Chiron Democratic Coalition

[DeathByTheSword]

I was making a joke about the stalinism (if that is a real word)!

[Kassiopeia]

Somebody asked about SE choices and Punishment Spheres.

My goals as Director of Social Engineering can be squeezed to these words: Flexibility and Efficiency.

Flexibility; in all situations will I endeavour to reach the SE modifiers and energy/tech/psych rates best suiting our situation, be it war or peace. In early game I suggest having a tech rate as high as our economy allows.

Efficiency; as high efficiency as possible (as much as allowed by Flexibility) to ensure economical growth and to hinder drone problems. Also a high efficiency reduces the penalty from having tech or energy rates of over 50 % and the costs from choosing new SE choices is also negated.

In terms of base control, I do not support nerve stapling (an atrocity) in any case (barring immediate lost of the entire base), nor do I support usage of Punishment Spheres (although we probably won't have them by the end of the next term, I wanted to let you know) because of the moral implications and the horrid research penalty.

My preferred policy in SE choices is, Democracy as soon as possible, to balance the efficiency penalty (economy) and to encourage population growth (expansion).
Green as soon as possible, to increase efficiency and to conjure combat bonuses against native life and to have the ability to capture them. FM, though, is considerable in some situations; more energy means more research, though the Planet penalty from it is very disconcerting.
Knowledge as soon as possible, to increase efficiency even more, and to boost scientific progress.

Also, as D of SE I will not support Planned Economics; since our faction is the Peacekeepers, we won't even have the possibility to switch to Police State. Additionally, I will do my best to prevent any drone riots.

Of course, before tech level allows, I support the choices best suiting the situation.

[DeathByTheSword]

EDIT:
never mind stupid question

[Voltaire]

Wow, the CDC has grown to a total of 12 members, and now officially the CCCP by itself rivals the P4 in power.

[Pandemoniak]

Yeehoo !

Alle Menschen Bruden werden...
Beethoven IXth Symphony,
quoted in For I have walked with the Drones

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Voltaire
Fellow citizens, science is the key to development and to self-improvement, it is because of this belief which I have that I desire to serve you all as Director of Science and Technology. I do not believe that partisan politics should play a part in candidacy for this post since all candidates do share the same central beliefs about the role of knowledge in society, but rather than spout rhetoric I will outline my direct policy which I hope to implement in the Director of Science and Technology, as well as my policy in relation to other departments. My hope is that I will get elected to the post based not on party lines, but rather on policy.

I intend to be in touch with the public on all issues, and therefore will run polls to determine the public’s stance on what knowledge and technologies we should pursue. It is my hope to serve all the people and not just the majority, thus I will make it a policy to ask all citizens when voting to state their reasons behind their opinion in order to provide me with as much information as possible in order to be able to serve your needs better.

Likewise, just as I intend to take into account the opinions on the public, circumstances should also play a role in determining what technologies we require. It will be a policy of my administration to keep a close eye on all matters in order to have the necessary information to make the proper decisions. Though I’m certain those dedicated to research such as myself would like nothing more than for us to pursue pure knowledge at all times, but this simply isn’t feasible, we must take into account matters such as if we are involved in a conflict, population growth rate, the needs of the citizens, and so forth.

And finally before I outline my initial policy on the course of research which we should follow in the coming years on Planet, I wish to make the stance of my administration clear on our dealings with other departments. I will personally push for other departments to keep in mind the vital role of science; and as such it will be the policy of this administration to seek the contraction of labs and various institutions which benefit research, not only for the sake of research itself, but also to improve the lives of our citizens as well. We will also keep a close eye on the Directory of Social Engineering to make certain that our department receives proper allocations in order to be able to meet the needs and desires of the people. Our relationship with the Directory of Foreign Affairs will be a close on, and we shall take an active role when it comes to exchange of knowledge with other factions, for trade not only benefit our relations with other factions but it also frees up our own resources and enables this department to speed up our research. As for the matter of giving technologies away to other factions, we believe it best to seek compensation in the form of energy credits if new technologies cannot be obtained, but our stance on selling technology to other factions is more strict, we should not be making our rivals stronger, nevertheless I realize that Foreign Affairs is a delicate matter and so such decisions should be left in the hands of the Directory of Foreign Affairs.

And now let us move on to the specifics…

In the coming years, as I mentioned, it is vital for us to develop our infrastructure. Therefore my plans include concentrating our research efforts on the sphere of Biogenetics; we in turn from this receive an invaluable facility of Recycling Tanks (proving for an increase in nutrients, minerals, and energy at a based) as well as the Human Genome Project. Though my reasons for choosing this path are not only due to the facilities provided for, but also Biogenetics opens the doors to the Secrets of the Human Brain which will only further hasten our scientific development. Centauri Ecology would be most appropriate to research afterwards seeing as it provides us with Formers and thus the possibility to being the terraforming of Planet. After which I believe that research into Social Psych would prove invaluable for it provides us with Recreations Commons for all citizens thus improving their lives, but more importantly it will enables us to complete research into Secrets of the Human Brain leading to other scientific breakthroughs. Social Psych also opens the doors to Ethical Calculus, allowing us to choose Democracy under Social Engineering. But I’m getting ahead of myself; this proposal is just a draft which will be revised pending input from citizens.

It is my hope that I have given you a clear understanding on what I stand for, and my vision for Planet.

Thank you for your time.

Academician Voltaire;
Election Speech

[Voltaire]

Despite the fact that we’ve lost the election (by one vote), our candidate is not the Alpha Talent which isn’t so bad seeing as we do share more in common when it comes to environmental, economic, defense, etc. policies with the FF than the P4.

[Method]

Originally posted by Voltaire
our candidate is not the Alpha Talent

yes he is

[Pandemoniak]

Lucky22, member of the CCCP has announced he was running for the seat of Direction of Base Production.

Therefore, as the founder of the CCCP, I ask the CDC to support him, as well as supporting myself for the Terraforming and Colonisation seat, of course

[Voltaire]

Update…

Directory of Terraforming and Colonization: Pandemoniak (CCCP)
Directory of Science and Technology: Voltaire (LSD)
Directorty of Peacekeeping Operations: ---
Directory of Foreign Affairs: Ade (LSD)
Directory of Energy and Industry: ---
Director of Social Engineering: Kassiopeia (LSD)
Director of Exploration and Intelligence: FlameFlash (EDP)
Director of Base Production: Lucky22 (CCCP)

Well from the looks of it there are two more positions vacant, anyone interested in those???

[Voltaire]

After taking a look at the ACE coalition thread it appears that they too have some intentions of running candidates for each office (though it is not official). I believe we need to officially start our campaigns for our respective positions. And I also think that the CDC should come together in a show of solidarity for all our candidates, and to present to the people reasons why we are the best choice for office.

And we do need to act ASAP.

[GeneralTacticus]

Well from the looks of it there are two more positions vacant, anyone interested in those???

I'd like to run for Director of Peacekeeping Operations.

[DeathByTheSword]

i think CDC is al little to late the commissioner and alpha talent allready shutdown the nominations and the discussions have allready begone....i think (not sure) that the elections are on monday and there will be no more new aplecations for a office anymore

[GeneralTacticus]

i think CDC is al little to late the commissioner and alpha talent allready shutdown the nominations and the discussions have allready begone....i think (not sure) that the elections are on monday and there will be no more new aplecations for a office anymore

well if the elections are on Monday, surely I can nominate myself beforehand, can't I?

Director of Peacekeeping Operations Campaign Speech

Greetings, fellow citizens of the United Nations. In these troubled times for humanity, we shall have great need for a strong military force, capable both of defending our colony and, if our leadership deems it necessary, to undertake offensives against other factions. I believe that I am qualified to fulfil this need, and I, General Tacticus, therefore ask that you, the people, elect me as Director for Peacekeeping operations.

While the other two candidates for this position have yet to elaborate on their platform, I am prepared to do so for mine. I will also answer any questions you may have.

Firstly, I believe strongly in the principle of Clausewitz that war is an extension of politics through violence. I will therefore keep military action subservient to the directives of our leadership, in order to ensure that the bigger picture is not ignored.

Secondly, I believe that war, while it is regrettable and should be avoided where possible, human nature makes it eventually inevitable. Hence the need for a strong military.

Thirdly, I believe in taking a proactive stance with military action, so long as it does not conflict with my first point. I will therefore advocate taking the offensive against hostile native life forms, positioning military forces near the borders of hostile factions, and taking the fight to the enemy rather than letting them take it to us.

Fourthly, I pledge that I will not attempt to gain additional military funding at the expense of science, expansion and industrial development, all of which are the linchpins of further military power. I will therefore argue against the institution of ‘Power’ system of values, except in extreme circumstances, and will also take all possible measures to reduce the burden placed on our society by the military, by the implementation of clean reactors and the use of armoured probe teams for exploration. I also believe that we should not attempt to maintain a large military unless we are in fact under threat, but rather should ensure that we have the capability to rapidly develop a sufficient military. In the absence of a threat, we should maintain infantry garrisons capable of holding up against a surprise attack, along with probe defences where necessary and anti-mindworm troops, but should not bother with more than a few attack rovers for offence. This must, however, change in event of war.

Finally, I pledge that if the majority of citizens decide that I am not fit for this position, I shall accept their will. I am and always have been a democrat, and one cannot both be a democrat and deny the will of the majority.

Edited to add speech.

[DeathByTheSword]

I donnu i thougt they closed it but you have to check the nominations thread. the closed it because then there could be a discussion between the candidates and then the people could vote this way the election thingy would go faster. but i donnu for sure

[Darkness' Edge]

As far as I'm concerned, you can nominate. But as he's the president, Crisler has the final say.

[GeneralTacticus]

OK. I'll PM him and find out.

[FlameFlash]

Go ahead and do try to nominate yourself... even if nominations are officially closed you could always become a write-in canidate.

[Kassiopeia]

*gives the thread a good kick in the hindquarters*

Vote ppl, vote!

[AdamTG02]

The Exploration and Discovery Party is now voting on a proposal to merge with the P4, and form a new party which will not be a part of the CDC. P4 is unanimously for it, but no EDP member has so far endorsed it, although several including myself have said they are considering it.

Now is the time to make your views known, either on this thread or on the EDP thread. The P4 has had a chance to make their case -- the CDC deserves at the very least an equal chance. So, feel free to speak up.

[Darkness' Edge]

It would be a sad loss.

I generally try to stay out of party politics, but the P4 has proven to be rather...egotistic, and obsessed with power.. I'd vote for an ACE candidate over most of the P4 people any day, as several of them don't play very well with others.

[AdamTG02]

the P4 has proven to be incredibly vengeful, egotistic, and obsessed with power

Could you support that statement?

[Darkness' Edge]

I just toned down my original statement.

The UN constitution thread is the best example. We're..what, three or four days into the game, and they're already calling for the impeachment of the Commissioner and two directors, over utter nitpicking. And I suppose it's just coincidence that all three officials attacked just happened to be the three who defeated P4 candidates in the elections.

The P4's own thread is another good example. Most of us don't take our politics too seriously. But after the elections, who was whining that that ACE "didn't live up to their end of the bargain" and deliver victory to P4 candidates?

If nothing else, consider this.
The P4 expects their members to mirror the party line, and to vote with them on every issue. The CDC is much more democratic, and allows conscience votes.

[Archaic]

[ threadjack ]

Originally posted by Darkness' Edge the P4 has proven to be incredibly vengeful, egotistic, and obsessed with power

If you're going to attack me, attack me directly, instead of attacking my party. I am the most extreme member of it, and my views to not always stick to the party line.
And even if we took your comment as being aimed at me, it's still a strawman.

they're already calling for the impeachment of the Commissioner and two directors, over utter nitpicking.

So Pandemoniak ignoring what the people voted for and instead making an arbitary decision was nitpicking?

And I suppose it's just coincidence that all three officials attacked just happened to be the three who defeated P4 candidates in the elections.

Perhaps we should be asking if it's a coincidence that the members of a supposedly democratic alliance have made decisions undemocratically.

The P4's own thread is another good example. Most of us don't take our politics too seriously. But after the elections, who was whining that that ACE "didn't live up to their end of the bargain" and deliver victory to P4 candidates?

How is it taking politics "too seriously" to expect people to keep a promise? We kept our part of the bargain, they didn't keep theirs.

If nothing else, consider this.
The P4 expects their members to mirror the party line, and to vote with them on every issue. The CDC is much more democratic, and allows conscience votes.

Perhaps you should read the P4 thread again. Few members voted for all the "supported" canditates. I know I bloody well didn't. Neither did DBTS. Or Maniac. Nor TKG.

[/ threadjack ]

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Archaic
[ threadjack ]



If you're going to attack me, attack me directly, instead of attacking my party. I am the most extreme member of it, and my views to not always stick to the party line.
And even if we took your comment as being aimed at me, it's still a strawman.

Maybe someone with a ton of time on their hands should go through all of Archaics posts and find all the little "strawmans" and "appeal to authority" etc in his posts. He seems to like doing it a lot....Hey, wait a minute.....I wont say

(I know, your going to saw it was a personal attack. However, I'm not saying your WRONG.....therefore i'm not in violation of that 'rule'....)

So Pandemoniak ignoring what the people voted for and instead making an arbitary decision was nitpicking?

I agree with you there.

Perhaps we should be asking if it's a coincidence that the members of a supposedly democratic alliance have made decisions undemocratically.

Ok.

How is it taking politics "too seriously" to expect people to keep a promise? We kept our part of the bargain, they didn't keep theirs.

I dont recall all of them taking an oath or anything....

Perhaps you should read the P4 thread again. Few members voted for all the "supported" canditates. I know I bloody well didn't. Neither did DBTS. Or Maniac. Nor TKG.

[/ threadjack ]

How do you know these things? I mean, looking through the P4 thread I'm able to eliminate 2 from your list...

I just voted in all the OFFICIAL polls for the people we support. [I was the first one because it said only one vote so thats kinda sweet.]

Bloody.

Naturally I voted for the preferred candidate list as well. Am I lame now?

Maniac.

[DeathByTheSword]

[treadjack]

well i dont no about Tbb and maniac but......a hell with it I am not going to be part of discussion

[lucky22]

What precipitated this move? Has the P4 been soliciting the idea, or are the EDP fed up with the CDC for some reason? Do reasons include: No sense of direction, no sense of organization, poor decision making, socialist infiltration? Is it the free market vs. planned issue, a conflict with the CCCP's policies?

I believe any of these conflicts or discomforts can be addressed without dissolving the CDC.

EDP members: please complain freely for the sake of this discussion.

[Maniac]

Read Archaic's post. It reflects pretty well what I think. It is also noteworthy that CDC can't come up with any policy reason why EDP should stay with them. Their only argument is P4 being less democratic than EDP. I think yesterday has proved it's actually the reverse.

Can you really blame me for voting on the exact list of "P4 preferred candidates"? What do you expect? I ****ing am the one who came to that voting agreement with Crisler.

The last accusation against P4 is that we expect all members to mirror party policy. I would like to say two things on that.

One. The purpose of parties is that it unites people with similar but not identical worldviews. They then strive to realize the policies all members are unanimously in favour for. However they also strive to realize policies a large majority of members is in favour for. It is then preferred that the whole party votes in favour of that issue, also the minority which is against that particular issue. It is a quid-pro-quo relationship. To give a concrete example: the EDP part of "D4" votes in favour of adopting a free market economy, though some of them are sceptical about it. On another time the P4 part votes to continue expanding until eternity, although several members would prefer to stop at 20 bases. Is that so undemocratic? Without the above principle parties have no use at all.

Two. Personally I don't feel I'm forcing all members to vote the same on all issues. A closer look at my posts would indicate I deliberately maintain a neutral attitude about many policy items. For example, planetbuster building: I abstained. For all I care P4 members can think what they want about those weapons. The same in the PS discussion. It's the same to me whether we would build a PS base or an all-specialist base. Let my fellow party members decide which of the two options will be taken.

Some final notes to DE about your post in the constitution thread. I won't continue it there because it would be off-topic.

Though other directors, for example MrWhereItsAt, have had enough time to poll citizens about our build queue before the game started, you can't expect the same from Pandemoniak. He can hardly start a poll before we know our start location! So you can't blame Pandemoniak. You should have waited. I don't see the need to rush this game. Do you? How many turns do you expect to play this month anyway?

I found one relevant thread, and in that, the general consensus was for the city location I founded it in.

What thread would that be? In all threads I've looked, there was a majority for starting at our landing spot.

I'd vote for an ACE candidate over most of the P4 people any day, as several of them don't play very well with others.

Hello?? Are you saying this simply because I tell people when they aren't acting right? I think it is clear I would post many more polls when director than any of you guys. You don't play well with and don't listen to others.

[FlameFlash]

Originally posted by lucky22
What precipitated this move? Has the P4 been soliciting the idea, or are the EDP fed up with the CDC for some reason? Do reasons include: No sense of direction, no sense of organization, poor decision making, socialist infiltration? Is it the free market vs. planned issue, a conflict with the CCCP's policies?

I believe any of these conflicts or discomforts can be addressed without dissolving the CDC.

EDP members: please complain freely for the sake of this discussion.

More or less the idea came about in my mind from the similarities of worldviews that TKG and I share. From there it progressed into the thought of a merger, rather than a coalition because the P4 was against becoming a coalition from the start of the game for reasons I'll simply respect and not reiterate.

So to finalize your first to questions... P4 did slightly solicite the idea, but only after TKG and my initial noting of the fact that our idealolgies were similar, yet each knowing the other wouldn't cross to another party when the one we started in was still around and we were still in agreement with it as well.

No sense of direction might be part of it... but then the EDP has been called directionless before...

There's no sense of organization because there isn't any, period... at least that I've seen.

The last few

poor decision making, socialist infiltration? Is it the free market vs. planned issue, a conflict with the CCCP's policies?

don't really apply because I've never had a problem with CCCP's policies either, if you remember... just wasn't in total agreement with them.

Simply because the EDP possibly leaves the CDC doesn't mean that it needs to be dissolved... you've still got other parties that are a part of it... but it's not even official that the EDP is leaving yet, and posing that as a reason for the EDP not to leave isn't posing much of an argument, as Maniac said...

[AdamTG02]

A few points:

As I said in the EDP thread, the one issue that might motivate me to withdraw from the CDC is the early base placement and playing to 2106 without many polls. I don't see this as a constitutional issue, because we did vote for a representative, not a participative, democracy. (I was outvoted. ) Rather, I see it as a style of leadeship issue. The kind of gameplay I would like to encourage is that which relies on polls and the opinion of the people to make decisions, and doesn't necessarily play turns very quickly. Now, I have little to no prior experience with democracy games (I joined the Civ 3 game a few days before signing up for this one), so this may be unrealistic. But it is my hope for future government.

This by itself would not be any reason for the EDP to quit the CDC. Commissioner Darkness' Edge is only one out of many CDC members. But it does make the argument that we should stay in solidarity with the CDC, and rebuff P4 because of it, less persuasive. To my knowledge no EDP member has come to a final decision yet; both sides are being weighed.

The purpose of parties is that it unites people with similar but not identical worldviews. They then strive to realize the policies all members are unanimously in favour for. However they also strive to realize policies a large majority of members is in favour for. It is then preferred that the whole party votes in favour of that issue, also the minority which is against that particular issue. It is a quid-pro-quo relationship. To give a concrete example: the EDP part of "D4" votes in favour of adopting a free market economy, though some of them are sceptical about it. On another time the P4 part votes to continue expanding until eternity, although several members would prefer to stop at 20 bases.

This is a little worrying to me, simply because the EDP, and also the CDC, have in my experience operated on different principles. I've never told EDP members, "2/3 of us have voted to support this policy; therefore, I expect the remaining third to support it as well." The issue of what to support is an individual decision, a conscience-driven rather than loyalty-based choice. Politics often if not always involves moral decisions; the right to decide what moral principles one wants to buy into is and must remain an individual one.

Is that so undemocratic? Without the above principle parties have no use at all.

Without that principle, parties can still:

-- discuss issues and come to a reasoned consensus
-- draw together people of similar minds on the issues
-- rally support for the issues on which they do agree
-- foster debate on the subjects on which they don't agree
-- endorse candidates, whether or not all members agree with the candidate on every issue.

I will say this: I believe that EDP and CDC have a fundamentally different attitude toward party loyalty than is evidenced by the above statement. That doesn't mean we can't work together, but it does provide a hurdle that we would have to get around.

I don't plan to leave the party if the EDP joins P4. But I also don't plan to be loyal to the party on issues where I disagree, whether that party is EDP or 3D / D4. That's not to say I wouldn't compromise -- but I would retain the discretion to compromise or not.

I'm hoping that we would be able to work together on those terms.