 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
AdamTG02
|
 |
Williamsburg, Virginia
Aug 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
About a possible new party name if you want a new one: I was thinking about D4. I just have to figure out what the name could stand for. The words "Democrats" (naturally!), "Discovery" (standing both for exploration and technological progress) and "Development" (economical progress) could be in it. That just leaves a fourth D... |
I don't mean to jump ahead of the game, but if the merger is agreed to, how about Democrats for Discovery and Development, or 3D?
As far as the merger goes... my opinion is mixed, and I hope to hash out some of the issues here before making a decision. Since my earlier post, I have read a few of the more recent threads, and I am a bit troubled by the fact that Darkness' Edge and Pandemoniak have placed our first base without making a poll on it. Placing the first base is, in my opinion, one of the more far-reaching decisions, if not the most far-reaching decision, of the early game. While I can understand wanting to get the game started soon, why wait one turn and build it to the southwest if that was the goal? Placing it on the initial square would give us one more turn of production. Placing it one square south would give us a coastal base with a nutrient bonus. Placing it three squares east of start would have given us the valuable military position where the isthmus is narrow enough to build a canal.
Now, I can see where Pandemoniak and/or Darkness' Edge must have been coming from -- going further south would lose the just-discovered Nutrient bonus. That bonus did not exist until that pod was popped; it was reasonable to move the base before that bonus was discovered, but made less sense after.
Still, the decision seems to have been to play as much as possible rather than waiting to hear from the public on the issue. That's not as I understand it unconstitutional -- we did vote for representative instead of participative government -- but it is less democratic than I would like our government to be.
If my vote goes to withdraw from CDC by merging with the P4, it will be that action that precipitated it. I still see a great deal of common ground with the CDC, though, and don't want to cut the EDP off from them rashly.
I've been focusing a lot on what I would see as the downsides of merging with the P4, though, so I'd like to go over the upsides. We would be the largest party, at 8 members. (The CCCP has eight, I believe, but not all of them are active.) We share a core Builder ideology, even though we differ on what goals we prioritize among the three we share -- Explore, Discover, Build -- and about the means to reach those goals. We would combine some of the most active players in the game (although I don't count myself in that number, as college is now taking a great deal of my time), and we would be able to communicate on chat to come to a consensus as to what the most sound poliicy was.
A lot of these seem like uncontestable positives. After all, I certainly wouldn't argue if the EDP grew to ten members. But... if seven more citizens wanted to join the EDP, I could be reasonably certain that they agreed with the EDP's core goals. To a large extent, the EDP is a single-issue party, the issue being curiosity -- encompassing both exploration and scientific discovery. Both were easily summarized by Maniac as "Discovery," after all. But the 3D, or whatever we decided to call it, would be a multi-issue party -- and, as such, it would be harder to come to consensus, because we would encompass many points of view on virtually every issue. The contrast is to the EDP, which encompasses many points of view on most issues but states a commitment to two issues -- research and exploration -- as its baseline. That way, we can be reasonably certain that we are all on the same page in our goals, although our methods may differ.
As far as goals go -- I for one am not out to win this game. I am here to have fun, and to role-play convincingly. I want to play the Peacekeepers according to their in-game ideology, which means making Explore and Discover priorities, in technology, in production, and in less clear-cut decisions of policy. The choice of role-playing over game strategy was one of the main reasons (the other being ego  ) that made me decide to found the EDP instead of joining P4. If I wanted to win, the distinction into Builder and Conquerer seems clear-cut. If my main concern was not winning but playing the game, I might be better served by moving along that.
None of this is meant to dismiss the merger idea, but I'm airing thoughts as they come up. At this point in my thoughts, remaining as the EDP seems like the right idea. If my self-imposed deadline of four days expired in a few minutes, I would register my vote in the negative. But the reason I'm posting these thoughts is so they can be discussed, and criticized or expanded upon. Everyone interested -- EDP members, P4 members, CDC members -- I invite you to post your thoughts.
[Add:] Regarding the chat, Saturday is the best time for me.
Last edited by AdamTG02 on 05-09-2002 at 04:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Bloody Baro
|
|
Well the problem with me downloading that IRC thing is that this is my moms computer [no I'm not one of those fat boys who lives with his mom, I'm still in Junior High] and she's real touchy about downloading things.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Method
|
 |
/me goes to France
Feb 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
what if we let you be chaiman? 
quote:
Originally posted by AdamTG02
To a large extent, the EDP is a single-issue party, the issue being curiosity -- encompassing both exploration and scientific discovery. Both were easily summarized by Maniac as "Discovery," after all. But the 3D, or whatever we decided to call it, would be a multi-issue party -- and, as such, it would be harder to come to consensus, because we would encompass many points of view on virtually every issue. The contrast is to the EDP, which encompasses many points of view on most issues but states a commitment to two issues -- research and exploration -- as its baseline. That way, we can be reasonably certain that we are all on the same page in our goals, although our methods may differ.
|
we could come to some consensus on what our party goals would be. that way, coming to an agreement on a certain issue would be easier, and preventing the party from becoming multi-issue. if we could agree on goals (which is why a chat is important: again, P4 is willing to bend), then perhaps your fears would be quelled?
perhaps i didn't understand correctly, but are you skeptical of a merger because you fear EDP will lose its identity?
bloody: hide it in a secret folder or something . if you were going to dowload IRC, i wouldn't use MIRC. its shareware, so you have to pay after 30 days or something. i have ViRC-freeware (www.tucows.com). MIRC.com does have a good FAQ page though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AdamTG02
|
|
Williamsburg, Virginia
Aug 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
what if we let you be chaiman? |
Actually, the fact that I would no longer be the party organizer is one reason I was seriously considering the merge -- just because my time is much more limited since the start of the fall semester, and I would be able to concentrate on debate rather than party organization.
Given the fact that you, TKG, have been the driving force behind this merger, you would have my support as chairman (or whatever you preferred to call it) of the new party -- provided there was no objection from other members.
Three years ago in Japan, after the largest party had been voted out of power after ~40 years of single-party rule, the leader of the Socialist Party, disaffected with the opposing coalition, agreed to form a majority coalition with the Liberal Democrats, the former ruling party. He became Prime Minister, but it was the end of his career -- because voters no longer trusted his party, and he alienated his base with his more centrist positions.
I'm not saying that P4 is similar. What I am saying is that I don't see being the guy in charge as a worthwhile goal in and of itself -- you do it in order to accomplish something. That's where I see the Japanese Prime Minister (name starts with M but I forget it) as falling short -- he forgot that he was in politics to accomplish something, and not simply to get power whatever the cost.
I may be long-winded, and I apologize for that, but the point is that I don't see being the leader as something that would change the situation intrinsically. Who's in the chair doesn't really matter, because a democratic party is governed by the members. The chairman is a secretary to some extent.
But I'm open to hear your thoughts.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
FlameFlash
|
 |
Minnesota, USA
Dec 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
Adam, TKG... I'm here, and currently being racked by the fence...
Lucky's comment actually drove in an interesting point for me... the P4 was originally rather extreme (or painted that way) but are now showing more moderate views which, to me, is why they've been inspired by the recent idea to offer a merge to us... from the political compas I'm almost as extreme a Libertarian as one can get... a few social issues notwithstanding, but economically I've always preferred the laize faire attitude...
One reason I've always been friendly with Pandemoniak and the rest of the CCCP, however, even with my feelings of economics being more in line with Free Market... I can see the failings in both systems... equality is a nice ideal... but neither one is going to give the world equality once and for all.
Anyway, I've begun to rant... I'm going to sit back and see if the CDC responds, and also hear out GT's thoughts, before I make up my mind one way or another... because as I said... I'm being racked by the fence currently...
I did, however, like the 3D idea for a name if this does go through... but I'll also need some kind of an organizational thread or chat or something prior to the merge for us to actually hammer out a future political stance before we actually commit to the merge. A common ground may not be found after all, simply because on the surface we're seeing common issues doesn't mean they'll stay common or that others won't creep up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Archaic
|
 |
Washed up SMAC/X University Specialist
Nov 2001
time: 15:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AdamTG02
1) We have a lot in common with the P4, but there are issues of disagreement. P4 supports a beeline to Industrial Automation and extensive use of crawlers. I've never seen a crawler fleet used to the extent that it sounds like is normal in a multiplayer game, so I'm less enthusiastic about crawlers and don't see the need to beeline to them and neglect other techs. The EDP doesn't yet have a formal position on technology, but in general we favor Explore and Discover techs over the others -- and beelining to Automation means focusing to a great extent on Build. |
If I may, I have an example on this one.
In the "Race to Transcendence" game I'm a part of right now, I as the UoP have 27 active Crawlers, with 2 in production, Darsnan's Gaians have 24 with 4 in production, and smhfan's Believers have 59, with 14 in production. smhfan's much larger landmass can and should be considered the only reason he has more. My rather small island can only support so many at the moment. I still have some more colonizing to go though, which should bring me up to the levels smh has. However, he hasn't got his bases fully crawlered yet, and by Doc. AP and MMI I expect he'll have 125~150 total. He used to have more than he does rightnow, but he used a large number of them to Instabuild (ie. Rush build in 1 turn using only crawler rushing.) the PTT out from under me a few turns ago. (As a side note, doing that pushed all his size 1 and 2 bases up to size 3, more than doubling his pop, and doubling the size of his power graph.)
Most of the crawlers are being used on forest or mine/rocky/road tiles. Using 5 crawlers at my HQ (And being lucky enough to have a Min bonus on a Rocky.), I've had that base at over 30 minerals a turn, and popping approx. every 3rd turn. (Thank heavens for trance and forest growth. It's doing lovely things for my clean mineral limits I must say.)
Compare that to a normal size 5 base, which would normally produce..what...10~12 minerals a turn, depending on terrain and terraforming?
Last edited by Archaic on 05-09-2002 at 10:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:21
|
|
Say 10.00 GMT to 23.00 GMT. In other words, I probably wouldn't be able to attend it.
Last edited by Maniac on 05-09-2002 at 22:32
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2002 23:08
) with his base placements. Though I personally would have preferred stopping most colonization when we have 20 bases, a poll I started has indicated most people want to continue expanding until eternity. I accept that and certainly won't press that point anymore. Instead I will just follow whatever expansion policy EDP prefers. if I would be D of T&C I would act democratically (unlike some other directors), just follow the opinion of the majority and continue founding bases. 
ofcourse not (that is what i would say too 
i always saw myself as calm and builder like
an not heated response for archaic 
|