P4 policial thread - Page 5

Juliennew · August 9, 2002, 10:55

Quote:

about the PB`s I still think we could build them because of two reasons..

I am pro-building PB's too. I completely agree with DBTS on the 2 points.

Method · August 9, 2002, 11:02

first of all, any probe always defends at 0.00 power any time i've ever seen it (except maybe if it had armour). a probe ship would defend at 0.00 against an IOD. bad for podpopping.

2. PBs do not work as deterrance against the AI. do not build them, they are a waste of minerals.

DeathByTheSword · August 9, 2002, 11:05

well I think that we have to wait with changing anything after the election, that is if they go bad then we are not the voice of the free people. but if it goods well then we are. the two power block s do not have a majority of the citizen behind them (in total 20 of the 54) we have only 5 active members but I have already 10 votes. so let wait and look at wat the majority of the people want not the political parties!

Archaic · August 9, 2002, 13:12

Well, I've always said that the best defence if someone is twisting the truth about you is to give it to everyone else straight up. I can't wait to see how they react to the rather long speach I've just given in the nominations thread. I do wonder though if I should have put a disclaimer saying "The following speach represents the views of Archaic, and is not necessarily a reflection of P4 policy". ^^; In any case, here it is for everyone. Nitpick at will, for just like any other politician, I may backflip.....er.........I mean "Adapt", to differing political climates.

Quote:

Greetings fellow citizens of Apolyton. My name is Archaic, and I address you today as the P4 canditate for Director of Social Engineering. By the time I am finished, I hope you have a better understanding of the policies I would push in this position if I were elected.

Unlike my esteemed opponent Kassiopeia, I can sum up my position in but one short word. Adaptability.

I feel our Social Engineering position should best suit our situation, but it should also fit into our ideological perspective. We are not savages, and so we should not act as such. Be us in war or in peace, we should not abandon our ideals.

As such, while I do not support the use of Nerve Stapling, I do however support usage of a single Punishment Sphere in a single Prison Base, where war criminals and other violent, unable to be rehabilitated offenders, would be put to work for the common good in useful tasks. Stationed to watch over them of course would be the bulk of our military power, a power I hope we may never need. Indeed, one would hope that the Punishment Sphere is never needed, and that its mere presence in this single base would deter the prisoners from rash actions. Of course, this is not to say that in extreme circumstances that it would not be used. Certainly dangerous war criminals who violate the UN Charter should be properly incarcerated such that they pay for their crimes.

While I see great benifits both economically and scientifically for our society in a Free Market economy, I also see the value of a Planned economy for brief spurts of growth. Under a Planned economy of course, we must also run under a Democracy, such that the inefficiency caused by this socialist economic model may be overcome. Under a Free Market, I see us as being more flexable. While Democracy is of course preferred, during periods in the first years of our colonies, a Democracy may cost us far too much in support than it gains us in efficiency and population growth. For these periods, a Frontier political model may be more appropriate, and indeed, I see us running under this sort of system for a great length of time.

As for Green Economics, I see a place for these as well in our society. But I do not see them within the next 100 years, within our lifetimes. The issue of Green economics will be debated by later governments, later directors. It is our duty to leave them with a society than can cope with the reduced growth, the reduced production and research through lack of energy, that this economic model will cause. And that is best achieved without putting unnecessary strictures on our economy. Our people will learn to cause less pollution sooner if they cause some pollution first, but if they never cause pollution to begin with, they will be stuck in a technological rut using old and surpassed equipment. In short, we must despoil the environment slightly now such that later we are in a position to be able to restore it to and keep it in pristine condition. If we run a Green economic system before we're ready, we could easily stife our societies development to the point where we're unable to remain its protectors in the future.

On the issue of Fundamentalism, or "Fundy" as it has come to be known, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the idea of any sort of religious theocracy, no matter if it be Catholic, Islamic, or any of the other religions of old earth. However, there are other styles of Fundamentalism that may be appropriate in certain circumstances. Styles based not on religion, but on ideals of philosophy, such as those of Sun-Tzu and Confucious, which I believe would be familiar to many of you. I see a use in these philosophies in our society when it comes time for us to gird ourselves for war. While I would hope such a situation never comes to pass, I am a realist, and I acknowledge that we can never hope to truly bring all the warring factions together united under the ideals of democracy without conflict.

On our societies social values, I must throughly rebut any idea that our society aspire to the ideals of "Power". As I stated earlier, we are not savages, so let us not act like them! However, I see places for both Knowledge & Wealth values in our society at certain points. Indeed, while this strays from the party line, I see a strong economy as being the ultimate driving force behind any research effort, and given the levels of expansion I would hope our society will eventually reach, aspiring to the values of "Wealth" may actually bring us in more research than the values of "Knowledge". In either case, our choice here must be carefully balanced between research and energy. There is no point researching all there is to research if our economy is such that we cannot turn this research into things!

Finally, while my opponent has made assurances to prevent drone riots, I find this an unreasonable demand of this directorship, given that we have no direct control over the work allocations or facilities built in bases. While I am certainly in favour of "doping" our citizens into Golden Ages through Psych allocation, I do not believe this should be a factor in the early years, where we should be focusing on a balance of economy and research. Our economy simply would be unable to sustain the inefficiencies created in the short term, and indeed, it may take just as long for altering Economy/Labs/Psych allocations to become reasonable as it is for Green economics to become workable.

DeathByTheSword · August 9, 2002, 13:22

great speech not entirely P4 like but close enough! i like it

Method · August 9, 2002, 13:22

good speach, but perhaps a disclaimer. i dont want pandemoniak going on about sphere's again

Archaic · August 9, 2002, 13:29

Will, I think I covered *that* particular issue in my PM, didn't I?

Glad you like it DBTS. I know it strays from the party line somewhat (I admit, I'm something of an intellectual elitist, but I *do* support giving people equal chances to make something out of themselves. Someone less able who makes more effort could afterall make more of themselves than an absolute natural who also happens to be the worlds laziest bum.), but like you said, close enough, right? ^^

Juliennew · August 9, 2002, 13:47

Very good speech Archaic.

Maniac · August 9, 2002, 16:48

Good speec Archaic. But where does it deviate from the party line? I agree with every word of it!

TKG, I'm sorry we don't agree on the point of atrocities. But there is a clear majority in favour of building PBs. Also Juliennew, Archaic and I are in favour of keeping our current Sphere policy and don't give a damn what CDC loudmouths say. DBTS was doubting and you were against. A clear majority in favour I'd say. One can't agree about everything in a party I suppose.

Regarding the probe issue. I know probe skimships can't defend against Isles of the Deep. That's why I suggested we only pop a pod when the probe still has all its remaining MPs. That way it can still run. I still haven't heart any alternative. How do you want pop pods, presuming we are in a FM economy?

DeathByTheSword · August 9, 2002, 16:54

about the FM thingy just build 1 garrison unit with non-lethal and U counter the drones of 1 unit away from base. that what i always do but I DO support the skimship idea from M@ni@c

Maniac · August 9, 2002, 16:59

Ermmm... Police units countering drones under FM?

Method · August 9, 2002, 16:59

sure the probe ideas fine i guess. i'd say we need 2 garrisons. doesnt non leathal double police powers? at -5 police that's 2X0...

Method · August 9, 2002, 17:09

Quote:

Originally posted by M@ni@c
Juliennew, Archaic and I are in favour of keeping our current Sphere policy and don't give a damn what CDC loudmouths say.

the point i make is the if the base is size 1 and its citizen is a specialist, then it can't have any drones, eliminating the need for a sphere! thats what we discussed in the chat, and thats what i put in the morale policy thread (or i thought i did)

Maniac · August 9, 2002, 17:17

You're right a PS isn't needed with a size 1 specialist base, so most likely we won't need to build a punishment sphere. That doesn't mean we need to change our current policy. That would be giving in to the CCCP. Now we can't do that, now can we???

Serious, let's just leave the item alone I'd say.

Archaic · August 9, 2002, 21:30

Well, as I've already stated, I don't think a size 1 specialist base is all that workable all things considered. One attack on that base while the troops homed to there were out on assignment, and all those support costs get redistributed throughout the bases nearby. Better to have the base of a size large enough to withstand repeated gassings.

Method · August 9, 2002, 21:56

a size 273 base does not defend any better than a size 1 base you know...

Archaic · August 9, 2002, 23:17

I know. But it'll at least still be alive and standing, even if our opponents take it from us (One turn after which we'd easily retake it of course.). It'd also be able to actually produce things on its own if it's larger instead of relying on crawlers which it can't even build itself at any decent rate if it's small anyway.

Maniac · August 10, 2002, 08:07

Well in my own games I would let the prison base grow as well, but I thought keeping him at size 1 or something small like that would be a good compromise between the pro-PS'ers (like Archaic) and contra-PS'ers (like TKG). Besides, we are RPGing here. We should consider those citizens at "Poly Troll Penal Colony" as real citizens. Do we really want to nervestaple a large base unless absolutely necessary?

Maniac · August 10, 2002, 09:15

On second thought, there might be some discrepancies between Archaic's speech and official P4 policy.

Quote:

I see us running under this sort of system [Frontier] for a great length of time.

With any other faction I would agree that Frontier for a long time is worth it, but the PKs really need Demo early on to counter the inefficiency of Planned. IMHO the -2 Support is worth +4 Growth and +1 Industry.

I agree we should run Wealth early on and perhaps even in a part of the mid-game. Unless we would have to go Fundy-FM early on. Then we will need the +1 Eff of Knowledge as soon as possible. Another factor to consider going Knowledge, even it would cost us some money compared to Wealth, is our diplomatic relations. Going Knowledge might result in a pact with the UoP and keep us treatied with the Spartans, while Wealth would certainly upset those factions. The higher commerce income of Knowledge might offset the lesser income of the SE factors themselves.

Method · August 10, 2002, 10:16

Quote:

Originally posted by M@ni@c
With any other faction I would agree that Frontier for a long time is worth it, but the PKs really need Demo early on to counter the inefficiency of Planned. IMHO the -2 Support is worth +4 Growth and +1 Industry.

I agree we should run Wealth early on and perhaps even in a part of the mid-game. Unless we would have to go Fundy-FM early on. Then we will need the +1 Eff of Knowledge as soon as possible. Another factor to consider going Knowledge, even it would cost us some money compared to Wealth, is our diplomatic relations. Going Knowledge might result in a pact with the UoP and keep us treatied with the Spartans, while Wealth would certainly upset those factions. The higher commerce income of Knowledge might offset the lesser income of the SE factors themselves.

I agree. Democracy is a must, especially with the PKs. personally i'd switch to knowledge as soon as we get it. not only do i like the +2 research, but i hate the -2 morale of wealth.

however, if we have to go green, then i'd choose wealth so maybe bases in GA could get +2 economy.

Archaic · August 10, 2002, 10:17

Which is why we wouldn't Nerve Staple them, we'd just have a Punishment Sphere in there as a deterrant.

I wouldn't support going Planned without going Demo at the same time. However, I believe that in the earlier stages while we're still growing, the Support hit would impact on our still being established bases, and the +1 Industry hardly makes up for it.

You may be right with the SE's and Diplomacy, however I don't believe the Spartans like Knowledge all that much either. It would all have to depend on what situation we were in at the time. An extra +1 Industry from Wealth is very handy at almost any point in the game.

Tactical Marine · August 10, 2002, 10:37

I've joined, now add me to the list!

jdd2007 · August 10, 2002, 11:07

traitor! p4, im warning you.

Tactical Marine · August 10, 2002, 11:19

You do not even own smac. You are not fit to lead a party.

Method · August 10, 2002, 11:30

hurray!

Archaic · August 10, 2002, 11:36

Welcome to the P4 TM.

Have you already voted in the comissioner elections? If so, I'm pretty sure they would allow you to change your vote if you can post it up in time. 1 different vote at this stage could change the outcome of the election, and could be very benifical for the P4.

Leland · August 10, 2002, 11:44

Waitaminute... are you telling me that there's a way to change poll votes? How?

Archaic · August 10, 2002, 11:48

Mods/Admins can change the vote totals in a poll. Didn't you know that? Anyway, even if that isn't used to change the vote, he could post in the thread saying "I want to change my vote from NAME_HERE to DBTS"

Leland · August 10, 2002, 12:00

Can the mods see who voted for what? If so, then I am in favour of mods changing individual votes on request (but only when the poll is still open). As for just saying that you change your vote, that doesn't make a very good generic rule.

Maniac · August 10, 2002, 12:08

I changed the member list in the official party thread. We'll have to wait on DBTS to change the first post in this thread.

Meanwhile, I present the first draft of our probe party policy:

Quote:

P4 is for the use of probes for defensive and inflitration purposes. But we're against any use of them for another mission, like framing or tech stealing, in peacetime. But during wartime, we think they can be used for all the missions we want, excepted atrocities.
We also give a high priority to the HSA as we would no longer need to build defensive probes and as it would make the -2 Probe for going Knowledge unimportant.
Besides infiltration and defence we will also use probes for exploring and pod popping. That way we can still expand our knowledge of the outer world without creating pacifism drones under Free Market.

What do you think? Is it necessary to explain the reasons for our policy? Adding them makes the summary quite long I have to say.