November 2001 election season opens doors

Now that nominations have ended, it's time to get into the down-and-dirty campaigning. Each of the five primary tickets must now convince the STF populace that it is the best ticket for the job. In this section we give you the expert analysis of Election November 2001 Analyst and Greatest Ruler Ever Charlemagne (known to contemporaries as Charles the Great).

Garfield/Friedman: 'Excellent'

Garfield should have no trouble garnering support for his campaign; he has made himself known in every crevice of STF, from the ED to the GMD to the Academy to the tricorder repair shop down the street. He has been FComm-4 and CO of the USS Alliance since the beginning of time (Jeff "Exploding livestock" Field inhabited the office of FComm-4 prior to the beginning of time). A co-author of the Articles of Organization, Garfield met his greatest proposal success to date with the passage of the Omnibus GMD Revisionary Edict. The butt of many of our jokes, the aptly-named OGRE consolidated several Edicts concerning the GMD into one ready-to-eat package.

Lackie/Burchett: 'Get my razor! Draw a bath! And get these Kleenex boxes off my feet!'

The primary advantage of this ticket is that Lackie has successfully run for president before; he has the "look what I did during my administration" advantage, and those things he did are many. Most notable is his enaction of so-called "GMDevolution," a topic of much debate prior to the elections, which moved primary GM power from the GMD to the Fleet Commanders. Burchett has not been a president or vice-president, but she was a fixture in the Fleet 5 Commander's Office until she signed with Fleet 7 for a 5-year, $50 million contract and a pack of Juicy Fruit gum (we are told that the gum was well worth it). According to the campaign's website, their platform is accessible government and fleet and ship autonomy, as well as a tentative (if ambivalent) endorsement of "alternate role-playing environments."

Robinson/Franlin: 'Have you ever seen the sun set at 3 PM?'

This is one of the two "dark-horse" candidates, at least as far as governmental involvement is concerned. Both Lackie and Garfield have FComm experience, while Robinson is currently only the XO of Fleet One's USS Ark Angel. Election experts predict that this team will have a hard time convincing voters that they are as qualified as other tickets. [Citing real-life problems, the team of Robinson/Franlin bowed out of the election before the primaries. We wish them luck in their future endeavors. --Ed.]

Tomson/Moritz: 'Ahoy-hoy?'

Recent governmental involvement is not a problem for this dynamic duo. "Tarmac" Tomson and "Maelstrom" Moritz know the ins and outs of commands; Tomson's most notable proposal to date is his call for a "movie" ship whose sims would take place in the time of the various Star Trek movies, one through six. A 2 1/2 year veteran of STF, Tomson is currently the WCO of the USS Kansas (since it's a big carrier-thing, they have crazy position names on there). [Tomson/Moritz was taken out of play after coming in last in the primaries. Good luck to them. --Ed.]

Hope/Berle: no information yet; this person may not even exist

Though Bob Hope has been running in STF elections since Summer 1998, SNN still knows nothing about him. Even less is known about his more recent running mate, Milton "Uncle Miltie" Berle. Based on past elections, their chances for winning aren't that good.

Debate draws crowd, rioters, vandals; Fleet 3 blamed for latter two

The Debates for this election (why do we refer to them in the plural? There's only one!) were held at 9:30 PM EST on November 17, with the two remaining candidates -- "Grendel" Garfield and "Lord Lothar" Lackie -- duking it out in a battle of wits that lasted for three and-a-half days. Okay, we're lying. It only lasted two days.

The format, devised by Election Coordinator, Debate Moderator, and Nietzsche Superman Colin "Don't cross those" Wyers, deviated slightly from the format seen in many recent elections. Instead of asking pre-submitted questions, Wyers had each candidate cross-examine the other's platform and statements. Due to the format of the debate (or perhaps due to a healthy dose of "member-retention" tablets taken by both candidates prior to the debate), much -- if not all -- of the discussion centered around new member retention. In the second half, the Browns were leading 24-18 over the ... sorry, wrong story. In the second half, the topic of debate shifted to communication. Both candidates agreed (obviously) that the lines of communication should be kept open between the President and Command, and that official business should be conducted in Command, not IRC. The last tercet of the evening was, in fact, devoted to questions submitted by the STF populace.

Like I say every year, the Debate offers STFians a chance to see just how similar both candidates are. The questions asked are generally broad, generic ones. As I also say every year, there's not much one president can do differently from another from presidency to presidency: the job is pretty much outlined for him, and any deviation from that delineated job would result in harsh criticism. The question-and-answer format that has become so wildly popular in the Election ship these past two elections is a far better way of determining platforms: the questions are usually well thought-out, and the candidates don't have just four minutes to phrase their responses. I did like the cross-examination element of this debate, however -- no matter how confusing it may have been. In this instance, Lackie's having held the presidency before was more of a liability to him, as Garfield could ask questions like, "Why didn't you do this in your administration?" as he did with member-retention proposals. Lackie, to his credit, gave what we at SNN thought was a good response to the subject of new member retention: "People are always going to leave. Some just lose interest, and that can't be helped. So the problem will never be 'solved.'" Once again, this debate was interesting, but it was not a Kennedy-Nixon debate. This one won't determine the outcome of the election. In fact, I predict that next election time, we might forego a debate altogether, since the Q&A format of the Election ship accomplishes the same task much more efficiently.

Someone shut them up, quickly!

As is the tradition with STF elections, SNN Headline News has brought you interviews with all the major candidates (the ones that responded, anyway). We felt that getting the vice-presidential candidates to respond was also important, since they may someday be presidents of STF (although our Clever Tricks bureau threw a wrench into the works this time with that question number 9). Here, then, we present our interviews in the most compact and comprehensible form we could muster.

1. In every election, there has been one major issue. Two elections ago, it was "GMDevolution." Last election, it was Fleet 7 and expansion in general. What is the big issue this election cycle?

Lackie: The "big issues" in elections tend to develop and become more prominent as the discussion of them progresses, and since (as I write this) we're still in the early stages of the election furor, we don't yet have something like GMDevolution or Fleet 7. But, as with every election, I think the issues in this one boil down to getting people involved. That was the rationale behind both of the aforementioned proposals, and whatever is discussed during this election will center on it. Off the top of my head, the one thing that I'd like to get done is the commissioning of another Academy ship. As PDir I've seen the high demand for places on the Challenger, and I think we ought to expand the opportunities for newbies to receive hands-on training if they want it.

Garfield: Based on what people have been posting, communication seems to be the major issue. Keeping people in touch with people, keeping things out and public, and all around diplomatic skills.

Robinson: I think the major change on that level of STF that Jake and I are particularly looking into is the "Era Ships" issue that has been voiced for so long. We intend to commission a TOS, Movie era, or "Enterprise era" in the command section. If proven a successful and popular option, we would even go so far as to say an "Era fleet" is perhaps on the cards, which would allow the choice of all eras and perhaps even expand one into several ships. However, the expansion of this project will be dictated by the demand for it, so we'll be taking it one ship at a time.

Tomson: For me, the biggest thing is alternate sims. I think its time we diversify. Marines, Klingons, TOS, etc. All would be great fun.

Burchett: The regular issues have already been brought up by the stf public and campaigners alike. Communication, alternate rpg areas, censorship etc. They are all important topics and especially important for the voters to learn where the candidates preferences lie. As for 'big issues', nothing has really struck me as being outstanding so far, compared to previous years. This election might just be won not on who has the best 'big plan' but on who the membership feels they can trust the most.

Friedman: The big issue? Well neither candidate's agenda is radical (a good thing). A lot of STF is running smoothly right now, so it's not a massive revolution of some sort that's needed. But there's only one major issue that's consistently shown up on both candidates' platforms, and that's the issue of Communication.

Moritz: I'm not sure, it could be the "Movie era ship proposal." But, new issues could pop up during the term that no one has thought of.

2. Have you ever stolen something from a K-Mart?

Lackie: How dare you, sir? I've never been so insulted in my life! I steal exclusively from WalMart, I'll have you know.

Garfield: Nope. But then I've not been to a K-Mart in years. :-)

Robinson: No. In fact, I've never been in K-Mart ... That's Brits for you.

Tomson: No, I've never lived in a city that had a K-Mart, and I'm not even sure that I've ever actually been in a K-Mart. Plus, I don't steal, because stealing is bad, and I am not bad.

Burchett: No. Why? Do you have evidence?!

Friedman: No, but I took these little plastic things from school in Kindergarten. =) And there was this one incident involving a six-pack of beer in Mexico ... (grins)

Moritz: I have never stolen anything from or even seen a K-Mart.

3. What makes you think you're qualified to be a president, anyway?

Lackie: Well, having been President before definitely gives me some sort of a claim on being qualified. In addition to that, I've served as FComm-6 and PDir, and from those offices I've gained a great deal of firsthand experience in the various branches of STF government. Most importantly, however, I am and always have been willing to represent the interests of the members of STF; during my last term I always gave my best efforts to the difficult job of running the club, and I will do the same this time.

Garfield: I'm a dedicated, hard working, fanatical STFer with solid experience in running a smooth but open and accessible organization (Fleet Four). I also have experience with every President of the WeBB era, so I know what works and what doesn't.

Robinson: We're the best team for the job - we're fresh, with un-set minds and new ideas. We're able to call on the experience of more senior members, so we don't lose out on that benefit, but we don't have any of the negative effects of seniority. The best of both worlds.

Tomson: I once saw Dan Quayle speak at a National Sheriff's Conference, so I know how truly great leaders operate. Plus, I have some original ideas that should make STF a lot more fun for everyone, even people that aren't members, like Dan Quayle.

Burchett: When voting for club President, the members need to take a serious look at who their running mate is and consider how they would feel if that person ended up being in the big chair. I'm quite prepared to step in as Prez if Nick suddenly disappeared and I'm confident in my own ability to continue on with Nicks ideals and visions. My time spent in STF and time spent being involved in the government of stf has given me the knowledge needed to be a qualified President. I also have the calm tempermant and maturity of mind required to be a good President. I have a deep seated dedication to the club and a vested interest in its future. I have no visions of power nor the desire for glory that the office of President may give me.

Friedman: Well... (g) just kidding. Whether or not -I'm- qualified is irrelevent. In the event that Larry's away, though, I know I could serve in his stead. I've been a member of STF for 3 years now, since I was 12 years old. I've been active politically for 2 of those years. I became the youngest captain and I think the youngest QDir in STF history. The reason? Two things. One, I like to be good at things, and to follow through. Two... I love this club. Why else would I spend an hour or more of my day, every day of my life, at it? =)

Moritz: I think I'm good at talking with people, and make fair decisions. I think those qualities are important for a VP.

4. Would you agree that "Tres Cosas" by Baltasar de Alcazar is one of the funniest pieces of Spanish poetry ever?

Lackie: No. No, I don't.

Garfield: Um, sure. :-)

Robinson: Errrmmm ... I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the work ... so I can't really comment.

Tomson: Probably, but then again I can't read, so I really am not qualified to answer above question.

Burchett: Uhh.. yeah.. Next question.

Friedman: Definitely! Although I prefer the drawn out, tragedic pieces like "Bodas de Sangre," which I'm working away at in Spanish class =) [We've read pieces that made reference to "Bodas de Sangre"; they were far too tragic for us. On a side note, candidate Friedman was the only interviewee who had any idea what "Tres Cosas" was about. --Ed.]

Moritz: Since I've never read it, I'll flip a coin. It became yes.

5. What one thing can you contribute to the presidency that none of the others can (I mean, basically, you can't say something like, "My fabulous record in STF," because you all have good records, otherwise you wouldn't be seriously considering the presiency in the first place)?

Lackie: My fabulous reco... oh, nevermind that. The one thing I believe I can uniquely contribute to the presidency is my ability to communicate effectively with all sorts of people for all sorts of purposes. I've always placed a great emphasis on this, and in my STF experience I've often been surprised by the benefits of a good straightforward conversation. On several occasions (and especially as President), I've used simple communication to resolve problems, and I think this contributed to the relatively crisis-free nature of my term in office.

Garfield: My VP and I both offer a tenacity and enthusiasm that is without equal. We also work well as a team, balancing each other out and acting as sounding boards.

Robinson: At the risk of repeating myself - a fresh perspective, and a closer understanding of the majority of members - their wants, needs and feelings. All this and a competent administrative body too - what more could you ask for!

Tomson: I don't have much of an STF record, (although I do have a REO Speedwagon record somewhere) , but I think I know how to have a good time, and I don't take anything more seriously than it needs to be taken. I see being laid back and fun loving as somthing to offer.

Burchett: If I could spend my entire time when logged into stf purely roleplaying - I would. But there is this sticky little thing called the Government that has to be dealt with if one has an active interest in the clubs future, wishs to become involved in helping the club grow and thrive and help new players. All these things don't give any other kind of reward except for a personal one - and I like helping people and helping the club. You asked for something that none of the others had, but I cannot say that I am unique in these qualities ... just that I have them. And that I have the qualifications behind them to back me up.

Friedman: I think I have several things to contribute. From a standpoint as an active STF member, I hope to do for the club what I've done for the GMD these past months: organize things and make things work. The GMD has become an active, efficient, and industrious place, with the addition of updated GM-lists, and the new IC Database. I think I get people to get the job done. From the standpoint of Vice President, I know Larry values my opinion, even when it dissents from his own. I'll provide counterpoint, backup, a wall to bounce things off of... and not least of all, friendship. Larry and I are friends who trust each other and know each other well.

Moritz: I don't think that I can, all the other candidates are in my humble opinion very qualified for being Presidents/Vice-Presidents.

6. In a no-holds-barred cage match, who would win: funnyman Dick van Dyke or Shiva the Destroyer?

Lackie: Shiva, hands down. Who could withstand his many arms flying in fury?

Garfield: Shiva the Destroyer. I mean come on, Shiva destroys and recreates the universe, surely she can handle a measly mortal? [Garfield later admitted that he didn't know if Shiva was male or female, and instead deferred to Stan Tomson, who claimed he was female. Mr. Garfield was dismissed from SNN Center without any clothes. --Ed.]

Robinson: I'm afraid I couldn't possibly state a responce to an issue of this magnitude without first consulting the full cabinet.

Tomson: Well, considering that Mr. van Dyke was in Merry Poppins and could play a one man band AND clean chimneys ... most certainly Dick. I mean, sure, Shiva is cool, but nah, van Dyke is a powerhouse.

Burchett: Who makes up these questions anyway?

Friedman: Oh, EASY one! Dick Van Dyke would turn Shiva into a walnut.

Moritz: Hmm, answering a question about people I've never heard of ... time to flip the coin again. It became Shiva the Destroyer.

7. There has been some talk of altering the traditional order of the day, with the president putting to a popular vote potential Edicts. Do you feel that this is good or bad for STF?

Lackie: There are some instances in which we'd potentially need a vote. For instance, if we were to try ratifying a constitution again, that would have to be put to a vote because of the monumental nature of the issue. However, it would be extraordinarily unpractical to put edicts concerning things like CO promotions to votes. The President should generally not contradict the will of the public, yet such a radical change to enforce this unwritten rule would harm, not help the club.

Garfield: The reason STF has a strong president with such despotic powers is that putting everything to a vote is simply not feasible. There are too many logistics involved, too many egos, just too much work. A good president does not use his despotic power, however. The President should encourage discussion and debate, and then take all viewpoints into account to come to an acceptable solution. That has many of the advantages of a vote without the logistical nightmare.

Robinson: I think every edict being put to the vote is not only impractical, leading to voting fatigue, but also, it is bad leadership. As a RP'ing member, you may have no interest in the politics of STF, and not keep up with the current debates and issues. This would lead to rash and uninformed decisions dictating policy. I'm all for people having their say, and for public opinion to be the leading force in edict, but if anyone wishes to add anything to politics, they can do so by debating it with myself, a cabinet member, or in the appropriate command area. However - if it is a major change that will affect STF as a whole, and the issue is clear enough to all people - I would be absolutely willing to hold a public vote on the matter.

Tomson: I've been talking about it, so I think its good. I think that people need to be able to have a voice. And while we're on the subject I've been asked if I think ALL edicts need to be voted on. The asnswer is no; CO edicts and such need not be voted on, and in fact shouldn't be.

Burchett: For lack of any other topic, this one may just end up being that 'big issue' you spoke of in your first question. Personally, I don't think such a radical change in tradition would be the right thing for stf just now. If it does become the hot topic in the next few weeks, I can forsee the issue of 'communication' as the back bone for the arguement. A quick fix idea that might win votes - but probably won't fix the problem.

Friedman: This would be a bad thing. It's a nice idea, and I know the intentions to be good ones, but from a practical standpoint, it'd be a nightmare. Everything would be caught in committee, government would screech to a halt! In STF, someone's gotta be in charge to get things done. The current system works well... why change it that radically? The proof of it's working is the roleplaying that continues to flourish. On the other hand, the problems that the idea of voting addresses still need to be dealt with. I think the best way to do that is to further communication, and make sure the membership has a chance to put their two cents in before a decision is made.

Moritz: There are both good and bad sides to this. The normal member gets more power, but I think it's enough as it is now. Since you get to vote for someone to represent you, you should've voted for someone that you trust will make good decisions/edicts.

8. How often do you wash (be honest, now)?

Lackie: Wash what?

Garfield: Often enough that no one in IRC has ever complained. :-)

Robinson: Every day. Though on occasional days - if I'm late due to oversleeping, and exhausted at night - I tend to settle for a quick facial wipe with a flanel.

Tomson: Wash what? Cause I take showers once a month or so, but I don't wash dishes or clothing, that's just plain sick.

Burchett: Well, if we're talking about my car.. I'd have to say it gets a wash when it rains. I don't wash my dog, because I have a cat and she washs herself. Who said you could ask about personal hygene anyway. How often do you wash, you nosey little newspaper man?!

Friedman: A wee bit obsessively. (grins) It's the whole girlfriend thing; I've got to stay nice and fresh!

Moritz: When I can't see because my eyes have been clogged by dirt. No seriously, daily.

9. [For Presidential candidates only] Hypothetically speaking, let's say that a situation arises on a ship where a decision is rendered by the CO, then appealed to the FComm, who also makes a decision. A QDir (pertinent to the situation, of course) then steps in and overrides the FComm's decision. What do you do, Mr. President?

Lackie: Well, it's a very broad question, so I'll outline my solution just as broadly. I'd get everyone together, talk the problem over, mediate a fair solution based on all sides of the story, and do whatever I can to satisfy each party. Of course the specific solution would depend on the circumstances at work, but the process discussed above allows for great flexibility in determining what to do.

Garfield: I can't give a blanket answer to that. There are some areas where the rules say X, and if an FComm decides otherwise, he's wrong. In that case the QDir should not override the FComm's decision himself, he should talk to the FComm and try to get him to reconsider. If he doesn't, the QDir should take it to the President, who may override the FComm's decision. In other cases, the Department policy is only a guideline, and while the QDir and/or Prez can talk to the FComm to try and get them to reconsider, the final say does belong to the FComm.

Robinson: Such disputes are often heated and somewhat disjointed by this stage, and so the first thing I would do is to have every party concerned tell me their side of the story, their reasons for their decision and why they feel so strongly. Then I'd try to have them talk it out, supervising the discussion directly (or having Jake supervise), and hopefully, this will solve the dispute. If not, I'd consult with my VP, and considering all the opinions, and the effects of each decision, I'd make a presidential ruling to settle the issue. This would be my last course of action because it's likely someone is going to be annoyed by the ruling, but if it is the only way to end the dispute it would have to be done.

Tomson: Executions, all around. But seriously, I don't see where it is the Department Head's place to overturn any decision that our glorious FComms make, thus I would (depending on the situation of course) overturn the overturning made by the DH and the FComm's call stands.

9. [For Vice-Presidential candidates only] What would you do if you developed a strong philosophical divergence from your president? (i.e. The President did something that you personally did not agree with.) Are you obligated to voice your dissent, or would you remain quiet and continue publicly endorsing the president's policies?

Burchett: I honestly don't feel that Nick would do or say anything so objectional that I would find it necessary to voice my dissent. If I had any doubts at all, I would not have agreed to run as his vp in this election. If the Prez and VP cannot agree, how can we ever expect the membership to act in a similar manner - it all starts at the top and the caretakers need to set the best example. But hypothetically if he did, my first course of action would be to talk to him in private and talk about whatever the problem was, offer advice and solutions. Communication is the key to understanding and resolve. In the unlikely event that we still did not see eye to eye, I would still publically support him in his decision. Unless of course it was something extreme.. e.g. moving the club back to Prodigy or charging money to access the site. In that instance I would probably join the lynch mob with everyone else :)

Friedman: I do dissent from Larry sometimes! We have disagreed recently on GM training, the IC Library, IRC... several things. But we both respect each other's opinions tremendously. I would feel obligated to voice my personal feelings, whether one-on-one with Larry, or in a public forum. But when Larry makes a decision, I will trust him and his competence enough to back him, and it, up.

Moritz: I would talk to him and try to understand why he did what he did, and try to make him understand why I didn't agree with it.

10. Who is your favorite SuperFriend and why?

Lackie: I'd have to go with Gene Shalit. No particular reason, other than that someone's doing an impression of him on an old SCTV episode that happens to be on TV at the moment, and he looks pretty silly.

Garfield: Batman. He doesn't need super powers. He's just that cool.

Robinson: Ermm ... I don't know what a SuperFriend is ... again I think it's a case of cross cultural differences - could you please define it?

Tomson: Apache Chief, no contest. I mean, how cool is that, he's an Apache, a Chief, and he's terrible stereotypical. He doesn't even wear Apache garb, he looks more like a Souix. That just knocks me off the amazement scale. Bizarro Superman is also mighty cool.

Burchett: I'm sure I was asked this one once before in an interview and I still haven't found out what a Superfriend is.

Friedman: Another easy one. The Green Arrow, all the way!!! C'mon, you've gotta love that eye-abusing costume... and archery just rocks. =)

Moritz: Batman from the 60s, his car is the best ever made! And you can't beat those hi- tech effects! (ZAP, POW, etc.)

Tres cosas me tienen preso
de amores el corazón:
la bella Inés, el jamón
y berenjenas con queso.

Esta Inés (amantes) es
quien tuvo en mi tal poder,
que me hizo aborrecer
todo lo que no era Inés.

Trájome un año sin seso,
hasta que en una ocasión
me dio a merendar jamón
y berenjenas con queso.

Fue de Inés la primer palma,
pero yo juzgase mal
entre todos ellos cuál
tiene más parte en mi alma.

En gusto, medida y peso
no le hallo distinción,
ya quiero Inés, ya jamón,
ya berenjenas con queso.

Alega Inés su beldad,
el jamón que es de Aracena,
el queso y berenjena
la española antigüedad.

Y está tan en fil el peso
que juzgado sin pasión
todo es uno, Inés, jamón,
y berenjenas con queso.

A lo menos este trato
de estos mis nuevos amores,
hará que Inés sus favores,
me los venda más barato.

Pues tendrá por contrapeso
si no hiciere razón,
una lonja de jamón
y berenjenas con queso.

The election hour is near

With roughly a week left in the election, the tides of change could still act heavily upon the beaches of the elections, causing the surfers of uncertainty to get on their surfboards of fate. What all of that means, we'll never know. What we do know, however, is that in a week STF Elections November 2001 will draw to a close, and there will be one winner and one loser. Perhaps one will be "Granfaloon" Garfield; if this is so, then undoubtedly, the other will be "Lacrimal" Lackie. Through it all, we dedicate ourselves to up-to-the-week coverage of Election events, to the detriment of all other news.

We cover the elections like we cover all other STF Events: with "Quick, Informative, Totally Biased Reporting." We rephrased the motto for this issue; clever, wasn't it?

Next week, barring civil uprising and the installation of a totalitarian regime (which are always in the cards), SNN Headline News will be telling you (yes, you!) who next president of STF is. We'd like to remind readers that while we do not endorse any candidate, we're aware of how close the election is, so we encourage all members (not just the usual 58%) to exercise their right to suffrage. Also next week, we'll be back to regular news, assuming of course that there is regular news (of which there was a startling lack this month). Remember to vote early and often -- although you can only vote once, and it doesn't matter when you vote, so the aphorism is more or less useless.