24-12-2003 20:35									#31
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I voted no, I'm of the opinion that tech agreements should be done on a case by case basis and not binded by our alliance treaty.

When I say case by case, I don't mean Tech X for Tech Y. I mean one _specific_ agreement at a time. For example, we will give you theology, education, banking, and astronomy if you give us 500 gold, invention and gunpowder. ie) You can still agree to long term tech plans and all the details you want even for techs still in the modern age if you want, but we negotiate based on specifics not on the generality of we are agreeing to a blanket X% per tech and to try to maintain tech parity.

	24-12-2003 22:34									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I am officially abstaining from the poll. I thought the poll was weird to begin with and I didn't understand it. Togas's post puts it in better perspective and I fully agree with all the points he made.

	25-12-2003 00:01									#33
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Well Im not voting in this poll.

This war of words is getting very old.

	25-12-2003 00:58									#34
	Lets stop the name calling and the insults! Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by civman2000 First, I would like to say that this poll is vague and that a clear definition of tech parity should be in the first post. Furthermore, NO ONE is agreeing to full tech parity at any cost, because we will still be trading with the other civs. Lastly, this is quite frankly a rather dumb move on the part of BF because if "No" wins the consuls can still decide to do whatever they want (no bill will have been passed) but if "Yes" wins he has accomplished exactly what he opposes. Because of these last too points I voted "No" to nullify this poll, and urge all other "abstainers" to do the same.

You think voting "No" nullifies this poll? Why so? What "other" Civs do you speak of? There's only CGN left to trade with. Oh, and I appreciate the "dumb" remark. I see you have some things in common with MZ.

Voting "No" means that there is a law that says we can not sell techs to CFC for 25% (or less) of their cost. That also means that it will be legal to sell it at 26%. But, we really should debate this. The 25% point is just something that I wanted to see a law enacted so that we did not go lower than that.

Voting "Yes" means that we can set the minimum at anything we want.

Why in the heck is that so confusing to some?

Togas: Do I expect CFC to be able to put up 50%? No. That's why I suggested 40%. If CFC can agrue that they can't afford that, then I'm willing to negotiate it with them. But why oh why do we set such a low start point for the negotiations? We need to be assured that CFC is contributing as much as possible to the research pool. What's wrong with us staying a few techs ahead of CFC while they fund cheap research for themselves. Is it realisitic for us to think that CFC really believes that it is fair and reasonable for them to pay much less than we do for techs AND maintain tech parity with us? Look at it from their perspective if they get techs any cheaper than they would otherwise, while paying less than Apolyton does, then they are doing themselves a favor by agreeing to it. If CFC can make a good argument and provide some type of proof that they can only pay 35% or 30% then I'm willing to listen.

What do you plan to start of the negotiations with? We can't just say "Pay us what ever you can afford, we trust you."

	25-12-2003 01:24									#35
	Re: Lets stop the name calling and the insults! Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by BigFree Oh, and I appreciate the "dumb" remark. I see you have some things in common with MZ.

Thank you BF, I also very much appreciate your remarks calling me a dumb ass, a bleep and showing me the :middlefinger: as well as countless other insults hurled my way in the chat. I know quite well that we hardly agree on things anymore but if that is an excuse to drop all forms of civility during debate then I will have no more part in it. Think that people are reading your posts and everything you say to me or anyone else will reflect on people's attitudes towards you and that isn't really helping your cause.

I thought we had gone over already that insulting people will not make them change their minds but rather make them even more virulently opposed to you. But if you choose to make that the pinnacle of your debating abilities then so be it, you have nothing to gain by it and everything to lose.

	25-12-2003 01:53									#36
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

HAHA

That comes from someone who drops insults like Jose Canseco drops fly balls!

You have made negative remarks concerning my two polls I posted in more than one thread. If you veil your insults, they still count as insults. All my remarks towards you are in refernce to insults you first dealt. I can debate without insulting another, but you have a problem with doing so. I have no problems telling you where you can go if you choose that game; it's your choice. You go from one thread to another carrying your insults with you. You are a hypocrite.

	25-12-2003 01:58									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

FLAMEWAR!!!

(Please stop it.)

	25-12-2003 01:59									#38
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Voting "No" means that there is a law that says we can not sell techs to CFC for 25% (or less) of their cost. That also means that it will be legal to sell it at 26%. But, we really should debate this. The 25% point is just something that I wanted to see a law enacted so that we did not go lower than that. Voting "Yes" means that we can set the minimum at anything we want.

quote: G2. The Senate has the power to create law, which the Consuls must follow. a. A Bill must be proposed by a Senator, and clearly state the purpose in the first post, and have the following options for a poll: yea or nay. b. The Bill must be passed by a simple majority, 50% plus 1, to become a law. c. All bills must be open for at least 48 hours.

quote: CFC wants full tech parity. Do we allow them that parity at a cost of 25% of the actual cost for a tech?

If the bill is not passed by a simple majority, no law is created. Therefore the consuls are free to do whatever they want.

If the bill is passed, the consuls are legally bound to let CFC have tech parity for 25% (assuming they want it). Note that this would also include techs we receive from CGN, even if there is a no-trade agreement.

Please, I urge all people who have "abstained" to vote no to make sure the consuls and FAM do not end up getting overly restricted in negotiating with CFC.

	25-12-2003 02:17									#39
	Increase Your PM Length

civman2000 is right. If there are more "no"s than "yes" votes, then this bill does not pass.

Vote NO. Please.

--Togas

	25-12-2003 03:02									#40
	Increase Your PM Length

In that case I change my vote from yes to no.

	25-12-2003 04:16									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by civman2000 If the bill is not passed by a simple majority, no law is created. Therefore the consuls are free to do whatever they want. If the bill is passed, the consuls are legally bound to let CFC have tech parity for 25% (assuming they want it). Note that this would also include techs we receive from CGN, even if there is a no-trade agreement.

Hmm, good point but doesn't that limit polls to only positive courses of actions? For example, if a poll says "Should we make peace with GCA" and the nays win, that would mean that we are pretty much forced into continuing the war.

	25-12-2003 04:37									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen Hmm, good point but doesn't that limit polls to only positive courses of actions? For example, if a poll says "Should we make peace with GCA" and the nays win, that would mean that we are pretty much forced into continuing the war.

But that's a situation in which there's only two possibilities (war and not war). So yes, in that case it would require us to continue the war. However, in this case (and many others) there are multiple ways of dealing with the situation so it's not as clear cut as only x or y.

	25-12-2003 05:06									#43
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

If that is the way it is to be interpreted then all bills should follow a format simular to this:

Thread Title-Subject Matter

Poll Question-Shall this bill pass?

Bill-The exact wording of the bill so that if it passes whatever is contained here is what is law.

The context of the bill, whether it is a negatively or a positively worded sentence, should not matter. But rather that people vote either Yes or No for it.

For example this poll could have been worded as such:

Thread Title- Do we give CFC Tech parity for 25% of the cost?

Poll Question-Shall this Bill pass?

Bill-We shall not give tech parity or sell techs to CFC for 25% or less than what the actual editor cost of a tech is.

	25-12-2003 08:03									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Hmm, good point but doesn't that limit polls to only positive courses of actions? For example, if a poll says "Should we make peace with GCA" and the nays win, that would mean that we are pretty much forced into continuing the war.

No, in that case legally the consuls could still make peace because no law was passed.

quote: If that is the way it is to be interpreted then all bills should follow a format simular to this: Thread Title-Subject Matter Poll Question-Shall this bill pass? Bill-The exact wording of the bill so that if it passes whatever is contained here is what is law. The context of the bill, whether it is a negatively or a positively worded sentence, should not matter. But rather that people vote either Yes or No for it. For example this poll could have been worded as such: Thread Title- Do we give CFC Tech parity for 25% of the cost? Poll Question-Shall this Bill pass? Bill-We shall not give tech parity or sell techs to CFC for 25% or less than what the actual editor cost of a tech is

What's wrong with that?

In any case, I think it should be possible to specify that a victory for "no" is binding, though only if the issue is very clearly defined and pretty much black and white. There should also be a separate abstain option in that case. This should probably be implemented together with whatever other reforms to the bill system that are under discussion. However, in the case of this bill under the current system, the issue is too unclear and that reform is not yet implemented, so a no victory does nothing.

	25-12-2003 08:53									#45
	Inflate your Upload Space

In any case it needs to be black and white with no ambiguity.

I myself was ok with a "No" vote causing a law to be enacted as well as a "Yes" vote; it just depended on the wording of the bill. Whether or not a "Yes" meant that it passes or a "No" meant that it passes does not matter to me. What matteres to me is that it is clear to those that vote what the consequences of a vote either way would do. So, maybe a litttle reform is needed.

	25-12-2003 14:33									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

That is not how it goes. We vote yes or no to the law. If the law passes, we live with it. If the law does not pass, it is as if the poll never happened.

	25-12-2003 17:55									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

not really, NYE. If the wording of the law was to state that "We will give CFC our surpluss whatevers". If that law fails, with a no vote, then basically, they are saying that, "no, we do not want to give them our surplus whatevers", which is binding of it;s own right. But it the wording of the bill states that a no vote does NOT mean that we will Never give them our surpluss whatever, but that it just defeats this bill, then yes you can say that.

E_T

	25-12-2003 21:01									#48
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I don't agee ET, a bill is something that passes or fails, if it fails then it has no legal binding.

The best course of action if you want to bind a no vote is to first unofficially poll the issue to gage public opinion and allow for discussion. Then if the public is obviously against the issue, then phrase the bill in the negative in the official poll.

For example:
First unofficial poll:
Should we give tech parity to CFC based on a percentage of the tech cost in all trades? Yes/No
No wins with 75%

Official Poll:
Shall this bill pass [Yes/No]
We shall not offer any binding treaty to CFC whereby they are entitled to tech parity based on a percentage value of a individual technologies beaker cost.

If Yes passes, then the consules are bound by law not to offer that in a treaty. If no passes, then they can basically do what they want.

	26-12-2003 02:01									#49
	Got spare money?

I'd like to add some further details to this discussion.

BigFree is one of the individuals who is responsible for the plan to have CFC give us gpt to speed up our research, and I want to give him credit for his help and contribution to this idea.

The only real difference we seem to have is on how much CFC should pay. To that, this argument is premature. We really aren't at that stage yet, however, I can understand his desire to create a limit as he fears (justly or not) that the FAM will be too giving in this area.

Hopefully, this will help put aside his fears and anyone else's who also fears the same:

In our final negotiated alliance we settled on this language:

quote: The two parties of this pact are to combine their economic power to enable the best possible research rate. Both nations will show full disclosure on their economic situation, and act accordingly.

We are to each tell each other how much income we make and can then come to a fair amount of GPT for them to spend. It's going to require the work of economists (like MZ) and attornies (like me) to work out a fair amount, but I am confident that we can do it.

I don't think I should have to make this clear, but I will -- I want to make a hefty profit off of this relationship. I do not want to give tech away to CFC. I will do my best to get the most GPT out of CFC as possible, but that will be determined only by their economy, not by an arbitrary number we predetermine.

My desire to make a profit, however, is not as great as my desire to create the win-win situation we have with CFC, where we can REX, research on steroids, and enjoy a period of peace with a potentially dangerous neighbor.

--Togas

	26-12-2003 02:52									#50
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Sounds good Togas. My fears are resting a little easier now.

Merry Christmas.

	26-12-2003 21:31									#51
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Good work there. Sounds like this is going better.