The Science Monitor, Editor's Office

GeneralTacticus · May 21, 2003, 07:28

Well, having decided on a name for our new newspaper, I'm planning to get the first edition out tommorow. If anyone has any articles they'd like published, please send them in before then; if anyone would like to take up a position with the paper, say so here.

GeneralTacticus · May 22, 2003, 05:22

Issue #1 posted.

moomin · May 22, 2003, 05:59

Nice to see it's out. Our public silence had to be broken.

Alex · May 22, 2003, 16:33

good work, GT. Nice to see that we now have a public voice. Maybe I'll contribute with something, but not now (too many problems getting rid of some mindworms today and tomorrow).

History Guy · May 24, 2003, 16:21

Hmmm...I'm just wondering...what are my functions as Public Relations and Marketing Minister? I suppose it's only to see this mag kept up as of yet. General Tacticus, any ideas on what articles I should write about for your paper?

GeneralTacticus · May 24, 2003, 20:25

It'd be nice to have some articles for the opinion section (as I haven't a clue what to put in there myself), but anything would be useful.

GeneralTacticus · May 25, 2003, 02:00

Issue #2 posted.

History Guy · May 25, 2003, 12:12

OK, then, I'll see what I can do.

Opinion: Chairman Yang is a bucket-headed ape.

I guess that one isn't very good, though. Let's see an opinion on...mindworms?

AdamTG02 · May 25, 2003, 12:48

We've shared a lot of information with the other factions in this latest edition of the Science Monitor -- our quick base-building strategy, our free technology, and the tech we're currently researching.

My question -- not meant as a criticism, but simply to open debate -- is, how much information do we want to share, in the long run? I admit, it's hard to see what the other factions can gain from this information now, but we may want to consider the precedent we set. For this reason, I'm raising the question.

Personally, I think that making the newspaper interesting is valuable in itself, and if sharing information about our research plans will do that, then so much the better. However, I am also uncertain whether giving away too much of our research direction might influence our rivals' plans -- for example, if they perceive that we're beelining to Secrets of the Human Brain, they might turn their efforts to Industrial Automation, beating us to that tech.

What are everyone's thoughts?

Timbba · May 25, 2003, 13:03

Sharing lots of information seems university-ish - remember the -2 PROBE penalty they get? =)

moomin · May 25, 2003, 16:26

But we should let them do their own probing work. Still, nothing has gone out so far that they couldn't guess. I would have expected Uni to go for secrets if I wasn't here, after all.

Then again, tech-strapped factions might get friendlier if we dangle the booty in front of them. Well, perhaps not the pirates

History Guy · May 25, 2003, 19:51

I agree with Adam. I don't think we should be releasing such valuable information. Where future strategy is concerned, I herewith ban all external discussion of it as Public Information Minister. Top secrets regarding our future should be regarded as such. If we discover technologies, perhaps then we should allow the information to come out as to our new discoveries, but not to our plans for future survival.

GeneralTacticus · May 26, 2003, 04:23

Quote:

Originally posted by AdamTG02
We've shared a lot of information with the other factions in this latest edition of the Science Monitor -- our quick base-building strategy, our free technology, and the tech we're currently researching.

Did we really? The quick base-building could be easily figured out from the sudden jump in our powerchart, and the other suff I wouldn't consider all that revealing - it could mean basically anything.

AdamTG02 · May 26, 2003, 10:38

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Did we really? The quick base-building could be easily figured out from the sudden jump in our powerchart, and the other suff I wouldn't consider all that revealing - it could mean basically anything.

Fair enough. I'm not trying to argue, here, that what you posted in the second issue revealed too much. I'm simply pointing out that it could be headed in that direction, and that I'd welcome a debate on the subject of how much information we ought to be revealing.

As for what we've actually revealed, I think most people will be able to deduce "Centauri Ecology" and "Social Psych" from the hints given inside the newspaper. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- as I said, it makes the newspaper more interesting, which is good in and of itself. And as Googlie said yesterday on the public forum, this game isn't as much about winning or losing as it's about what we create along the way. So I'm not opposing this -- just wanted to make sure we give it some thought.

Quote:

Originally posted by History Guy
Where future strategy is concerned, I herewith ban all external discussion of it as Public Information Minister. Top secrets regarding our future should be regarded as such. If we discover technologies, perhaps then we should allow the information to come out as to our new discoveries, but not to our plans for future survival.

This may be a good balance... allowing discussin of what we've done so far, but staying mute as to future plans or strategies. It seems prudent -- after all, we're in the game to win, even if we're also in it to have fun, and revealing strategy isn't the most helpful thing to do if we want to win. However, there is the question of information that reveals strategy -- as the news about our quick base-production may have done. I would take a liberal view of what is permissible to write, saying that only overt revealation of a strategy should be prohibited, not reporting of current events that may give a strategy away. After all, we're not the Hive, and don';t need their censors.

I'd be wary of adopting any such restrictions, however, before GeneralTacticus has weighed in. He bears most of the responsibility for the newspaper, and thus is the most affected by any restrictions. GT, do you think this proposal strikes a good balance, or is it overly restrictive? If overly restrictive, what would you suggest as an alternative?

For that matter, what does everyone think of the idea of restrictions? We're playing the University, who are somewhat known for both secretiveness and freedom of information, so I can see us going either way. But the definitive answer will be based on what you all think, since this is a democracy game. Hopefully we can come to a consensus that everyone can accept; we're a small enough group that I see that as workable. So tell us your opinion, and with luck we'll be able to weave a consesnus that accomodates everyone's.

History Guy · May 26, 2003, 12:02

Adam,

I think that General Tacticus' paper is brilliant, but I do think we should cut down on mentioning our future plans and what we intend to research. We are hear with the intention of uniting these squabbling factions through the purity of technological advance. We intend to discover what we will in order to bring ourselves to the ultimate position on this new world of ours. We should not and cannot reveal any plans for technology or strategy. I suggest only revealing technologies once they are discovered.

moomin · May 26, 2003, 16:01

In fact, I'd consider the use of the paper for public misinformation...

GeneralTacticus · May 27, 2003, 06:01

Quote:

Originally posted by AdamTG02

Fair enough. I'm not trying to argue, here, that what you posted in the second issue revealed too much. I'm simply pointing out that it could be headed in that direction, and that I'd welcome a debate on the subject of how much information we ought to be revealing.

Yes, that is definitely something we should be discussing.

Quote:

I'd be wary of adopting any such restrictions, however, before GeneralTacticus has weighed in. He bears most of the responsibility for the newspaper, and thus is the most affected by any restrictions. GT, do you think this proposal strikes a good balance, or is it overly restrictive? If overly restrictive, what would you suggest as an alternative?

It basically just makes 'official' what I was doing already; I was very careful to avoid mentioing anything about our future plans at all. While it could probably be deduced that we're going for SoftHB, the others probably didn't need anyone to tell them that...

Quote:

For that matter, what does everyone think of the idea of restrictions? We're playing the University, who are somewhat known for both secretiveness and freedom of information, so I can see us going either way. But the definitive answer will be based on what you all think, since this is a democracy game. Hopefully we can come to a consensus that everyone can accept; we're a small enough group that I see that as workable. So tell us your opinion, and with luck we'll be able to weave a consesnus that accomodates everyone's.

We definitely need some kind of restriction on what information can be revealed; how much, I'm not sure.

Incidentally, regarding Social Psych, it would appear to me that the ad posted in the paper suggests that we're only just starting to research Social Psych, which could throw them off a bit, if not by much.

Quote:

In fact, I'd consider the use of the paper for public misinformation...

Sound slike a good diea, though I'd keep it to a level where we retain 'plausible deniability' - "What do you mean we lied to you? All we said was that we were conducting experiments with lasers, not that we were researching Applied Physics (incidentally, I'm contemplating putting something like that in the next issue, just as a bit of psychological warfare...)

moomin · May 27, 2003, 07:07

Sounds good to me!

Alex · May 27, 2003, 14:45

The misinformation idea is pretty interesting and really effective, it can help to confuse them about our real intentions or our real progress rate.

I think, however, that we could not censor anything except the most obviously secret information, for we are striving to disseminate the scientific knowledge and to help people get rid of their ignorance, such as in the case of Miriam's minions (oh how I pity them!).

History Guy · May 28, 2003, 22:45

I'd certainly suggest misinformation as a powerful weapon myself. Make them think we're weak when we're strong and strong when we're weak, give them the wrong clues as to what we're doing, scatter things about. This seems to me sensible. One mustn't overplay things, though. One can't be overly confusing in one's methods, a certain amount of subtlety is necessary. However, misinformation, to an extant, is advisable and perfectly useful.

GeneralTacticus · June 4, 2003, 05:57

Issue #3 posted, with extensive disinformation, as suggested.

moomin · June 4, 2003, 06:34

Let me be the first to congratulate you. Truely a masterpiece of embedded lies if I may say so myself. Worthy of a Hive propaganda maker, in fact!

The monitor may not be the most commented factional magazine, but I'd imagine it's the most analyzed one...

GeneralTacticus · June 4, 2003, 06:35

If they actually take any of it seriously, that isue should have them barking up about six different trees, none of which will be the right one...