Director of Social Engineering Debate Thread: Term III

[AdamTG02]

This thread is intended to allow for public debate on the upcoming election for Director of Social Engineering. Candidates and the public, feel free to take part.

Candidates:
Archaic
AdamTG02

[AdamTG02]

As a candidate for Director of Social Engineering, I see my job as simple. I institute the society which the people democratically decide to strive toward. There are those who say that our society is not yet ready for large-scale democracy, with the legislative assemblies and local assemblies that entails. I say that that is short-sighted. We were brought to this planet under a United Nations mandate, which charged us to begoin anew on this new world. As it stands, we are in danger of repeating the mistakes of Earth.

The new Ethical Calculus technology has been used by the Morganites to institute a free and democratic government the envy of any on Earth. Even with their heirarchical corporate structure, the Morganites are in many ways freer than any UN Peacekeeper. The rationales are many: the need to lay out a strong economic and population base, the need to create a strong social order. But I do not come to you to give you rationales. I come to give to you a future.

I call for a future of creativity, where our educators raise a new generation of children to live in a society those on Earth might have only dreamed of. I call for a future of conscience, where every citizen is free to speak his or her mind and follow the inner dictates of her or his moral compass. I call for a future of freedom, where individual rights and autonomy are respected, and of community, where individuals choose to work together for the benefit of Chiron as a whole. These rights are not the selfish demand of a "drone" who demands the freedom to drown himself in amusement. They are the birthright given to every human being who, endowed with conscience and judgement, chooses to stand up for what he or she believes is right. They are innate and eternal, and while we can foresake them for a time we cannot efface them from the world, or from our hearts.

Each of us has a different idea about from where these rights proceed. Some believe they proceed from an almighty God who has laid down absolute moral laws that, above all, require the freedom -- to sin, or to not. Some believe they proceed from a social contract where individuals agree to respect the rights of others that their rights might be respected themselves. I believe that they are basic, necessarily implied by the structure of understanding and consciousness itself. When we are aware -- and to live is to be aware -- then we have innate and inviolable rights, that, although they may be ignored for a time, are eternal.

Shall we turn away from the voice that demands a higher ideal than simple self-aggrandizement? Shall we seek not to better our freedom and that of our children, but to better our position in the balance of power and our economic state? Shall we turn away from freedom in search of security and stability? I don't think we will. I think a majority of Peacekeepers want Democracy. And I am willing to stake my future on the belief that a majority want a Director of Social Engineering who will give it to them.

Thank you, and good night.

[Darkness' Edge]

This is going to be a tough decision.
I'll have to give it some more thought.

[Frankychan]

Candidates AdamTG02 and Archaic:

If the Drone's were to riot in New Apolyton, would you switch our policies to combat this threat? Say, by changes our Values and Economic choices?

Would you implement stricter policies on rioting and strengthen our police force?

[AdamTG02]

In the short term, I would advocate conscripting as many Doctors as necessary to restore public order. If switching workers to the medical sector would result in a shortage of food, then I would advocate raising the factionwide Psych rates to restore order. This would be done in consultation with the Director of Research and the Director of Industry and Energy, as their directorates would be affected.

If the drone problem were only in a single base, which had food reserves, then I would recommend that the Director of Industry and Energy assign a sufficient number of Doctors to restore order, even if this created a shortage. Then, I would request that the Director of Base Production shift immediately to a facility built to ameliorate the drone problem, such as Recreation Commons, a Hologram Theatre, or a Research Hospital. If necessary, I would ask the Director of Industry and Energy to supply funds to rush production.

If riots occured in several bases, all of which had a significant amount of enery inocme, I would raise the psych rate in order to educate and counsel the members of society who needed it the most, and thus restore ordered calm.

In all situations where possible, I would poll my decisions and abide by the will ofthe electorate. If this is impossible (for example, if riots become a problem during a turnchat), then I would act based on the input I had available, particularly that of the Directors (and if implemented, Governors) who the problem affected.

[GeneralTacticus]

Question to Adam (we all know Archaic's thought on the matter): What are your views about the FM vs. Planned Debate, and do you think we should use wealth after we acquire IA?

[AdamTG02]

I'm flexible as far as Values and Economics go.

I think that we should use the Social Engineering choices that are most in line with our interests and values. Granted, we have divisions within our society -- many want a thriving market economy, while others hold that this would be repeating the mistakes of Earth.

Flexibility means that I am open to both possiblities. There is much to be said for both -- a Planned economy would support all members of our society economically, rather than the most able few. However, we would sacrifice the wealth and energy these few dynamic entrepeneurs would be able to produce. A Free Market Economy would give us that economic energy -- but we would lose the industrial benefits that come from coordinating and managing our economy, as well as the population growth encouraged by social welfare policies.

At the moment, I lean toward a free market economy in order to stay on good terms with CEO Morgan, our Treaty partner and potential Pact Brother. However, my position has always been Democracy first, all else secondary. With that in mind, the second and third polls I will hold as Director (after the poll to endorse a Democratic constitution) will determine our economic direction. I will hold a majority vote on whether to switch to Planned, and a majority vote on whether to switch to Free Market. If both win, I would then hold a runoff between the two economic options. I would work with the Commissioner to allow time before the first turnchat to accomodate these polls, if necessary.

If neither Free Market or Planned marshalled a majority, we would stay with our Simple economics. If Planned won, we would switch immediately. However, because of the anticipated drone riots from an immediate switch to Free Market, I would not switch us to Free Market immediately. If that option won, I would request the Director of Exploration and Intelligence to withdraw our exploration forces to our borders. Only when no base stood at risk of drone riot due to our military deployment would I switch to a Free Market economy.

Regarding Wealth, I would likewise favor a democratic vote. Upon acquiring Industrial Automation, I would request that we immediately end the turnchat so that a poll could be held on Wealth. If a majority approved of it, we would institute Wealth values. As Wealth could substitute for the benefits of a Free Market in some cases, if we were in Free MArket I would then hold a poll on whether to remain under that economic system.

Any other questions?

[AdamTG02]

Basically, I'd summarize my policy thus: Flexibility within the rubric of Democracy, and as much democratic decision-making as possible under Social Engineering.

[Method]

very well. i'd like to hear from archaic on these matters. currently, i'm undecided.

to both candidates: under what circumstances would you request a change of energy allocation (econ, psych, research)? we can't have the research rate being compromised, now can we?

[Maniac]

Why don't we just hold a poll on going Wealth right now?

[AdamTG02]

Maniac, you have a good point. I somewhat short-sightedly thought we couldn't poll for Wealth until we had the tech. But why not hold the poll first, and then if it's in the affirmative we could change as soon as we researched Automation? So, at your suggestion, that's what I'm going to do -- hold the Wealth poll at the same time as the others, with implementation delayed until technology supports it.

TKG, this is what I think regarding energy rates. As our population grows, I'll want to have a Psych rate sufficient to avoid drone riots. Whenever I put an amount into Psych, it will come out of Econ first. The second ten-percent block will come out of Research, to maximize efficiency. At sometime in the future )particularly if we go Paradigm), I would favor raising the science rate above parity with Economy. However, at the moment, energy credits are valuable for trading for tech to Morgan, and for the initial race for Secret Projects. With that in mind, I want to keep Econ at or near parity with Science at the moment.

Should we go Wealth without FM, a Golden Age would be extremely beneficial. In order to achive Golden Age, I would raise Psych as high as it needed to go to achieve Golden Age in as many bases as feasible. Then, I would lower the Psych rate experimentally and analyze how high it would need to be to keep each base in the state of +2 Econ. If it looked like the benefits would be outweighed by the psych expense for any given base, I would allow that Golden Age to lapse. However, it is my hope that most bases would be able to sustain Golden Age, given the increased energy brought on by the Golden Age itself.

In this case, I would lower the Research rate significantly, but research speed would need to be returned to an equal or greater level or I would cancel the Golden Age factionwide. The lapse would last for one turn, in order to best calculate costs and benefits.

When all of the initial eight Secret Projects have been completed, I would favor raising the research rate, if it could be efficiently done. However, most likely an Efficiency rating of +2 or higher would be needed to do so beneficially. Should my estimate be faulty, or should we adopt Green economics or Knowledge values, I would support raising the Research rate and making research the main focus of our energy income.

Hope I've answered your questions. If there are points I've neglected, tell me and I'll be happy to cover them.

[GeneralTacticus]

Adam: Are there any SE areas you would particularly focus on (e.g. Economy, Growth, etc.)?

[Archaic]

I'm not about to make pretty speaches. Frankly, I don't care for them, and I see them as yet another tool for politicians to give false visions to the populace. Expect my replies to everything to be straight to the point.

What I *will* give is a policy statement for the near future.

Like I said before, the best plan currently is Demo ASAP (ie. If and when we can take the support hit on production - We'd be able to do that only with the extra commerce income with Morgan under FM + Pact) and FM ASAP. Using the short trips to Frontier and Planned as I outlined earlier, we can get their benifits without the -2 Effic detraction. Just for that fact, there's no reason whatsoever to go Planned full time unless you want to provoke a war with Morgan. (Which could be better done by giving him orders to remove troops from our territories, etc).


To a Democracy as soon as possible, that being when we can afford the support hit on production. I vision this as coming from the commerce income from a Free Market and Pact with Morgan (As well as from Wealth Values as they become available).

To a Free Market, as soon as possible, that being when all our non-independant scouts currently outside UN PK borders are recalled to within those bases (Not necessarily back to their home bases.). This will bring great benifits in research and cash flow, allowing us to do things proposed in other sections of this policy statement, as well as being self-correcting by giving us the funds to rush Rec Commons, etc in bases needing them, before riot situations might come about. It also gains us the Pact with Morgan, giving us even more income with which to gain from.

To Wealth values, as soon as possible, that being as soon as we have the Industrial Automation tech. This helps the cash flow from Free Market while giving us a much appreciated Industry hike.


Short, 3 year trips out of Democracy when we need to build new bases. (Starting 1 year before the base building year) Preferably, we would build multipule bases within one year, as otherwise the losses may outweigh the benifits.

Short, 1 year trips to Planned from FM to assist in the hurrying of built items and/or growth across many bases as needed.

An extended trip to Planned for approx 5 years once CC's are built at the majority of bases, and our terraforming is such to allow us to set off a Pop Boom.






Well, that's it for the policy statement. Now the questions.

Originally posted by Frankychan
Candidates AdamTG02 and Archaic:

If the Drone's were to riot in New Apolyton, would you switch our policies to combat this threat? Say, by changes our Values and Economic choices?

Would you implement stricter policies on rioting and strengthen our police force?

This depends largly on the current SE settings at the time, the amount of police we have and are allowed to use (If any), the facilities we have at the time, the production needs of the colony, and so on, and so on. Please define the problem more throughly.

As a quick answer and under the strictest definition of your problem (Akin to Current conditions, only that base rioting), I say switch to Demo to remove the B-Drones probably causing it. We wanted to do that anyway. The problem could just as easily be solved by Doctors, however it'd depend on just how many Drones there. Doctors alone might not be a viable option.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Question to Adam (we all know Archaic's thought on the matter): What are your views about the FM vs. Planned Debate, and do you think we should use wealth after we acquire IA?

Might not have been for me, but anyway, it was answered in my policy statement.

Originally posted by TKG
very well. i'd like to hear from archaic on these matters. currently, i'm undecided.

to both candidates: under what circumstances would you request a change of energy allocation (econ, psych, research)? we can't have the research rate being compromised, now can we?

Faction wide riots that cannot be solved under conventional means (Specs & Existing Facilities) for whatever reason. I'd have to weigh the option of putting allocation from Econ to Psych with the option of going to Simple + Democracy (Better against B-Drones than Planned due to the Efficiency, and still with the police), going with the one which least harm both our research or cash flow, with preference being given to whichever sector needs it most (If we can stop the riots by Psych allocation then rushing New Facilities, then I *will* cut into Research for the short term so we still have the cash flow to allow those rushings).

Frankly though, I don't see our energy allocation ever changing while I'm at the helm except if we research all techs, in which case it'd all be pumped into Economy. And that'll never happen this term.

Originally posted by Maniac
Why don't we just hold a poll on going Wealth right now?

I'd hold it as soon as I was in. Though frankly, and I expressed this about the poll thing long ago, if people voted me in, they voted for my policies, so I should be able to impliment them ASAP without hinderance.

Of course, that's not as good an arguement after that farce last time, is it? -_-;;; People obviously seem willing to put logic aside and vote for a person because he's nice, not because he's got the best ideas and can do the best job. *Sigh*

In any case, like I said, I get voted in, the poll goes up.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Adam: Are there any SE areas you would particularly focus on (e.g. Economy, Growth, etc.)?

Again, I'll answer this also.
Economy is the most important IMO, followed by Efficiency.

[Pandemoniak]

One image better than many words...

[Archaic]

This is a political debate, not a stage for your childish propaganda Unskilled Labourer. Back to your cell to await trial. I'll not have you hijacking this thread.

[Pandemoniak]

I'm not hijacking the thread. Remember Im a citizen and I have the right to participate a debate in my own way.
Moreover, you must call me "Your Honour", I'm a judge.

[AdamTG02]

Not to get sidetracked . . .

I don't have hard and fast preferences for society effects, but probably the top three in my mind are Research, Economy, and Efficiency. However, I'm more concerned with factors such as the speed of research (which is helped by all three of these) than our specific Social Engineering rating.

What I'll consider when making recommendations are the effects of changing to any given social type -- quicker research, quicker expansion, easier Golden Age, Population Boom in CC bases, Paradigm Economy, et cetera. In addition to game effects, I'll consider RP effects -- the social consequences of changing the society. For this reason, I won't consider switching out of Democracy for a turn or three to get 10 free minerals in new bases. It doesn't radically inconvenience us to make garrisons beforehand, but cancelling Democracy for short-term gain isn't something I would want to permit, RP-wise.

The caveat to that is that Democracy entails following the people's will, even when that will is to cancel the Democracy. So if we had a popular vote to go Frontier or Fundamentalist, I would support and implement that vote, while working to build support to return to Democracy. However, in no situation would I personally support a departure from a Democratic government.

Switching from one social model to another for a brief period is costly (32 credits each way), and it's unlikely that we would be able to fit all of our growth, or SP completion, onto a single term. I'd rather stay Planned, and be able to consistantly plan for Industry and Growth bonuses, or stay Free Market, and get a consistant bonus to cashflow which allows us to rush buy, compensationg for Industry bonuses.

In any case, if a switch is called for by a good number of citizens, I will poll it.

[Method]

this is going to be probably the hardest one to decide on...hmmm

[GeneralTacticus]

Adam: You need to reexamine the arguments for the brief switch. We'd be getting at leas t10 mins for 32 creds even if we only founded one base, which is a fairly reasonable deal, and it can only improve if we build more than 1 base.

Archaic: My questions were really directed at both of you, but, I was mainly asking Adam since at the time you had yet to show up in this thread.

I'd hold it as soon as I was in. Though frankly, and I expressed this about the poll thing long ago, if people voted me in, they voted for my policies, so I should be able to impliment them ASAP without hinderance.

Unless you have some policies that people don't like, but some that they do. People vote for you because they want you in office more than anyone else, but that doesn't mean they should accept your every decision without question.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by AdamTG02
Not to get sidetracked . . .

I don't have hard and fast preferences for society effects, but probably the top three in my mind are Research, Economy, and Efficiency. However, I'm more concerned with factors such as the speed of research (which is helped by all three of these) than our specific Social Engineering rating.

Agreed. This is actually why I didn't list Research as my main priority. Because in my experience, Research is better served by Cash Flow than by actual Research Bonuses.
Of course, if Cybernetic's an option at the time, of course I'm going to leap at that for it's stack of round-the-board bonuses.

Originally posted by AdamTG02
What I'll consider when making recommendations are the effects of changing to any given social type -- quicker research, quicker expansion, easier Golden Age, Population Boom in CC bases, Paradigm Economy, et cetera.

Agreed. Though a lot of these benifits often come hand in hand one must realise. And I've often found Paradigm Economy to be overrated. Same with GA's, but then, they're much easier to achieve with PK's, so they might be worth something here, depending on how they're brought about.

Originally posted by AdamTG02
In addition to game effects, I'll consider RP effects -- the social consequences of changing the society. For this reason, I won't consider switching out of Democracy for a turn or three to get 10 free minerals in new bases. It doesn't radically inconvenience us to make garrisons beforehand, but cancelling Democracy for short-term gain isn't something I would want to permit, RP-wise.

Think of it as a temp. suspension of elections while the bureaucracy and government are restructured to give fair and just representation of the citizens in the new colonies.

Originally posted by AdamTG02
The caveat to that is that Democracy entails following the people's will, even when that will is to cancel the Democracy. So if we had a popular vote to go Frontier or Fundamentalist, I would support and implement that vote, while working to build support to return to Democracy. However, in no situation would I personally support a departure from a Democratic government.

I would in no situation personally support a permanent departure from a Democratic government. Only a temp. switch for a certain necessary goal, with a specific time limit on it.

Originally posted by AdamTG02
Switching from one social model to another for a brief period is costly (32 credits each way), and it's unlikely that we would be able to fit all of our growth, or SP completion, onto a single term. I'd rather stay Planned, and be able to consistantly plan for Industry and Growth bonuses, or stay Free Market, and get a consistant bonus to cashflow which allows us to rush buy, compensationg for Industry bonuses.

In any case, if a switch is called for by a good number of citizens, I will poll it.

Quick switching requires some micromanagement, and so I'll need to co-ordinate my actions with those who decide worker placement and production so this can be managed, but it can be done. As for the cost......that's what FM helps us with. We'd have more than enough Credits to go around.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Unless you have some policies that people don't like, but some that they do. People vote for you because they want you in office more than anyone else, but that doesn't mean they should accept your every decision without question.

I never said they had to. If they don't like the way I've done things, then they vote me out next time. Elections are supposed to be about selecting the person who can do the best possible job. If their job is reduced to just posting polls and they're not allowed to further the policies they promised when they got elected, then the decision of who fulfills the roles may as well be arbitary.

[GeneralTacticus]

I never said they had to. If they don't like the way I've done things, then they vote me out next time. Elections are supposed to be about selecting the person who can do the best possible job. If their job is reduced to just posting polls and they're not allowed to further the policies they promised when they got elected, then the decision of who fulfills the roles may as well be arbitary.

I've posted my answer to this before:

"That's all well and good, but imagine how much damage an incompetent Director could do in 1 term if he didn't have to poll people. This would be particularly important in fields like SE or Science."

I'm not saying you would necessarily be incompetent, nor that an incompetent Director would ever get elected, but we need to ensure it doesn't happen. EDIT: and that if it does, it won't be a catstrophe.

[Archaic]

Which is why we have the impeachment option.

[Archaic]

DPDed

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Archaic
Oh, and DBTS, I addressed the roleplay issue of it in the SE Debate thread.

Did someone *again* deleted Archaic's post or am I in the wrong thread ?

[Archaic]

No, you're just unobservant.

Think of it as a temp. suspension of elections while the bureaucracy and government are restructured to give fair and just representation of the citizens in the new colonies.

[AdamTG02]

GT: The price tag is 64 energy credits, and we would be getting 10 minerals which we could have later for 20 credits. Anyway, my strongest reasons for not switching out of Democracy are RP ones -- I don't think expediency justifies a suspension of the polls, even if we (as trusted Talents or however you want to explain it) would still be voting on policies.

Archaic: Agreed on the coordination with other departments.

GT again: I agree that, unchecked, a single Director can do some damage. It's one of the reasons I believe in, for small polities like this Democracy Game, as much participative democracy and citizen oversight as possible. In large societies that becomes counterproductive, and we use representative democracy with checks as a stopgap. However, in this Democracy Game we have a population small enough to run things in town meeting format.

[GeneralTacticus]

Which is why we have the impeachment option.

Which would help to limit the damage somewhat, but we want to prevent it happening AT ALL.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by AdamTG02
GT: The price tag is 64 energy credits, and we would be getting 10 minerals which we could have later for 20 credits. Anyway, my strongest reasons for not switching out of Democracy are RP ones -- I don't think expediency justifies a suspension of the polls, even if we (as trusted Talents or however you want to explain it) would still be voting on policies.

But like I and others have been saying, if it's properly co-ordinated that we're planting more than 1 base on the same turn, then it's a very worthwhile option.

Hell, to be perfectly honest, if we can set ourselves so we're making enough money, then the switch might not be necessary.
However...10 minerals won't cost 20 credits if you're doing it straight away. I'll pull my tables out when I get back home, but if we rushed at 10 minerals, it'd be pretty significant depending on what exactly we were building. You might be right and it might be around 20, however.......if it's a choice of paying 64 now, or waiting and wasting production time to pay 20 later, I know which I'd choose.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Archaic
No, you're just unobservant.

Think of it as a temp. suspension of elections while the bureaucracy and government are restructured to give fair and just representation of the citizens in the new colonies.

Still cant find that in this thread before you posted it as a quote. Your RP issues are kinda confusing, moreover I cant really see whats the RP link with whats above and the boring formulas about B-drones...

[GeneralTacticus]

I remember seeing that quote before he posted it here, not sure where though. Maybe he remembered wrong.