Internal Affairs Office

Method · December 2, 2002, 22:12

Suggestions for how the department should be run! Anything involving internal affairs, anything at all (this includes base placements).

maybe you have a complaint? a comment? governors orders that need revising (

)? Post it here

Nubclear · December 2, 2002, 22:35

Quote:

Originally posted by TKG
Suggestions for how the department should be run! Anything involving internal affairs, anything at all (this includes base placements).

maybe you have a complaint? a comment? governors orders that need revising (

)? Post it here

Well, the internal affairs officer could always submit stuff to the CNN

(Translation: CNN is coming out soon. I need stuff to put in it.)

Drogue · December 3, 2002, 06:47

I think the DIA should be able to put a cap on eco-damage levels. Since it is a Planet wide problem, it should be solved as a faction rather than by each individual Governor.

We need more drone controls too. We have Concordia and Tacticus Academy that need a rec commons, and yet Tacticus Academy is still building 2 crawlers, without anywhere but forests to put them! Build formers first so we have places to put crawlers, and we already have many, why do we need more? Whereas drone crontrols are severly lacking meaning specialists have to be used, so we have lest citizens working.

Darkness' Edge · December 3, 2002, 08:43

yes
submit stuff to CNN = good
and this editor is going to beat tass to writing the next edition

Archaic · December 3, 2002, 09:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
I think the DIA should be able to put a cap on eco-damage levels. Since it is a Planet wide problem, it should be solved as a faction rather than by each individual Governor.

Eco-loony. You know you can't beat me in a debate to prevent FM directly, so you try and get it indirectly through the -3 Planet rating? Prove your position on the eco damage is right first. All I've heard thusfar are its downpoints being overstated and overhyped, just like they were originally with the "Mind Worm Crisis".

Pandemoniak · December 3, 2002, 09:40

Arent you a bit paranoid, Archaic ?

Archaic · December 3, 2002, 09:45

This guy has continuously tried to prevent FM getting in, which his main arguement being eco-damage (An arguement ripped to shreads by GT). I hardly think it's being paranoid. Perhaps it's just you being blind again unskilled labourer.

Pandemoniak · December 3, 2002, 09:48

Yes you're right. None of your mind troubles come from yourself, its all because of the others...

Thats what they call paranoia at the Psych Lab, though...

Archaic · December 3, 2002, 09:55

I hardly think you're qualified to make judgements there Pan. Not to mention that they're Ad Hominem to boot. I've given a logical reason, you're not even attacking it. Guess who loses in a debate when that happens?

Pandemoniak · December 3, 2002, 10:03

Yes, sure, sure... its not your fault, but the nurse told you its time to take your pills

Drogue · December 3, 2002, 11:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Archaic
Eco-loony. You know you can't beat me in a debate to prevent FM directly, so you try and get it indirectly through the -3 Planet rating?

That's not true Archaic, I'm not trying to 'get at' FM via a -3 Planet rating, a low Planet rating (as I have stated) is my goal, not to prevent FM, and so it is the opposite that is true, I am trying to get a high Planet rating indirectly through FM. I don't like FM because of the Planet rating.

Quote:

Originally posted by Archaic
Prove your position on the eco damage is right first. All I've heard thusfar are its downpoints being overstated and overhyped, just like they were originally with the "Mind Worm Crisis".

GT has not ripped to shreds the argument, all he has done is repeatedly claim, along with you, that we have overestimated the negative effects. I believe you have underestimated them.

If we have a low Planet rating, we make psi-combat much harder, which although not a big negative during war, is a big negative for exploration. If we have a high Planet rating, we hardly need worry about MW or IoDs.

If we have a low Planet rating, we have more eco-damage now, and at the moment former time is at a premium - we need to terraform places to crawl, and new bases - so we don't have time to keep formers in cities just in case of a pop. With a high Planet rating, and low eco-damage, we can relax about pops.

With a low Planet rating (and thus more eco-damage) we create more ice-cap melting, which means we need to build pressure domes, and even then we lose much population from a base losing its land. With a high Planet rating this is much less the case. And yes, I know we can launch a solar shade, but that has to be agreed with other factions (that have much different agendas) and we have to have the technology to do it. Even not using FM, with a high Planet rating, it is quite possible to get problems with ice caps melting, so with a low Planet rating, it could prove very problematic.

If we have a high Planet rating, then we can capture MW and IoDs, which is incredibly usuful both for exploration (units for free) and for war. I've before managed to win a war just using captured units, while concentrating on my infrastructure. With a low Planet rating this is not possible.

I'm not against FM idealistically, hell I'm a Economics student, I'm believe in real life FM is the best option. But even without the negative police effects, I think FM in SMAC is not the best option.
At the moment, we need growth, so Planned is a very good option (easy pop-boom), but later on Efficiency and Planet are more important, so I would propose a switch to Green. Not having FM isn't my priority, neither is having Green, what I want is a higher Planet rating, and less eco-damage.
I don't want us to only start thinking about the Environment when we start getting the ice caps melting, or major worm-rape. Prevention is better than cure, if we start lookign after Planet now, we won't have a problem later, and have to cut our productin at a crucial time. If we have pops, spread them out slowly, if we have a low Planet rating then we'll suddenly be hit by many pops, until we get enough clean minerals to stop it.

And even if it was easier (which for you it may well be), this is only Thinker, we are going to win, but we should be judged on how we win. Not how many points we have, but what state is Planet in when we win. We can win harvesting as many minerals as possible, having genejack factories and robotic assembly plants, using FM, planting many Boreholes and wrecking this Planet, both for Planet and for us; or we can win with a beautiful Planet, with wonders for us all to enjoy, with a life or harmony and happiness, and by Transcending with Planet.

Even without taking into account the in-game effects, we have a duty to look after this Planet which we have landed on. We have no right whatsoever to invade it and wreck it for our personal wealth. What is wealth after all, it is having 'things', havign a comfortable life. That is what I want, comfortable in terms of needs, in terms of wants, and mostly in terms of happiness. Can we be happy living in a pollution wrecked Planet?

Far from providing no argument for Green and looking after Planet, I have provided much argument, the fact you wish not to hear it masks what you see. I have yet to hear an argument for not caring about Planet, nor have I heard an argument for FM, other than 'we have overestimated the negative effect of FM'. No my friend, you have drastically underestimated what negative effect it has, on Planet, on law and order, on war, and on society.

Drogue · December 3, 2002, 11:08

That enough of an argument for you? I'm perfectly prepared to debate until hell freezes over, but I have a feeling neither of us will convince each other. I simply urge all citizend to vote against FM, and against anything that harms the Planet needlessly.

And Archaic, if you ever want to be taken seriously, branding your opponents 'Eco-Loony' or 'Unskilled Labourer' just looks like you're resorting to insults because your arguments will not stand alone. If you're so sure that FM is worth it, let you're arguments speak for themselves, and leave the insults and snide comments out. They have no place in civilised discussion.

Pandemoniak · December 3, 2002, 11:16

The CCCP strongly supports Drogue about that, and I have decided to award you a medal and a reward.

Pandemoniak · December 3, 2002, 11:24

Heres the medal -- very useful in fingal field, you can store xenobrewerages inside

And heres the reward, our bright comrades masseuses

Drogue · December 3, 2002, 11:30

Many thanks for the support and the honour. Together the CCCP and STEP can bring in a new era of equality for fellow man, and respect for Planet. We have shown the way to prevent the mistakes of old Earth, it is now up to the people if you want to live it.

As for the masseuse, mucho thanks

DeathByTheSword · December 3, 2002, 12:05

eh this is DIA thread not (another) FM thread

Drogue · December 3, 2002, 13:14

Sorry, my 1st post was intended as an idea for the DIA, that was objected to and taken out of context.

Method · December 3, 2002, 18:22

yes, as DBTS said, argue somewhere else...perhaps though PMs?

as for drones, there' not much i can do, short of telling governors to build some rec commonses or network nodes, which they should know just by using common sense. i havn't had a good look at the game lately, so i don't know what drones are like right now.

Drogue · December 3, 2002, 18:28

Very true, once again I'm sorry. My original point still stands as an idea though. Eco-damage as a whole needs to be addressed (if it is to be addressed) as a whole rather than by individual Governors.

Method · December 3, 2002, 18:32

in that case, DBTS, go ahead, move 2 of those 3 crawlers to your region. that should reduce some of new apolyton's eco damage, while still leaving a jahonkin' production rate, and beef up your region a bit.

GeneralTacticus · December 4, 2002, 02:56

Quote:

Very true, once again I'm sorry. My original point still stands as an idea though. Eco-damage as a whole needs to be addressed (if it is to be addressed) as a whole rather than by individual Governors.

Why can't it be addressed by individual governors? Unless it actually starts having factional or planetary ramifications, it's a local matter, which should be dealt with as such. I'll take the arguments over FM to the STEP officies.

Quote:

We need more drone controls too. We have Concordia and Tacticus Academy that need a rec commons, and yet Tacticus Academy is still building 2 crawlers, without anywhere but forests to put them! Build formers first so we have places to put crawlers, and we already have many, why do we need more? Whereas drone crontrols are severly lacking meaning specialists have to be used, so we have lest citizens working.

Tacticus Academy will have a Rec Commons up soon enough, but it is in no danger of Drone Riots at the present time. There are already formers working to develop new squares, and in any case, forests are better than nothing, are they not?

Drogue · December 4, 2002, 07:11

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Why can't it be addressed by individual governors? Unless it actually starts having factional or planetary ramifications, it's a local matter, which should be dealt with as such. I'll take the arguments over FM to the STEP officies.

I take your point, but since I think we should prevent faction wide ramifications before they happen, I think it already is a faction wide matter. If 3 of the Governors keep eco-damage low, and one doesn', it's a problem for the whole faction (it takes formers away from others). It wasn't exactly an FM discussion, Archaic just took my point about eco-damage and believed it was about FM, and I felt the need to defend myself from insults and accusations.

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Tacticus Academy will have a Rec Commons up soon enough, but it is in no danger of Drone Riots at the present time. There are already formers working to develop new squares, and in any case, forests are better than nothing, are they not?

It was a comment in general with 2 examples already highlighted by Aaron. I think growth should be a big priority at the moment, and thus we will need more drone controls as a faction and we are already using some doctors. I would rather see more Rec Commons built and less doctors used. Forests are better than nothing, but I think we need more food crawled, and we have no decent spots to do that from. A couple of bases (Concordia, ZG IIRC) could do with some more food and growth.

All it takes a if few turns to build a Rec Commons, and then we'll be able to grow much safer and easier.

Archaic · December 4, 2002, 08:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
It wasn't exactly an FM discussion, Archaic just took my point about eco-damage and believed it was about FM, and I felt the need to defend myself from insults and accusations.

The only damn liar here is you. We both know full well that Eco-damage will go up under FM. If steps are taken to "regulate the ego damage" to the levels you feel comfortable with, then FM ceases to be an option. You eliminate it indirectly. Now, I challenge you to prove that eco-damage is as much of a problem as you say it is, which you've yet to do.

DeathByTheSword · December 4, 2002, 10:20

do not THREADJACK! go somewhere else with this discussion not another post of it in here!

Hercules · December 4, 2002, 10:40

DIA Now that name suggestions are flooding in for regions. I ask that you initate a poll about how places are named. There are a few possibilities as to HOW, suggested elsewhere (eg Andemagne original thread and the court case submission). It would be good to get this particular issue settled for the present.

However you may also wish to re-open the debate for a couple of days on the How Question.

GeneralTacticus · December 5, 2002, 02:46

Quote:

It was a comment in general with 2 examples already highlighted by Aaron. I think growth should be a big priority at the moment, and thus we will need more drone controls as a faction and we are already using some doctors. I would rather see more Rec Commons built and less doctors used. Forests are better than nothing, but I think we need more food crawled, and we have no decent spots to do that from. A couple of bases (Concordia, ZG IIRC) could do with some more food and growth.

Ig you've read my orders for the chat, you'll know that I'm having a Condensor built north of TA to be crawled for food.

Archaic · December 5, 2002, 04:31

Quote:

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword

do not THREADJACK! go somewhere else with this discussion not another post of it in here!

I'm not thread-jacking. The discussion is about Eco-damage, and it has as much place in here as anywhere else from the sounds of it. It can be debated without any reference whatsoever to SE's.

Now, Drogue, the challenge still stands. Prove that eco-damage is as much of a problem as you hype it to be.

Drogue · December 5, 2002, 06:45

In my opinion I have, and I accept you don't agree, and that I'm not going to convince you otherwise. I just think we can win this with 0 eco-damage, and that that would be quite a good thing IMHO. I accept you're point, but (as I've posted in reply to GT on STEP) I think if we keep eco-damage carefully under control, we won't lose much production, or much anything, but we gain a better Planet. I think if we have a completely unregulated system (mineral prodution, population and Planet rating) as your new party suggests, we will cause great damage to Planet, and create havok. If we just look at environmental issues and take them into account, we will be better off IMHO.

DeathByTheSword · December 5, 2002, 06:59

thread closed TKG would you please start a new one