What's our real stance toward the CyCons

Snowflake · January 9, 2004, 12:49

Ok it has been discussed for millions years. But we still haven't had a firm set decision and it had been interfering with further discussions. So I'm now making a poll. This poll will determine where we go regarding CC relationship.

Snowflake · January 9, 2004, 12:56

I voted for Friendly/Neutral. If PEACE surrender or the Planetary Council decided that war to be stopped but the CC contines to attack PEACE we will declare war against them. However if they stop the war effort we will return to the friendly/neutral stance with them.

Micha · January 9, 2004, 13:54

Ok, this isn´t the right time for emotions, but for rational thinking.
There are four human factions competing with us.
1) Drones - we´re perma-pacted, and that´s the best we could do;
2) PEACE - they´re being annihilated, if not vassalized by us
3) UNI - Will be attacked by buster´s superior airforce soon, and I hope we will get a piece of that cake, too
4) CyCon - They are the only faction we wouldn´t have to share

So I say neutral for now, build up army and then let the big war begin - the Collective vs. the Hive !!!

Octavian X · January 9, 2004, 23:43

Friend/Neutral as well. Seems best to keep it simple.

Enigma_Nova · January 10, 2004, 00:46

They'll get air power, and a large chunk of the PEACE bases, if not all of them.
Uni and us have neural grafting.
It will get quite ugly if we have to go to the nuke era.

We'll need a diplomat to determine the stance of CyCon-Uni and PEACE-Uni.
I can see the diplo towards CyCon / Peace / Uni in the Drones embassy.
We know our own stance
Plus we know that CyCon hate the PEACE.

Observing that the Uni consists solely of Archaic, then determining his stance towards other factions should be easy enough.

Why do I want to bring the PUT into this equation?
Simple. PUT is a reasonably weak faction off our coast a small distance. I want to attack them, and the angels (though PUT first).
But, I also want Adaptive Economics (the secret project therein), and if they are allied with the CyCon, we'll need to chat the PEACE up fairly quickly.
Who are the PEACE and CyCon embassadors to The Hive?

Anyway, the best defence is a good offence. We attack these other factions with our new pwnage and gain power that way, preventing the CyCon from overpowering us.

In the end, after they give us tech, CyCon aren't much use to us anymore. PEACE (as a submissive) could research Planetary Economics, for the secret project there, but that's about it.

We talk to them until we get the tech / units we want then we don't care about them. We may want to conquer them to acheive victory that way.

Jamski · January 11, 2004, 14:23

Quote:

We want to find whatever reason we can, to go to war against them

Yep.

-Jam

Snowflake · January 13, 2004, 15:04

Wow Jamski I thought you loved CCs. You are not pretending are you?

Enigma_Nova · January 13, 2004, 16:10

Treat them as we treat PEACE.

Milk 'em both for tech and taunt them into attacking us once we get MMI.

Frankychan · January 13, 2004, 17:42

Shoot, I didn't read the poll as intended. Well, I say we should treat them like PEACE, but eventually one of us is going to have to make a move.

BUT DANG IT, I STILL THINK THE DRONE'S ARE UP TO SOMETHING!

Just my paranoia kicking in.

Jamski · January 13, 2004, 18:50

I like the CyCon, but we can't let them take over half of Planet unopposed.

-Jam

Snowflake · January 13, 2004, 18:53

You really love them so much you want to own them don't you. What a painful love.

Jamski · January 13, 2004, 19:48

That is the basis of love - owning and being owned.

Or that's what I heard on www.xxx-submit-to-your-master.com

-Jam

Snowflake · January 14, 2004, 04:09

I hope it is this simple.

Jamski · January 14, 2004, 04:40

Well, attached to that is the feeling of belonging and of sharing. But these ideas have to be based on a mental system of ownership.

-Jam

Snowflake · January 14, 2004, 13:43

Yes you want to own, but you realize that you are already owned ... What tough challenges life always poses to everybody. Perhaps that mental system of ownership will not fare well after all ...

Enigma_Nova · January 14, 2004, 18:30

Yes... the age old cycle of influencing and being influenced.
What a bastard that can be.

What to bend to? What to resist? How to bend others? What they will resist?
It's that amusing and often annoying game that many people call 'diplomacy'.
Personally I resist bending as much as possible with the forseeable consequence of people not bending to me.

(And then I try to bend people to make them more conducive to the idea of unbending... YES I DAMN WELL KNOW THE IRONY)

But it's not a game that can be lost or won; the game itself can be bent and shaped.
But beware! In doing so, the game may bend and shape you.

Jamski · January 15, 2004, 04:38

Quote:

Perhaps that mental system of ownership will not fare well after all ...

We've had it for at least 6,000 years and I don't see what could make it change.

We humans are too attached to the idea of ownership to ever let it go. This is my house, my life, my wife, my job. We share a car, I take a risk, You give me all your love.

See?

-Jam

Enigma_Nova · January 15, 2004, 07:09

So we own our beliefs and share our thoughts?
Interesting. I wonder what life would feel like if we did not associate things with our selves...

That good ol' idea of a Self is too ingrained in our noggins!

Snowflake · January 15, 2004, 13:14

Give. Yes that is the word I like. By giving you are not changing the ownership. I give you my love but I still have my love. It is not possible not to assoicate things with ourselves because the existence of the self is the very base of our extension to the outside world. However, the relationship between oneself and the outside does not have to be own and be owned. I don't have to own you, and don't have to be owned by you. I give you my love, I give you my trust, I give you my heart. But I will not surrender myself to you. I still have myself, stand up for myself, fight for myself. I treasure all that you give me, but I do not take them for granted and abuse them. I'd love to be loved by you, but your soul is free from me.

Do I want to own you and be owned by you? Yes I do. But I learn from the lesson of the 6,000 years and realize no matter how hard it is, I have to let that mental system of ownership go.

Enigma_Nova · January 16, 2004, 01:25

After all it's just atoms pushing around other atoms anyway... Ownership is a way we approximate (and hence understand) how one set of atoms influence other sets.

I also wonder about beliefs and thoughts.
Do we own them, or are they some free sense?
Most probably a free sense, some enigmatic energy.
Without a self, there's no way to associate ownership. Thoughts might exist without a self, so they cannot be owned.

But still, we share our thoughts, and give our opinions. Thoughts are still associated with particular people, and can be given and received through communication.
So are thoughts associated with us as individuals? Are they 'our' thoughts, or do thoughts just exist - moving across our inner eye every once in a while, being influenced by other thoughts...
I think the latter.
Thoughts influence other thoughts, this is what we are. Some of us find our Self in thought... I suppose Self in itself is an illusion...

Self? A concept we invent. We may see concepts, feel them and share them, but I agree that we do not own them.

Snowflake · January 16, 2004, 11:32

Good thinking Enigma. Do thoughts exist independent of the entity that thinks them? If there were no human, or, no animals, no, how about if there were no living creatures, will thoughts find themselve a new entity for them to live on?

I'd rather think that thoughts are products of and inputs to brain cells. Like electricity, they have an origin. In other words, they may change, they make interact with each other, but they are still related to self.

An individual may not own a concept. But a larger entity may. Concepts do not exist without the entity that feels and shares them.