, I can’t respond to criticism without it being there.
40: You left this one blank actually.
41: I urge your origional basis of this post to make less sense.
R41: The point of this was to point out that the entire statement was unnecessary.
42: I fail to see how you would expect someone to elaborate on what you consider to be specific. Where's the critism?
R42: I didn’t mention it being specific and I later stated that the “no meat” point later included about Violet could be applied to every single post so far, I simply said it’s good he at the very least has a semblance of a general plan.
43: I again fail to understand how you've seperated yourself from the role of critic, and are now falling into the role of a supporter.
R43: Again this was more of an applause for having a very general plan in mind, however upon review you’re correct, I’ll change it to something more fitting after I finish up with responding to your points.
44: "I will not sugarcoat any statements." -OP cri·tique - a 'detailed' analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory.
R44: In this statement I held him up as a standard for others to meet, saying “of those announced” he was the most specific so far, however I didn’t say he was without critique did I? Once again later on I expanded upon the statement that Violet lacked meat and said it could apply to others, listing specifics of what they were missing.
45: Wondering where the line can be drawn on what is an acceptable goal here.
R45: I concede the lack of critique here and have edited it as such.
46: Failing in seeing yet another good opening for a personal opinion here.
R46: The point was that the whole statement of how he’d uphold law was completely unnecessary and redundant, as it’s the basic duty of a King
47: Not a hard person to please, are we?
R47: You stated prior to this that I wanted the world of candidates like it was a ridiculous thing for them to have a basic general outline, while I’ll concede this isn’t critique and I’ll be editing it to ask for more specifics, you haven’t quite made up your mind either it seems.
48: Foregin avoidance is a plus, but tech trade is a no-go? I don't understand. This should be a focus if you consider the foundation of economics and research.
R48: You missed the point here, let me make it simple. Kingdom A is Imperialistic and Militant, Kingdom B is Science focused and Mercantile, Kingdom B discovers a new form of weaponry and sells the plans to it to Kingdom A, Kingdom A then arms itself with the new weapon en masse, Kingdom B is now back on even footing with a Kingdom they held an advantage against.
49: So, you would let your allies burn. Noted.
R49: You seem to have misunderstood the point of this statement, playing world police as a kingdom that has a shaky foundation, is simply suicide.
50: I really am having a hard time with the lack of backing to the claims of someone who doesn't accept a campaign that is not fully developed.
R50: I’ve stated I want a BASIC concept of how the kingdom will function to be hammered out before I give my support to anyone, and will stand by that statement.
51: What are you asking for OP. Is this a negitive in your eyes? Or a crisism... I really cant tell.
R51: You’re correct here again, thank you for pointing this out I will edit it further to reflect how it is a negative.
52: Again, mudslinging. Where's the context to represent your opinion?
R52: This isn’t mudslinging, this was put in because of the sheer ridiculousness of the statement, this is an individual whom is running for a position within the Kingdom, be it King, Duke, or Count, they absolutely should not hold the opinion that they will either be free or die. Rather, this should instead of a quotation of martyrdom be a quote of inspiration, something more along the lines of “I will bring freedom to all, no matter the cost.”
53: I'm done doctoring OP's claims here, since these are mostly taken completly out of context.
R53: This relates to the prior point how?
54: Well, that's actually what we call a developing story. Without a following, would you force someone into a role before they even appeared? If so, I'd love to see your ideals. Truly.
R54: This is an announcement of candidacy for Queen of a Kingdom, not a storybook, I want substance and not a vague appeal to the community at large.
55: Split roles for all involved. Do you suppose we could use an example: You're a farmer, but you would like to benifit your kingdom in times of war. I would choose to minor in swordplay, or blacksmithing. Vague is your understanding of a simple concept.
R55: I want to hear that from the candidate themselves, not you.
56: Let me stop you right there with the mudslinging. This is on the basis of seuxal orientation, race, personality and would be put into place that it would be uncouthed to discriminate against someone for their practices. Shame on you.
R56: I didn’t mention any of those things, I simply stated that conflicts are unavoidable within a group of individuals that have differing opinions, yet you feel a need to attack me over this?
57: Sudden change of tune. Well... I applaud you for attempting to cover yourself in one aspect.
R57: Elaborate, this was addressing the blatant virtue signalling about a thing that should be a given in any Kingdom.
58: Feel free to sling this mud in question form, if you like. Since there are no questions here, and like your post states, it can be updated at a later date. As for taxes... What would you do? Since when are taxes for the betterment of a kingdom frowned upon? I really dont understand what you want from any of these canidates..
R58: I’ve conceded on similar critiques and I’ll concede on this one, thank you for pointing this out, though I could do without the snide remarks.
59: False. Filling a role, in example: An entire duchy would not consist of farmers alone, and another smiths. Swing it however you like, this will be something that is a hand-over-hand in efficiancy, rather than something that would cator to waste of resoruces amongst the kingdoms. I wouldnt suggest you build a place to study in alchemy, if you have no alchemists. It would meerly be taken into considerations of your preferred profession that if you were to study in alchemy, you would be more suited to a duchy that has the best of the best in the regards to this profession. It would be a handling of how professions would be distributed. It tactical in the sense that you would have a place for everyone. Though in time expected to become more diverse.
R59: It is an indisputable fact that each duchy should be able to provide the bare minimum for itself rather than need to go to another for basic needs.
60: Okay... Well, go ahead and read the post. You seem to be cherrypicking at this point. Its honestly hard to keep suggsting that you are even crituiqing, and in this sense just smeering all the canidates.
R60: Point out specific instances please, I’ll edit my statement accordingly as I have with others.
61: Well, I suggest you start asking questions on their posts, rather than slandering them here.
R61: A place of universal critique is more beneficial to the Campaign at large.
62: Slander will more than likely not get you what you are searching for. This is appauling. By definitions of the words used in the heading of this post that will be summed in all at the end state that a majority has completly missed the mark in the sense of what you've been tasking yourself to acomplish.
R62: Point out the specific instances of slander where the critique has no grounding in reality and I’ll change it, please I encourage this. As I want all of the info in this to be valid critique.
63: I beleive that is far from factual, and a person who were in a position to find out these answers for themsleves on a campaign to campaign basis would be the best target for your objective, if you wish to acomplish this.
R63: Differing view on how to gather information, I think that it should be presented to the public that you are trying to sway rather than a small group of individuals in a community. This is a difference of opinion and I can’t really sway you here.
64: critique - a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory. I failed to see how many points out of context were missed. Failed on the fact of the meaning of the word litterally meaning "detailed analysis and assessment"
constructive - serving a useful purpose; tending to build up. In order to serve a useful purpose, it is less than practical to shed your own personal opinions as "lol"
pragmatic - dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations. I have never seen a more theoretical attack in my life.
R64: Alright, if you really feel this way please, go ahead and write up a critique you find to meet these standards about each and every one of these campaigns.
Alright now in review: I really do want to thank you for going through this and giving me your opinion, while I could do without the snide remarks here and there, I still appreciate it. I’ve edited anything that I agreed wasn’t critique and mentioned it within this post, if you continue this habit I will continue to respond, however please make my life easier and format this better so I don’t have to copy paste each point you made into a google doc then respond to it. Once again thank you for going through this, I absolutely love the differing opinions and feedback.
