 |
|  |
 |
|
Leland
|
|
There are at least two reasons why EDP should consider joining ACE...
1) At the moment, ACE is dominated by warmongers but if EDP joins, then the EDP-Fundie policy of Peace-first would prevail. So that gets rid of the biggest hurdle I can see.
2) ACE is smaller than the two other clusters, so EDP would have more relative power.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
AdamTG02
|
 |
Williamsburg, Virginia
Aug 2002 time: 00:21
|
|
I'd like to clarify that I am not going to dictate party policy. I'm organizing things, but the EDP is larger than just me.
However, I am submitting to the other party members the question of joining a coalition. When we have a majority (at this point two members), then I will inform you of our decision.
To avoid confusion, perhaps P4 and CDC can clarify their positions a bit more. The main difference seems to be Green vs. FM, but both of you seem to be flexible and not single-minded in that regard. Personally I favor Demo/Green/Knowledge for Paradigm Economy, and pumping research up to the maximum supportable. It's not inconsistant with the EDP mission to use FM and explore with probe teams, though.
With Cybernetic, Paradigm Economy could be reached even without Green. That's one thing to consider.
As far as the early game goes, the most attractive choice for me is Demo/Planned. I mentioned this in the CCCP thread; consequently, that party has proposed an alliance, which is currently being voted on.
To some extent, focusing on Explore/Discover techs is more important to me than issues of social engineering. That's why I am willing to consider all of the alliance proposals offered here. But rather than speaking for the party, I'll pose the question to party members, and let the consensus decide. Democracy is slow, but I'm not committing the whole party until I've heard from everyone.
(Edit: I wrote the above before the offer from the ACE. I am also forwarding that proposal to the party.)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
FlameFlash
|
 |
Minnesota, USA
Dec 2001 time: 23:21
|
|
If I may, Adam, since I've just thrown my hat into the ring for Minister of Exploration and Intelligence, I'd appreciate if we could discuss EDP Probe policy.
Here's what I was thinking could be added to the manifesto in that regard.
*offers checklist*
Probing:
First and foremost, when a new faction has been discovered, to further steps in diplomacy we need to infiltrate their datalinks so we can hopefully go in the opposite direction technologically that they are going and offer a future trade.
Secondly, no atrocities. It is more underhanded than I think we should stand for, and should step forward not condone any atrocity actions made by any faction.
Thirdly, if we are forced into a war with another faction (by them attacking us) then we should rightfully attempt to take any new knowledge to us from them to even the playing field, however not risk initial war by probing a peaceful faction.
Fourth, no framing. It's underhanded and not honorable.
Fifth, if another faction appears to be building up a large group of probe teams make the suggestion that more probe teams be built on our side as a defensive measure for border cities.
Sixth, when the proper technology is available, probe teams should have 2 space sight until other, better enhancements are available specifically for probe teams.
Exploration:
To make sure there is no undiscovered island, waterway, or continent. I'm not sure how else to be clear about this. Trade maps with other factions when possible to prevent having to tresspass.
When possible build clean scout units that can move quickly and see two squares around.
Last edited by FlameFlash on 15-08-2002 at 21:20
|
|
|  |
 |
|
AdamTG02
|
 |
Williamsburg, Virginia
Aug 2002 time: 00:21
|
|
I've heard from one other member of the party so far... we both seem to be positive on joining CDC, which is a majority, so I'm announcing that the EDP is joining that coalition.
In view of the split developing between the CDC and P4, I believe that the differences between these groups have been exaggerated. However, on the issues which seem to me genuine points of disagreement -- support for Green or Planed over Free Market, and opposition to atrocities -- I think the EDP's position is more in line with that of the CDC.
On coalitions with specific parties, we are more interested in arrangements such as agreeing not to run against one another than in agreeing to support perpetually one another's candidates. One idea that was suggested is for individual candidates to endorse one another, without the EDP as a whole taking a stance. (If I've interpreted that idea wrong, just let me know.) If that is agreeable to the parties seeking coalition with us, we'd be interested in such an arrangement.
On that note, I'd like to announce my personal support for Pandemoniak in the election for Terraforming and Colonization Director. We've conversed over instant messenger and his policies -- wanting to expand our borders as early as possible so that we claim a large portion of the map -- seem to be very much in line with the goals of the EDP.
In closing, I'd like to say that we are willing to work together with any party in support of common goals. Hopefully the divides that are taking shape will not be so heated as to preclude cooperation; on many issues, if not most, we agree more than we disagree.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
AdamTG02
|
 |
Williamsburg, Virginia
Aug 2002 time: 00:21
|
|
Commissioner Crisler wrote:
quote: To this end I wish to call for a Constitutional Committee to be formed. I ask the leaders of each Party, yes folks Party not Coalitions, to be members of this committee. |
Although I have organized the EDP, I do not claim the title of party leader. However, if the other party members consent, I will represent the party on the Constitutional Committee. If the party approves of this, I will do my best to represent your opinions as well as my own.
So, what ideas would you like the EDP to bring to the party convention? Should Directors be required to poll if feasible before making a decision, or should they be able to use their own discretion and ignore the polls? How much power should the Commissioner have, and how much should be in the hands of the Directors? FlameFlash in particular, what specifically would you like the Director of Exploration and Intelligence to control? (All 1-1 or noncombat units, all units specifically requested for exploration, what?) And where does the party stand on the debate about whether to separate the Director of Industry and Energy from the Director of Base Production?
Let me know your thoughts, and I'll make them known in the debate.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
AdamTG02
|
 |
Williamsburg, Virginia
Aug 2002 time: 00:21
|
|
The following message was sent via radio from the Xenofungus fields [from Utah at an Internet kiosk] and will therefore be brief:
Good to hear from you, GT. From your post, it does sound like we have disagreements, but we also agree on a major point: we should not attack other factions unless and until they attack us. As to what we do after that, there's certainly room for disagreement.
I'm not sure of your position on atrocities; since you represent a significant segment of the party at this point, if you want I'll edit the text on the party memberlist thread where it says the EDP opposes atrocities.
(To some extent, the EDP is a single-issue party, focusing on exploration and research and willing to accomodate just about any view on other subjects. We are aligned with the CDC, but our first alliegiance is to the principles of exploration and discovery.)
On the whole, your statements seem both pragmatic and principled, GT.
I'll be keeping somewhat in touch during the evening for the next few days, as my expedition has approached UN Headquarters closely enough to maintain radio contact [finally got a hotel with internet access grr grr]. Probably won't post much more than this, though. Good luck to your on the election, FlameFlash, and to everyone in general.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
AdamTG02
|
 |
Williamsburg, Virginia
Aug 2002 time: 00:21
|
|
A few points in response to the P4/EDP discussion in The Merchant Exchange thread:
The EDP has never taken the stance that cooperating with one party means we have to be opposed to another. Back when the coalitions were forming, we joined the CDC because it had many ideals in common with us; however, we stood ready to cooperate with the P4, or the Fundamentalists, or any other party that agreed with us on an issue, in order to mobilize support on that issue.
quote: In view of the split developing between the CDC and P4, I believe that the differences between these groups have been exaggerated. However, on the issues which seem to me genuine points of disagreement -- support for Green or Planned over Free Market, and opposition to atrocities -- I think the EDP's position is more in line with that of the CDC.
[snip]
In closing, I'd like to say that we are willing to work together with any party in support of common goals. Hopefully the divides that are taking shape will not be so heated as to preclude cooperation; on many issues, if not most, we agree more than we disagree. |
Now, what were the issues keeping us from cooperating with the P4? To some extent, it was atrocities. At the time, the P4 appeared to want to allow them, and EDP opposed them. To some extent, it was Green vs. FM, as Green makes it much easier to explore and allows for Paradigm Economy, the next best thing to +2 Econ as far as research goes. To some extent, it was the reception we had received from P4 members thus far:
Maniac wrote:
quote: Personally I seldom expand (peacefully) beyond 20 bases. That's why I wouldn't like a huge map as there would be large empty areas between Apolyton and an enemy.
So after the initial expansion phase Explore isn't a priority at all for me. I don't think longterm cooperation is possible between us. |
However, despite our differences, we share a major issue -- the focus on research. Because of that, cooperation between our parties is a strong possibility for the future.
Nothing in the makeup of the CDC says that the EDP has to support them in every election, or on every issue. The cooperation that's gone on so far has been completely voluntary and decided by individual choice. Just because EDP is in the CDC does not mean that we can't work together with parties that aren't.
Maniac wrote:
quote: GeneralTacticus, you are in the wrong party. The CDC will never allow us to go Free Market, only Planned or Green. P4 however will. If you just have a look at our first post in the P4 political thread, you will see our economic planning is exactly the same as yours: |
In my opinion, GeneralTacticus's Social Engineering views are completely compatible with the views of the EDP.
quote: Personally I favor Demo/Green/Knowledge for Paradigm Economy, and pumping research up to the maximum supportable. It's not inconsistant with the EDP mission to use FM and explore with probe teams, though. |
Like the P4, EDP is flexible -- we have basic goals, and are willing to entertain diverse views about how to achieve them. We have joined the CDC because we believe that many of our interests coincide... but we are willing to work with any party. We share many views with the P4, and are willing to compromise on our differences.
This goes for everyone: propose a policy and we'll debate it.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|