 |
| |
|
|
Juliennew
|
|
Paris
Jun 2002
time: 06:21
|
|
This point hasn't been debated between P4 members yet but I support a such initiative.
(RP off : It will make a very powerfull coalition as I think only the fundamentalist faction and the hawks won't join)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkness' Edge
|
|
Great to have you on board!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkness' Edge
|
|
with the clash for the position of commissioner, what are we gonna do...?
i'm going away tommorrow, and i won't be back until tuesday, probably not having access to a computer until then...so this'd better be worked out within the next 12 hours or so...
what do you wanna do, dbts?
any other opinions?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jdd2007
|
 |
Cincinnati
Aug 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
edit: never mind. that hurt my eyes anyway...
Last edited by jdd2007 on 07-08-2002 at 20:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Voltaire
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Aug 2001
time: 22:21
|
|
Well I’m back so I’ll see if I can answers all your questions.
quote:
with the clash for the position of commissioner, what are we gonna do...? |
Elections aren’t yet around the corner, so there is time to sort this out. My personally thoughts on this were to agree on the backing of one candidate for commissioner and the others can come to some agreement as to what posts they would desire therefore all the candidates would be assured a position in the government. This process could be done every election thus ensuring that all parties in the Coalition as some point in time get the opportunity to see one of their own as commissioner.
This is just my idea, anyone feel free to contribute their own thoughts into this.
quote:
Hmm. It seems like we're already growing towards a two-party system. |
I also want to avoid this; personally I’m not in favor of a two party system. What I think I’m trying to accomplish here is to bring some level of cooperation between the parties in order to secure power seeing as none of us alone are large enough to do it ourselves. This is just the natural process of multi-party systems.
Also it’s not as though we agree on every little detail, there will of course be competitions among ourselves, and problems will arise. I’m not expecting this to go smoothly or to last forever.
quote:
is a coaliton temporal or permanent alliance between parties? |
That really depends; it isn’t up to me but rather to the parties that join, so I really don’t know how far this will go or how long it will last. But I don’t expect it to be permanent seeing as we’re right will be only dealing with the early stages of colonization, I expect thing to develop which may lead to the disintegration of the coalition in mid to late game.
quote:
What are the goals of this coalition... I may be able to convince my fellow party members that this coalition is a good thing, however I'd first like to know if this coalition has any set goals in mind. |
The Coalition does have certain principles and goals which we wish to maintain:
1) Peace (we do not wish to actively seek war, but we will be prepared to defend ourselves);
2) Equality, Freedom, and Democracy; (I grouped these as one since they are all interrelated; we wish to maintain the principles of democracy on planet);
3) Betterment of the human condition (we also seek to improve the lives all people, thought all means, and particularly research and applications which it brings).
We all have these principles in common, though our exact means of achieving these goals may differ, at least we can cooperate on the things we agree upon and perhaps some to some compromises. The main differences I see between the parties who have joined, and even those who are considering joining are what economic models we should run, and what future societies we should have (though here the argument mainly is between Eudaimonia and Cybernetic, and both have their virtues). I’m not certain but I do believe that most of the parties see the value of Knowledge as a SE choice, so our argument comes down to economics and future societies (the later being a non-issue as this point in time).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Voltaire
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Aug 2001
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
The CDC is an interesting enterprise indeed. However, I will have to remind you that there are only some parties we can accept to the CDC, if we are to remain promoting our party's ideals. Of course, we might have to relinquish some to gain on the others, but principles are always principles, and I do hope that the CDC won't support Free Market unless it is absolutely necessary for the existence of the nation. |
Kass, it looks at though the P4 is already plotting against the CDC (take a look at the P4 political thread), and they’re not going to join. So it doesn’t look as though we’ll be supporting Free Market (seeing as all other members including ourselves are opposed to it). The P4 has already been discussing an alliance with the Capitalist Party in order to counter our influence.
And seeing as the CDC stands for democracy, I put fort the proposition that any further members that wish to join the CDC be approved by the current members before acceptance. This will insure that the principles which we stand for are maintained.
quote:
PS. Also, I do find it stressing that we are moving towards a two-party system, and wish that this current trend be halted before that happens. Diversity is relevant. |
I agree, and initially if you take a look at our party thread, though I was in favor of cooperation I wasn’t in favor of a coalition. But the increasing power of the P4 (at 5 members) needed to be counterbalanced. So from the looks of it we now have 3 forces vying for power: the CDC, the ACE, and the P4.
Last edited by Voltaire on 08-08-2002 at 02:11
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-08-2002 09:15
|