 |
| |
|
|
AdamTG02
|
 |
Williamsburg, Virginia
Aug 2002
time: 00:28
|
|
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?
Last edited by AdamTG02 on 25-05-2003 at 22:03
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Timbba
|
|
Sharing lots of information seems university-ish - remember the -2 PROBE penalty they get? =)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AdamTG02
|
|
Williamsburg, Virginia
Aug 2002
time: 00:28
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GeneralTacticus
|
 |
of Melbourne, Australia
Dec 2001
time: 15:28
|
|
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...)
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-05-2003 16:28
|