OFFICIAL : A switch to Green

Pandemoniak · February 23, 2003, 12:20

Current : FM 40/20/40
Economy +2 : +1 energy per square
Police -5 : Two drones per unit outside of borders
Planet -3 : -30% when attacking with psych units, increased ecodamage

Net income : 481
Net research : 732
9 bases in Golden Age

Proposed choice : Green 30/00/70
Planet +2 : Mind worms can be captured, +20% when conducting psych attacks
Efficiency +2 : leads us to PARADIGM Economy
Growth -2 : Growth -20%

30/00/70
Net income : 232
Net research : 860.4
1 base rioting, can be dealt with an empath until rec commons are finished

This poll will last five days.

Main_Brain · February 23, 2003, 16:52

Polls should be made w/o the Percents set..
like 'FM or Green' t
then followed by
'green 40 0 60, 30 0 70' etc.

Cedayon · February 23, 2003, 19:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Main_Brain
Polls should be made w/o the Percents set..
like 'FM or Green' t
then followed by
'green 40 0 60, 30 0 70' etc.

The allocations are important parts of the proposal. I think, however, that some discussion would have been appropriate before the poll, so that people could decide what allocations they want for the different options.

In any case, I voted FM, the numbers are pretty clear, no?

If you have an RP argument for Green, that's your perogative (which will be disputed by Archaic in due course

). Otherwise, I think it's clear what gives us the most stuff to work with.

I can do a base-by-base analysis of the difference between the two options, if it would be helpful. Frankly, though, I think that more numbers are unnecessary.

GeneralTacticus · February 24, 2003, 02:02

FM, of course. There's no reason to change from a system that is working perfectly as is to one which is inferior to it.

And btw, the income numbers for Gree are likely to be less than the ones presented, because it will end all GAs and thus reduce commerce and base income.

Archaic · February 24, 2003, 02:11

Of course, the only way to se that is to play ahead a turn, which we can't do.

One also has to wonder.....anyone know what FM 30/20/50 and 50/20/30 would bring in? With everything below 50%, I'm not sure if there'd even be any inefficiency on that to boot.

GeneralTacticus · February 24, 2003, 02:55

Well, you could factor that in roughly by subracting a few form the income of the bases in GA.

Jamski · February 24, 2003, 06:04

I'd rather have Green with a bigger Psych allocation, but you can't have everything.

-Jam

Hercules · February 26, 2003, 14:50

Now what would you expect the leader of STEP to vote for. Red, Blue Yellow, Pink, Brown, Orange, It would have been nice to have the freedom to swing 100% Economy and Research but I can live with it.

Sure hope Drogue pops in to vote

Cedayon · February 26, 2003, 14:57

Uh oh, Green's winning... if we go Green 30/00/70 our economy's screwed... oh well.

Aaron Blackwell · February 26, 2003, 18:27

Voted FM :

Though I would be more in favor of a Green Economy, I say it is far too soon to cancel out Free Market right and not give it a few years to prove either its effectivenss or its lack of thereof.

When we'll have more bases and infecciency and Eco damage start to occurs, then it will be a more appriopriate time to switch to green.

Just my 2 cents

Method · February 26, 2003, 18:34

eco damage won't occur until we get mineral-enhancing facilities, because almost every base now has a hybrid forest

Cedayon · February 26, 2003, 18:48

Quote:

Originally posted by TKG
eco damage won't occur until we get mineral-enhancing facilities, because almost every base now has a hybrid forest

I think we have it in us if we got enough crawlers together and pumped, say, TA's mineral output into the 40's or 50's... but in general, yea, it's getting pretty hard for us to generate ED.

Drogue · February 26, 2003, 18:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Hercules
Sure hope Drogue pops in to vote

I voted early on. Green, as if I needed to say that. I still check the boards everydays, and also voted against all the Finnish Boreholes

Method · February 26, 2003, 19:04

to steal a phrase

"Green: so evil, it's almost finnish!"

Maniac · February 26, 2003, 19:15

This is the last time I'll abstain in a SE poll...
Now FM is on top again.

Voltaire · February 26, 2003, 19:37

GO GREEN!!!

With my vote in it’s a tie at 8:8… this is going to be close.

Cedayon · February 26, 2003, 20:58

Quote:

Originally posted by TKG
to steal a phrase

"Green: so evil, it's almost finnish!"

Having been to Finland, I can say that there's quite a bit of green there. Anything associated with the color is likely evil

GeneralTacticus · February 27, 2003, 02:55

I remain astounded by the number of people who are willing to vote for a setting that will impoverish our people for little or no gain. I just hope they don't actually succeed...

Pandemoniak · February 27, 2003, 04:38

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I remain astounded by the number of people who are willing to vote for a setting that will impoverish our people for little or no gain. I just hope they don't actually succeed...

Some prefer to be decently rich and very knowlegeable than filthy rich and decently knowlegdeable...

GeneralTacticus · February 27, 2003, 04:40

And some prefer to actually have an education and somewher enice to live to being uneducated and crammed into government housing projects.

Pandemoniak · February 27, 2003, 04:42

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And some prefer to actually have an education and somewher enice to live to being uneducated and crammed into government housing projects.

Propbably, but that has nothing to do with the topic. Green economy doesnt mean lack of education nor gouvernmental houses.

GeneralTacticus · February 27, 2003, 04:43

It does in this case, given that you're ditching Psych spending, which will reuslt int eh creation of a lot of extra Drones and a lot less Talents.

Pandemoniak · February 27, 2003, 04:47

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
It does in this case, given that you're ditching Psych spending, which will reuslt int eh creation of a lot of extra Drones and a lot less Talents.

Less Talents but less drones too. And psych spending doesnt mean nice education. 100 Reseacrh per turn more mean better education, on the contrary. It doesnt mean gouvernment houding neither, on the contrary, a Green economy drastically suppress a huge part of our bureaucracy, making it more efficicent.

GeneralTacticus · February 27, 2003, 04:57

1) Have you even bothered to look at the save? There are masses more Drones.

2) Yes, Psych spending includes educaiton. If you don't think quality education is a basic luxury, then I don't know what is.

3) 100% research spending would mean masses of cash going on research in the labs, not on education. Providing free education for all won't be that helpful in devleoping Unified Field Theory, after all.

4) Why wouldn't it mean government housing? There'd be masses more people who couldn't afford good homes, so they'd have to get either governemnt housing or rent cheap housing, which would be equally bad.

Kirov · February 27, 2003, 06:04

I love this place. Can be away for a month, and when I'm back, it's all the same. Some things never change...

Just my two cents:

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

2) Yes, Psych spending includes educaiton. If you don't think quality education is a basic luxury, then I don't know what is.

If PSYCH included education, then 100% PSYCH should mean something like compulsory high education, when almost every citizen is a Talent i.e., in my understanding, well-educated person from upper or upper-middle class. But hey, why then our research would freeze and our economy would get sluggish?

GeneralTacticus · February 27, 2003, 06:17

1) Because an economy doesn't function without people to do the dirty work as well; not everyone can be a white-collar worker.

2) Because if all the money that is generated from that (and there would be quite a bit) is spent on further education (and there wouldn't be a lot of improvement after a while), then there's no funding for anything else.

Kirov · February 27, 2003, 06:58

I think that most of the dirty work is automated in our society and that Talents can also be high-skilled and well-paid blue collars.

Besides, taking the hypothetical 100% PSYCH society into account, you can clearly see that 'talent' has different means in different societies. After all, in society with 100% Psych rating these talents would mean 'skilled teachers'. If other sorts of talents were generated in such society, there would be gret unemployment, if you cacth my drift. So, logically, 'talent' under FM with 100% Econ would be economist, and with 100% - scientist. Thus, it can be sometimes better to have one Talent under one SE setting [e.g. genuine artist] than 3 Talents under other one [Dilbert, Wally and pointy-haired boss from 'Dilbert' strips].

GeneralTacticus · February 27, 2003, 07:03

I don't really think that 100% economy means a total social focus on making money, and 100% research a total focus on science - they're just govenrment spending priorities.

And you're right that automation does help solve the 'dirty work' problem, but somebody still has to maintain the robots. You can't really automate the whole process, because it becomes an endless loop.

Archaic · February 27, 2003, 07:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
a Green economy drastically suppress a huge part of our bureaucracy, making it more efficicent.

Yes, but what's the real net result? You might be more efficient, but that's coupled with an economy that's been scaled back. You end up producing far less with your vaunted efficiency than a slightly less efficient (In real terms) economy that encourages production.

GeneralTacticus · February 27, 2003, 07:10

Not to mention the fact that according to you (and you're going to be the one who puts it into practice), it'll get rid of the bureaucracy by turning it's duties over to Planet. Now remind me why, exactly, we should trust Planet to manage our economy for us, given that we could never hope to manage Planet's ecosystem for it?