World Leaders Survivor Redux - Organisation Thread

[Edu]

Another embarassing round for the forum. Sigh.

What's so embarrassing about eliminating Harper and Douglas?

I'm bewildered that I even have to argue about this. CANADA? The only way one can argue that Canada is not one of the best countries in the world is if one is a radical right-winger. I will just post one example: Bayar of Mongolia. Do you seriously, really, really consider him a better leader than Harper? I find that hard to believe of anyone.

Well, it's not thanks to Harper that Canada is one of the best countries in the world, it's like that since long before him.
Basically anyone can be elected prime minister in Canada and not  the country up

I have more respect for leaders who take into their hands an utter sh**t country and manage to get at least a decent administration out of it. Cristina Kirchner for instance might not be the greatest leader ever but she was very influential in her husband's administration when we recovered from the 2001 fiasco. And despite her flaws i still think we are better off now than in most of the past 30 years at least. And so far in tangible terms we haven't been hit that hard by the financial crisis.

...because capitalism in Argentina collapsed 8 years ago

(I loved my two+ months in Argentina, btw, and I do understand it isn't a third world nation. I'm also a femenist. But...CFdeK is basically just an empty head)

Not Really
Of course we are better than in 2001 (When we were governed by someone who wasn't even in Kirchner's party by the way), even in late 2002 we were a bit better than in 2001. And when i say we are better off than usual doesn't mean it can't all go to sh**t one moment or another lol, but i tend to cut the president some slack.

Glad you enjoyed your stay here , but you are wrong, we are a third world country regrettably

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I voted for Harper just because I didn't care about saving him & I wanted to help out the folks voting against Harper since I know how frustrating it is to vote for someone over & over again & see them remain in the game anyway.

[Gustaf]

Lewis: I know, and I respect your attitude to this thing so far. I didn't vote for Bayar simply because I tried to save Harper and I generally don't want to vote for someone not in the running, so to speak. I will vote for Bayar next round, probably.

BRTD: Yes, I know. That was my point. Why people not radical right-wingers would vote off Harper is beyond me.

Edu/GMantis: I understand that perspective and I share it to an extent. However. Harper hasn't damaged his country very much, has he? I would say Bayar seems to have damaged Mongolia quite a bit. And many other leaders haven't done great things for their countries either. Also, I don't think you can run that argument all the way. One could say that Kim Jong-Il hasn't made North Korea that much worse since he took over, for instance. It is also very hard to judge to what extent various events were caused by the leaders or not.

Bottom line is that while I share that idea as regards say economic performance quite a bit, I don't share it when it comes to things like democracy or human rights. The leader of a country that has freedom of speech and free and fair elections should not be voted off before the leader of a country where these things are not true. I consider your standard so relativist as to be morally bankrupt if it makes it ok to treat your citizens certain ways. You won't convince me that Harper has done things to Canadians comparable to some of the things perpetrated by some of those other leaders.

PiT: I think that is an extremely poor reason to vote for someone. Bloc voting for candidates that shouldn't be voted off should be discouraged, not encouraged. If you don't have a real stake or opinion, I honestly don't think you should vote at all, rather than influence the out-come. But that is a personal opinion of mine, obviously.

[Nhoj]

you know whats really stupid is when people vote for a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator because they dont want a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator voted off...

[big bad fab]

So, Hughento, what do you do with Panama, Lithuania and Mongolia ?

Difficult to vote on new Panam and Mongolia presidents, as they don't have politiical experience enough for us to assess.

But Lithuania is less easy: this Baltic "Iron Lady" has a lot of experience.
On the other hand, it's tempting to vote for or against Adamkus (BTW, it's Adamkus, not Adumkus I think).

So, no change at all, I presume, Doctor Platypus ?

[Platypus]

Whoever holds office at the end of this stage, in 4-5 rounds, will be in.

[Platypus]

The twenty second round has completed, with five eliminated leaders:

Group One:

Carlos Gomes Jr., Guinea-Bissau: 9 votes
-----------------
Apisai Ielemia, Tuvalu: 3 votes
Rafael Correa, Ecuador: 2 votes
Serzh Sargsyan, Armenia: 2 votes

Group Two:


Leonel Fernandez, Dominican Republic: 8 votes
----------------
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono: 7 votes
David Thompson. Barbados: 1 vote

Group Three:


Massimo Cenci, San Marino: 9 votes
---------------
Evo Morales, Bolivia: 5 votes
Alvaro Colom, Guatemala: 1 vote

Group Four:


Anote Tong, Kiribati: 7 votes
--------------
Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Argentina: 6 votes
Antonio Saca, El Salvador: 2 votes

Group Five:


Ivo Sanader, Croatia: 6.5 votes
----------------
Derek Sikua, Solomon Islands: 6 votes
Yayi Boni, Benin: 2 votes
Litokwa Tomeing, Marshall Islands: 1 vote

[Platypus]

Also, I broke a tie in group five, on the basis of regional solidarity

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You also took out the right person. Goodbye fascist country.

[Gustaf]

you know whats really stupid is when people vote for a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator because they dont want a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator voted off...

Maybe I'm dense but I'm really not following your example. (I assume it's directed at me and refers to one of my votes along the way. I should note pre-emptively that I've done mistakes in these votes that I've later regretted, mostly due to ignorance)

[minionofmidas]

Lewis: I know, and I respect your attitude to this thing so far. I didn't vote for Bayar simply because I tried to save Harper.

Oh, I do that all the time as well.

Except that, to me, there are relatively few politicians worth saving by this late in the game.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Total votes as of the end of round 22 for those still surviving.  The top vote getter so far is the departed Hugo Chavez, Venezuela with 38 votes.

G1
Apisai Ielemia, Tuvalu: 12.5 votes
Serzh Sargsyan, Armenia: 9 votes
Rafael Correa, Ecuador: 6 votes
Ahmed Abdallah Sambi, Comoros: 1 vote

G2
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Indonesia: 18 votes
Ernest Bai Koroma, Sierra Leone: 4.5 votes
Yoweri Museveni, Uganda: 2 votes
Pedro Pires, Cape Verde: 1.5 votes
Michael Somare, Papua New Guinea: 1.5 votes
David Thompson. Barbados: 1.5 votes
Angela Merkel, Germany: 1 vote
Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Denmark: 1 vote

G3
Evo Morales, Bolivia: 24.5 votes
Gordon Brown, United Kingdom: 10 votes
Alvaro Colom, Guatemala: 4 votes
Alan Garcia, Peru: 2 votes
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brazil: 1 vote
Manny Mori, Micronesia: 1 vote
Roosevelt Skerrit, Dominica: 1 vote
Sanjaagiin Bayar, Mongolia: 0.5 votes

G4
Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Argentina: 21 votes
Antonio Saca, El Salvador: 5 votes
Mohamed Nasheed, Maldives: 4 votes
Mirko Cvetkovic, Serbia: 2 votes
Jigme Thinley, Bhutan: 2 votes
Fernando Lugo, Paraguay: 1 vote
Baldwin Spencer, Antigua and Barbuda: 1 vote
Pakalitha Mosisili, Lesotho: 0.5 votes

G5
Yayi Boni, Benin: 11.5 votes
Derek Sikua, Solomon Islands: 6 votes
Brian Cowen, Ireland: 3.5 votes
Stephenson King, St Lucia: 3 votes
Litokwa Tomeing, Marshall Islands: 2.5 votes
Hans-Rudolf Merz, Switzerland: 2 votes
Abdoulaye Wade, Senegal: 1.5 votes

[Edu]

Edu/GMantis: I understand that perspective and I share it to an extent. However. Harper hasn't damaged his country very much, has he? I would say Bayar seems to have damaged Mongolia quite a bit. And many other leaders haven't done great things for their countries either. Also, I don't think you can run that argument all the way. One could say that Kim Jong-Il hasn't made North Korea that much worse since he took over, for instance. It is also very hard to judge to what extent various events were caused by the leaders or not.

Bottom line is that while I share that idea as regards say economic performance quite a bit, I don't share it when it comes to things like democracy or human rights. The leader of a country that has freedom of speech and free and fair elections should not be voted off before the leader of a country where these things are not true. I consider your standard so relativist as to be morally bankrupt if it makes it ok to treat your citizens certain ways. You won't convince me that Harper has done things to Canadians comparable to some of the things perpetrated by some of those other leaders. 

I don't think everyone is taking the game entirely seriously. I admit that I'm not doing extensive research on all the world leaders and then making my choice accordingly to who is the worst overall. I really have my favorites from the start and normally i try to eliminate some of the worst scumbags on the list, but when i see people ganging up on someone like Harper, Berlusconi, Uribe or Sarkozy who can be a credible opposition to the leaders i like then i try to vote them off. This is a survivor game after all. It doesn't necessarily reflect my views of best and worst world leaders. For instance, i believe that Uribe is better than Chavez, but i tried to vote him off and then defend Chavez.

I replied to you before in response to the Canada issue, i think that the current status of a country that has been considered one of the best in the world for decades doesn't mean that the current leader who has been in power only a couple of years is equally great like the country. Of course Harper isn't murdering half of the people in Canada or taking absolute control over the media and the political process, but as i said before, his country has been stable for decades now and it has a history of freedom and democracy. And i do have more respect for a leader of a country that despite a crap economy and a history of instability and military dictatorships has maintained democracy and human rights despite not being very successful economically or politically. I also don't take dictatorships or countries where flagrant human right abuses are common into account, so North Korea might not have gotten worse in the past decades but the guy is still a brutal dictator. 

This is just my opinion, i repeat that it's not a representation of how I'm voting in the survivor threads, when we get down to the final 20 or 30 leaders (who should all be presidents/prime ministers of completely free and democratic countries) then I'll probably start playing more seriously. But as you said, it's pretty hard to judge every positive or negative effect a leader might have in the country and it's even harder to compare them when each and every one of them rule a different country with different cultures, different economies, different people, etc.

[Nhoj]

you know whats really stupid is when people vote for a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator because they dont want a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator voted off...

Maybe I'm dense but I'm really not following your example. (I assume it's directed at me and refers to one of my votes along the way. I should note pre-emptively that I've done mistakes in these votes that I've later regretted, mostly due to ignorance)

its not just you that did it so it was only partially directed at you and it was last round in group two.

[big bad fab]

Dear Hughento,

Do you think it would be fine to ask the "usual respondants" their predictions on the winner,
or would it tell too much about everyone's aim,
or would it be useless because of The One, Obama ?

I was about to open a topic on this, but I think you're the only one entitled to do it IF AND ONLY IF you find it interesting.

Maybe can it be opened just at the end of this first period and just for 24 hours, in order not to reveal too much for the following rounds.

Up to you.

[Platypus]

feel free to do it. One of the best things about last time was the rivalries, coalitions and emotions round-by-round, and it looks like we're really starting to get that now in the redux.

[Gustaf]

you know whats really stupid is when people vote for a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator because they dont want a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator voted off...

Maybe I'm dense but I'm really not following your example. (I assume it's directed at me and refers to one of my votes along the way. I should note pre-emptively that I've done mistakes in these votes that I've later regretted, mostly due to ignorance)

its not just you that did it so it was only partially directed at you and it was last round in group two.

I voted Fernandez over Yudhoyono. Yudhoyono defeated the incumbent president (the daughter of a former dictator of the country) in a presidential election. Fernandez also seems to have replaced a democratically elected leader. I voted for Pires in the last round and he also didn't replace a dictator (although he himself comes from the party that used to run Cape Verde as a dictatorship.

Anyway, voting off "a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator because they dont want a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator voted off..." is vastly superior in my opinion when compared to voting off a relatively good democratic leader operating in a fully democratic environment over dictators and people running their country into the ground, etc.

[Nhoj]

you know whats really stupid is when people vote for a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator because they dont want a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator voted off...

Maybe I'm dense but I'm really not following your example. (I assume it's directed at me and refers to one of my votes along the way. I should note pre-emptively that I've done mistakes in these votes that I've later regretted, mostly due to ignorance)

its not just you that did it so it was only partially directed at you and it was last round in group two.

I voted Fernandez over Yudhoyono. Yudhoyono defeated the incumbent president (the daughter of a former dictator of the country) in a presidential election. Fernandez also seems to have replaced a democratically elected leader. I voted for Pires in the last round and he also didn't replace a dictator (although he himself comes from the party that used to run Cape Verde as a dictatorship.

Anyway, voting off "a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator because they dont want a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator voted off..." is vastly superior in my opinion when compared to voting off a relatively good democratic leader operating in a fully democratic environment over dictators and people running their country into the ground, etc.

my main issue is that you didnt go after a small country instead of Fernandez. and your excuses dont make any sense but whatever.

[Platypus]

The twenty third round has completed, with five eliminated leaders:

Group One:

Hasina Wajed, Bangladesh: 9 votes
-----------------
Apisai Ielemia, Tuvalu: 2 votes
Serzh Sargsyan, Armenia: 2 votes
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo: 1 vote

Group Two:


Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono: 7 votes
----------------
Pedro Pires, Cape Verde: 2 votes
Michael Somare, Papua New Guinea: 2 votes
Ernest Bai Koroma, Sierra Leone: 1 vote
David Thompson, Barbados: 1 vote

Group Three:


Seyni Oumarou, Niger: 6 votes
---------------
Sanjaagiin Bayar, Mongolia: 4 votes
Evo Morales, Bolivia: 3 votes
Alvaro Colom, Guatemala: 1 vote
Lawrence Gonzi, Malta: 1 vote

Group Four:


Antonio Saca, El Salvador: 11 votes
--------------
Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Argentina: 4 votes


Group Five:


Sergei Stanishev, Bulgaria: 6 votes
----------------
Stephenson King, St Lucia: 5 votes
Yayi Boni, Benin: 2 votes
Derek Sikua, Solomon Islands: 1 vote

[Platypus]

First female leader voted off in group one.

Also, the runners-up in round 24 will have immunity in round 25, the final round before the regrouping.

[Gustaf]

you know whats really stupid is when people vote for a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator because they dont want a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator voted off...

Maybe I'm dense but I'm really not following your example. (I assume it's directed at me and refers to one of my votes along the way. I should note pre-emptively that I've done mistakes in these votes that I've later regretted, mostly due to ignorance)

its not just you that did it so it was only partially directed at you and it was last round in group two.

I voted Fernandez over Yudhoyono. Yudhoyono defeated the incumbent president (the daughter of a former dictator of the country) in a presidential election. Fernandez also seems to have replaced a democratically elected leader. I voted for Pires in the last round and he also didn't replace a dictator (although he himself comes from the party that used to run Cape Verde as a dictatorship.

Anyway, voting off "a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator because they dont want a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator voted off..." is vastly superior in my opinion when compared to voting off a relatively good democratic leader operating in a fully democratic environment over dictators and people running their country into the ground, etc.

my main issue is that you didnt go after a small country instead of Fernandez. and your excuses dont make any sense but whatever.

I'm not making any excuses. I don't think I have anything to give excuses for. Why would I want to go after a small country specifically? I never stated that as a principle of mine. 

[Nhoj]

you know whats really stupid is when people vote for a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator because they dont want a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator voted off...

Maybe I'm dense but I'm really not following your example. (I assume it's directed at me and refers to one of my votes along the way. I should note pre-emptively that I've done mistakes in these votes that I've later regretted, mostly due to ignorance)

its not just you that did it so it was only partially directed at you and it was last round in group two.

I voted Fernandez over Yudhoyono. Yudhoyono defeated the incumbent president (the daughter of a former dictator of the country) in a presidential election. Fernandez also seems to have replaced a democratically elected leader. I voted for Pires in the last round and he also didn't replace a dictator (although he himself comes from the party that used to run Cape Verde as a dictatorship.

Anyway, voting off "a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator because they dont want a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator voted off..." is vastly superior in my opinion when compared to voting off a relatively good democratic leader operating in a fully democratic environment over dictators and people running their country into the ground, etc.

my main issue is that you didnt go after a small country instead of Fernandez. and your excuses dont make any sense but whatever.

I'm not making any excuses. I don't think I have anything to give excuses for. Why would I want to go after a small country specifically? I never stated that as a principle of mine. 

i didnt say it was im saying going after the Barbados guy would have made more sense then going after fernandez.

[Gustaf]

you know whats really stupid is when people vote for a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator because they dont want a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator voted off...

Maybe I'm dense but I'm really not following your example. (I assume it's directed at me and refers to one of my votes along the way. I should note pre-emptively that I've done mistakes in these votes that I've later regretted, mostly due to ignorance)

its not just you that did it so it was only partially directed at you and it was last round in group two.

I voted Fernandez over Yudhoyono. Yudhoyono defeated the incumbent president (the daughter of a former dictator of the country) in a presidential election. Fernandez also seems to have replaced a democratically elected leader. I voted for Pires in the last round and he also didn't replace a dictator (although he himself comes from the party that used to run Cape Verde as a dictatorship.

Anyway, voting off "a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator because they dont want a relatively good democratically elected leader who succeeded a dictator voted off..." is vastly superior in my opinion when compared to voting off a relatively good democratic leader operating in a fully democratic environment over dictators and people running their country into the ground, etc.

my main issue is that you didnt go after a small country instead of Fernandez. and your excuses dont make any sense but whatever.

I'm not making any excuses. I don't think I have anything to give excuses for. Why would I want to go after a small country specifically? I never stated that as a principle of mine. 

i didnt say it was im saying going after the Barbados guy would have made more sense then going after fernandez.

Ok, now I will say that doing it the other way around makes more sense. Are we getting anywhere? Or do you simply operate under the assumption that your own view is sufficient basis to say other peoples' opinions do not make any sense?

I don't really see any valid criticisms in what you are saying.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Dominican Republic has been democratic since at least the 70s. I still think going after Fernandez was kind of dumb though, because while he's not notable and I know nothing about him, his country is a bit less of a joke than those other Caribbean countries that don't even have populations with six digits, and there's still plenty of such leaders around. At least his country is something other than a joke tax haven.

[Gustaf]

Dominican Republic has been democratic since at least the 70s. I still think going after Fernandez was kind of dumb though, because while he's not notable and I know nothing about him, his country is a bit less of a joke than those other Caribbean countries that don't even have populations with six digits, and there's still plenty of such leaders around. At least his country is something other than a joke tax haven.

As opposed to Canada, right?