Jump to content
270soft Forum

Canada Decides - 2000 v. 2


Rate this Scenario  

10 members have voted

  1. 1. Rate this Scenario

    • 5/5 - Excellent
      6
    • 4/5 - Very Good
      3
    • 3/5 - Good
      0
    • 2/5 - Okay
      0
    • 1/5 - Poor
      1


Recommended Posts

A new scenario is now up:

"Canada Decides - 2000 v.2" - Canada 2000, by Principled Conservative

You can go to the Prime Minister Forever Updates/Scenarios page to download this scenario.

Please note: this is a third-party scenario - 80soft did not make this scenario.

The 80soft.com Team

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leader's characteristics often show bias.

Stockwell's experience should be at least 3, not 2, he had already been a finance minister. His debating should be 3 and his French bonus should be a malus, at least a -1, I remember the 2000 French debate, it was considered a debate with three participants: Clark, Chrétien and Duceppe, and with two spectators: Day and McDonough. Whenever Day had to say something that wasn't written down, he spoke with a lot of hesitation. Charisma and Stamina should be 4, not 5. Integrity, I'm not so sure, I guess 3 because the "hidden agenda" charge sticked. Issue familiarity, make it a 3. Stockwell Day is, in a way, a right-wing Jack Layton who tends to gaffe more often, there is no reason for the inflated caracteristics he received.

Right-wing third party leaders are too strong (the Christian Heritage Party leader is way too strong), left-wing third party leaders are too weak. McDonough's platform is incorrect, she was known for being a moderate Third-way leader, she shouldn't be as left-wing as Jack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good job HRC, great scenario - once you adjust Stockwell Day's ratings a little... :rolleyes: a '5' for chrisma was a little high. Makes it too easy... I made it a '4' and I was being generous to ol' Stock

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only give indications, Appel was more interested by the NDP at the time, so he should know more. I'll submit my proposals, with a - if I'm not sure, a + if I'm pretty sure and a ++ if I am certain.

Gun Registry L=>CL ++

Personal Tax L=>CL ++

Balanced Budget CL=>C ++

Military funding CL=>C +

Business Tax CL=>C +

Gay Rights L=>CL -

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can only give indications, Appel was more interested by the NDP at the time, so he should know more. I'll submit my proposals, with a - if I'm not sure, a + if I'm pretty sure and a ++ if I am certain.

Gun Registry L=>CL ++

Personal Tax L=>CL ++

Balanced Budget CL=>C ++

Military funding CL=>C +

Business Tax CL=>C +

Gay Rights L=>CL -

Gay rights she would probably be CL, Gay Rights CL, and the rest of Simon's seem OK.

Again, Appel, baby, you're the man here...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I will make these changes and also change the National Post endorsement to the Alberta Report.  Thanks for your input guys I do appreciate it.  I want the scenarios I make to be as realistic as possible so your feedback is necessary to work out the errors.  Thanks again!  :)

The National Post was around for the 2000 election, that I am sure about. Before that. For the 1993 election you could just change the National Post to the Financial Post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...