Proposal: rename integrity

[Mrdie 2]

I think something like vulnerability would be a better word. For example, Dukakis in the 1988 campaign didn't have problems with being seen as a liar or having a scandalous lifestyle, but he was clearly vulnerable to attack anyway (hence ads attacking his treatment of crime while Governor, and Bush pointing out that Dukakis was a "card-carrying member of the ACLU.")

 

As there's a separate stat for corruption nowadays, I figure that gives even more reason to rename the integrity stat.

[Patine 444]

8 hours ago, Mrdie said:

I think something like vulnerability would be a better word. For example, Dukakis in the 1988 campaign didn't have problems with being seen as a liar or having a scandalous lifestyle, but he was clearly vulnerable to attack anyway (hence ads attacking his treatment of crime while Governor, and Bush pointing out that Dukakis was a "card-carrying member of the ACLU.")

 

As there's a separate stat for corruption nowadays, I figure that gives even more reason to rename the integrity stat.

I dislike the term "vulnerability", and still believe firmly the usage of the term "integrity" is very valid and not redundant in the face of a "corruption" attribute, as integrity is about a lot more, even in politics, than just corruption. And your example sounds like just an attempt to knock down Dukakis' integrity score, one of the highest actually deserved and earned of any major GE U.S. Presidential candidate in recent U.S. history, artificially, for some reason or agenda I'm not aware of.

[vcczar 1,224]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

I dislike the term "vulnerability", and still believe firmly the usage of the term "integrity" is very valid and not redundant in the face of a "corruption" attribute, as integrity is about a lot more, even in politics, than just corruption. And your example sounds like just an attempt to knock down Dukakis' integrity score, one of the highest actually deserved and earned of any major GE U.S. Presidential candidate in recent U.S. history, artificially, for some reason or agenda I'm not aware of.

I think "Vulnerability" is a worse term than "Integrity" as well, but I also think "Integrity" is not quite the right term either. Integrity is aligned with honesty and moral uprightness. Two things that can sometimes be contradictory. Since you bring up Dukakis, he was once asked in a debate if he would seek the death penalty for his wife's killer if she were killed. This was used to put Dukakis on the spot. He said, with a strangely detached coolness, that he would not seek the death penalty. Voters took this response in as if he didn't care about his wife. He was honest, but not morally upright in a society in which the majority of voters would have preferred him to seek equivalent justice. 

Another thing that lowers "Integrity" in the game is flip-flopping. Romney and Kerry were both considered flip-floppers, and if I remember, both lack high integrity in the game for this reason. Yet, I think, and I'm sure others do as well, that Romney and Kerry are both much more honest and morally upright than Ted Cruz, who masquerades as the White Knight of both of these definitions. I wouldn't consider flip-flopping dishonest, since we often have to change based off circumstanced and experience. Would anyone call a president dishonest for not using the military to defend the nation in a nuclear attack if he made a promise never to go to war during campaign? Both definitions would also suggest that Trump should be a 1 in Integrity, I think even lukewarm supporters would agree with this, since I can't think of any other candidate that is more deserving of a 1. 

For the historical scenarios, I used Integrity to mean how much the candidate could attract voters purely on their upstanding behavior, rather than on flip-flopping. I wouldn't call this behavior moral, since our morals are all different and not universal. That is, this is someone that is honest, has no known history of dubious behavior, is known to be honest even by the opposition, and who is generally courteous, scandal and corruption free. In my historical scenarios, a 5 is almost always reserved for an upstanding Federal Judge. A 4 is generally reserved for someone with all of these good qualities, but who may not earn a 5, because they are either too puritanical to be courteous to everyone (RFK, Kucinich, Sanders, Ron Paul), or they are high integrity individuals that are too establishment to avoid the occasional dishonest answer (Obama,  for instance). A three hold most candidates. A two is for someone that is permanently tainted by low integrity, but who generally isn't low integrity (like Chris Christie or Hillary Clinton). A one is for someone with a historically low integrity, and who shows consistently low integrity (Trump). 

 

[Patine 444]

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think "Vulnerability" is a worse term than "Integrity" as well, but I also think "Integrity" is not quite the right term either. Integrity is aligned with honesty and moral uprightness. Two things that can sometimes be contradictory. Since you bring up Dukakis, he was once asked in a debate if he would seek the death penalty for his wife's killer if she were killed. This was used to put Dukakis on the spot. He said, with a strangely detached coolness, that he would not seek the death penalty. Voters took this response in as if he didn't care about his wife. He was honest, but not morally upright in a society in which the majority of voters would have preferred him to seek equivalent justice. 

Another thing that lowers "Integrity" in the game is flip-flopping. Romney and Kerry were both considered flip-floppers, and if I remember, both lack high integrity in the game for this reason. Yet, I think, and I'm sure others do as well, that Romney and Kerry are both much more honest and morally upright than Ted Cruz, who masquerades as the White Knight of both of these definitions. I wouldn't consider flip-flopping dishonest, since we often have to change based off circumstanced and experience. Would anyone call a president dishonest for not using the military to defend the nation in a nuclear attack if he made a promise never to go to war during campaign? Both definitions would also suggest that Trump should be a 1 in Integrity, I think even lukewarm supporters would agree with this, since I can't think of any other candidate that is more deserving of a 1. 

For the historical scenarios, I used Integrity to mean how much the candidate could attract voters purely on their upstanding behavior, rather than on flip-flopping. I wouldn't call this behavior moral, since our morals are all different and not universal. That is, this is someone that is honest, has no known history of dubious behavior, is known to be honest even by the opposition, and who is generally courteous, scandal and corruption free. In my historical scenarios, a 5 is almost always reserved for an upstanding Federal Judge. A 4 is generally reserved for someone with all of these good qualities, but who may not earn a 5, because they are either too puritanical to be courteous to everyone (RFK, Kucinich, Sanders, Ron Paul), or they are high integrity individuals that are too establishment to avoid the occasional dishonest answer (Obama,  for instance). A three hold most candidates. A two is for someone that is permanently tainted by low integrity, but who generally isn't low integrity (like Chris Christie or Hillary Clinton). A one is for someone with a historically low integrity, and who shows consistently low integrity (Trump). 

 

What are your thoughts on candidates who seem to rapidly seesaw on their integrity itself. Like Cleveland for instance. He was criticized for having had dealings with Tammany Hall, but then pointed out how he had cleaned the place out. Then, the illegitimate child shows up, which would have destroyed most candidates back then, but he fully admits to his indiscretion and gives the child a $1 million (1888 money!) endowment. And then he wins the election, over a former Christian minister (or was the veep the former Christian minister?)...

[vcczar 1,224]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

What are your thoughts on candidates who seem to rapidly seesaw on their integrity itself. Like Cleveland for instance. He was criticized for having had dealings with Tammany Hall, but then pointed out how he had cleaned the place out. Then, the illegitimate child shows up, which would have destroyed most candidates back then, but he fully admits to his indiscretion and gives the child a $1 million (1888 money!) endowment. And then he wins the election, over a former Christian minister (or was the veep the former Christian minister?)...

I think I give him a 4, since he falls into that Kucinich, Sanders, Paul area. He might be the one exception to being a 5, if he had not had the illegitimate kid, which was a big deal then, despite his honesty and handling of it. 

[vcczar 1,224]

Here are some possible replacement names for "Integrity"

• Virtue
• Incorruptibility
• Honor
• Sincerity
• Trustworthiness
• Credibility 
• Respectability 

Yet, none of these along with "integrity" seem to be the right word. Whatever it is, a 5 in it would have to be a total good. So, sincerity doesn't matter if one is wrong in their sincerity. Incorruptibility isn't necessarily good if they're a puritan in ways unappealing. Integrity seems too large of a word. There can be Honor among thieves. Trustworthiness isn't universally good. I expect Mike Pence to be trustworthy with what he says, but I don't hold him with much higher regard for that. Respectability smacks of the Upper Class. Credibility or Virtue might be more of the word I'm thinking of. However, I don't like any of them. I'd just leave it at Integrity, unless we can use Goodness, but that's too subjective. 

[admin_270 789]

Thanks for this - I think Integrity isn't a perfect fit for how the attribute works in the game, but as VCCzar says, it's tough to find just one other word that works better.

Integrity, like all the other attributes, is a composite. As a campaign designer, the important thing is to know how it functions in the game. For example, it increases the ease of researching a scandal and affects bonuses when campaigning on 'Integrity'. So someone with high Integrity should be someone who in real life would be able to campaign with a bonus on the issue of integrity, and should have relatively few scandals in their past that could be used as fodder for ads.

The ad in particular about Dukakis, in terms of the game, could be not a scandal but a highly successful ad on the issue of crime that triggers a news story.

[Mrdie 2]

"Vulnerability" indeed isn't perfect and, thinking about it, shouldn't actually replace integrity. I just used it to point out that some candidates are simply more vulnerable to being attacked in ads and campaign speeches than others, and I think this should be represented.

 

One advantage I think the term "vulnerability" has is being neutral. VCCzar's list has honor on it, for example. Imagine if this were 2004 and users had to argue over how much honor John Kerry has. It'd become subjective very quickly.

 

My intention isn't "to knock down Dukakis' integrity score," it's to point out that the problems he faced during the campaign aren't represented by either integrity or corruption (hence why I wrote he "didn't have problems with being seen as a liar or having a scandalous lifestyle.")

[servo75 30]

On 2/14/2018 at 3:05 AM, Mrdie said:

I think something like vulnerability would be a better word. For example, Dukakis in the 1988 campaign didn't have problems with being seen as a liar or having a scandalous lifestyle, but he was clearly vulnerable to attack anyway (hence ads attacking his treatment of crime while Governor, and Bush pointing out that Dukakis was a "card-carrying member of the ACLU.")

 

As there's a separate stat for corruption nowadays, I figure that gives even more reason to rename the integrity stat.

I like it. Are you proposing just a rename? I think corruption would handle what you were talking about lying & scandals. Maybe a "personality strength" would work.

[servo75 30]

On 2/14/2018 at 6:18 PM, vcczar said:

Here are some possible replacement names for "Integrity"

• Virtue
• Incorruptibility
• Honor
• Sincerity
• Trustworthiness
• Credibility 
• Respectability 

Yet, none of these along with "integrity" seem to be the right word. Whatever it is, a 5 in it would have to be a total good. So, sincerity doesn't matter if one is wrong in their sincerity. Incorruptibility isn't necessarily good if they're a puritan in ways unappealing. Integrity seems too large of a word. There can be Honor among thieves. Trustworthiness isn't universally good. I expect Mike Pence to be trustworthy with what he says, but I don't hold him with much higher regard for that. Respectability smacks of the Upper Class. Credibility or Virtue might be more of the word I'm thinking of. However, I don't like any of them. I'd just leave it at Integrity, unless we can use Goodness, but that's too subjective. 

We still have "Corruption" so that would cover the honesty part of it. I like "Trustworthiness", maybe something like strength of personality or strength of character.

[Patine 444]

39 minutes ago, servo75 said:

We still have "Corruption" so that would cover the honesty part of it. I like "Trustworthiness", maybe something like strength of personality or strength of character.

Strength of personality is effectively part of Charisma.

[vcczar 1,224]

I'd actually like to see more total characteristics. Issue Knowledge should definitely be broken up into sub-categories.

[Lyly 1]

This is a good discussion. In addition to Integrity, I want to say Credibility almost fits for the purpose of the game too.

[vcczar 1,224]

18 minutes ago, Lyly said:

This is a good discussion. In addition to Integrity, I want to say Credibility almost fits for the purpose of the game too.

Good point. 

[Lyly 1]

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

Good point. 

Well you're the one that made the point, but I thank you anyway.