 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
In 1984 there were different groups, but always the same people in power. If we are going to RP the Hive properly, we can't even have elections, and thus cannot change officials (except by military coup  ). Therefore there must be a slight change in the nature of the Hive to facilitate this. Like in the last ACDG, we had many parties with a common belief in democracy, in this we have many parties with the common belief in a police state. It would take a considerable doublethink, not to see the hypocracy in having democracy where all parties are anti-democratic, but that hypocracy seems Hive-like to me.
Or we could go for the literal meaning of police state, and have competing police forces, rife with corruption, whereby the most powerful police force can put it's members into office. Each party would have it's own police force, and the strength of each could be decided by a vote, as a representation of it's power. So that although we are undemocratic RPing, the way the faction is run uses polling as a measure.
The other big problem is whether we vote on actions. To RP we wouldn't, but then it becomes a pretty uninteresting game. Also the name, the AC Democracy Game.
The only way of getting round this I can think of is running the faction like the Hive do currently - inefficient, burocratic but with voting and officals (loads of them). The whole idea of hypocracy, corruption and doublethink could work well, and be much fun (if it doesn't get boring) while still giving the essance of a communist police state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kody
|
|
If life's standing still and your soul's confused
Jun 2003
time: 14:30
|
|
Inefficient!!!!!!!
Although I conceed the other points.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kody
|
|
If life's standing still and your soul's confused
Jun 2003
time: 14:30
|
|
Why can't a completely new faction be made?
It may be fun just dreaming one up and balancing it.
Then I'm sure someone will enjoy writing the ideology etc too.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kody
|
|
If life's standing still and your soul's confused
Jun 2003
time: 14:30
|
|
Staging Coups with a Hive faction
This might be a stupid idea, but we could stage military coups with a pretend battle.
Basically, if someone wants to stage a coup they post a poll with the current party in power and the party that is trying for the coup. The poll has a timeout of 1 day, and it's mainly to show who's attempting to take control.
Then all the supporters need to make a post saying which party they're in. They also have a option of eliminating a supporter of an opposing faction that has already stated their alliegence.
If a supporter attacks the supporter of another party, both become wounded and are eliminated from the battle. It is 7 days from the end of the battle that they will be able to particate again in another battle. We could also have it so two members can attack one, wounding that one person while neither of the attackers get wounded in return.
So for example a minor skirmish during the coup would look like this (assuming the participants can be bothered writing the descriptions).
quote:
Kody Posts:
Kody picks up a laser rifle and declares his support for the "Ultra-Middle Wing Party".
|
quote:
Drogue Posts:
Drogue picks up his missile launcher in the name of "Greenies Personified", and fires a few missiles at Kody.
|
quote:
Maniac Posts:
Maniac cheers for the "Greenies Personified", and lays covering fire for Drogue melting the wall Kody is covering behind.
|
So in this scenerio I get fried, and Maniac and Drogue come out unscathed. Ofcourse people can write more elaborate descriptions if they wish.
The coup is successful if there is a two thirds majority of still standing party supporters at the end of the 24 hours. Otherwise the old party retains power.
Any players that have posts which they have edited are disqualified (to prevent changes in who've they've attacked).
We're only allowed one battle at a time, but another party can decide to join in to make it a three way melee if their chairman posts that he is commiting his party. Or another party could support one of the other parties.
This can lead to interesting diplomancy. If two large parties deciminate each other in a battle a smaller party might be able to take control before the larger parties have regained all their members (takes 7 days to recover after getting wounded).
Also if one party has a number of members missing over a weekend, another party could take advantage of the reduced security and take over.
The battles themselves can be interesting, as people may delay commiting themselves until the very last minute to avoid becoming wounded and being eliminated (in a military prespective) for the next 7 days. Or interesting grudges can develop where certain people will get eliminated as soon as they declare their support.
The rules need to be ironed out a bit, but you should be able to get the general idea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Snowflake
|
 |
falling, once again
Apr 2003
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maniac
I guess in a totalitarian state there should be only one party. However that party doesn't need to be monolithic. After all AFAIK in the USSR and PRC there always were several groups of likeminded people who wanted to impose their version of the truth on everyone else and make it state policy. What were parties with normal citizens (we) as members in the previous ACDG could now be semi-secret associations with the party elite as members. Backstabbing, corruption and political intrigue should be the ways of the Hive. |
You have grasped the true form of a totalitarian state well, Maniac.
Let's look at China. Formed in 1949. Not long after (1951), the initial moderation in Chinese domestic policies gave way to a massive campaign against the "enemies of the state," actual and potential. The antirightist drive was followed by a militant approach toward economic development. In 1958 the CCP launched the Great Leap Forward campaign which turned out to be an economic failure which was intensified by the three years of natural disasters. 1961, the party--still under Mao's titular leadership but under the dominant influence of Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping, and others--initiated a series of corrective measures. By 1962, however, Mao began an offensive to purify the party, having grown increasingly uneasy about what he believed were the creeping "capitalist" and antisocialist tendencies in the country. A bunch of big powers (generals who have won the war for the party) were struck down. And then it was the great cultural revolution in 1966. under the guise of upholding ideological purity, Mao and his supporters purged or attacked a wide variety of public figures, including State Chairman Liu Shaoqi and other party and state leaders. Considerable intraparty opposition to the Cultural Revolution was evident. On the one side was the Mao-Lin Biao group, supported by the PLA; on the other side was a faction led by Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, which had its strength in the regular party machine. Premier Zhou Enlai, while remaining personally loyal to Mao, tried to mediate or to reconcile the two factions. 1969, Lin Biao was promoted to the post of CCP vice chairman and was named as Mao's successor. The turning point in the decade of the Cultural Revolution was Lin Biao's abortive coup attempt and his subsequent death in a plane crash as he fled China in September 1971. The immediate consequence was a steady erosion of the fundamentalist influence of the left-wing radicals. Lin Biao's closest supporters were purged systematically. In October, 1976, less than a month after Mao's death, Jiang Qing and her three principal associates--denounced as the Gang of Four --were arrested with the assistance of two senior Political Bureau members, Minister of National Defense Ye Jianying and Wang Dongxing, commander of the CCP's elite bodyguard. Within days it was formally announced that Hua Guofeng had assumed the positions of party chairman, chairman of the party's Central Military Commission, and premier. Within the years, many people rose up and went down. Deng XiaoPing was actually up and down for three times.
I'm not going to write up the more recent development for this is going to be too long. However, what China's political history showed us is that within a totalitarian state there could be plenty of political struggle, debate of policies, change of power, etc... It holds great potential for RP in my humble opinion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AdamTG02
|
 |
Williamsburg, Virginia
Aug 2002
time: 00:30
|
|
Actually, I think we can work elections with the Hive fairly well. Simply assume that everyone in the DG is on the Hive's Central Committee, or whatever we want to call it -- whatever Yang (and now Voltaire) is the Chairman of. Then allow that Committee to elect officials, who have semi-absolute power. You have a Democracy game, in a totalitarian environment. Or, have the Chairman appoint officials, but be elected -- the point is that voting plays some part. Once results are certain, everyone can claim that they voted for the winner anyway, and publically suspect that their political enemies are the traitors who submitted the opposing votes. 
I'm strongly in favor of having some form of elections, but I am open to other thoughts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:30
|
|
quote:
The other big problem is whether we vote on actions. To RP we wouldn't, but then it becomes a pretty uninteresting game. Also the name, the AC Democracy Game. |
If we see polls as decision-making party congresses, I don't see the RP problem at all. And regarding the name, we could always call it the ACPSG: Alpha Centauri Police State Game. Who knows the novelty of the name will attract new interested people. 
Anyway, I thought of the following, being inspired by Drogue's and Kody's writings:
How about whenever a new base is founded, each active Hive member has an equal chance to be selected as the governor? Someone should roll a dice or something. That governor would not be able to be replaced unless s/he resigns, becomes inactive, gives her position to someone else, or moves to another position. That governor then has control over the production of that base, and is also supreme military commander of that base's units. S/he could produce as many military units as s/he wants. Every military (and probe) unit would be given a value. That value would be equal to the mineral rows it cost to build it. After fusion power is discovered, the value of the unit would be equal to the equivalent fission power unit.
Now, my suggestion would be to use those military unit value points as the basis for some sort of military coups as Kody proposes. Each base governor could send a self-decided amount of his value points to a certain government office, to seize control if it.
For example:
quote:
Military coup! Kody sends 15 special forces (15 value points) to the Defence ministry previously controlled by General Tacticus. |
quote:
Voltaire sends 5 infantry to reinforce Kody's siege of the defence ministry. |
quote:
GeneralTacticus sends 12 of his elite forces to regain control of his ministry. They fail. However they were able to kill 12 of the occupying forces of Kody, leaving only 3 of Kody's and 5 of Voltaire's troops left. GT hopes Archaic will send some of his troops as well in an attempt to regain control.
[quote]In the meanwhile Maniac's small society of the Fists of Righteous Harmony profits from Kody's temporary weakness and occupies Kody's Internal Affairs Ministry with 4 soldiers. |
When all forces have been spent, or after a certain period of time has passed, the one with the most soldiers in a certain office would become the new Director.
Perhaps the same could be done to replace base governors. The new base governor could perhaps gain control over half the already existing units (and its value points) supported by that base. Not all, to prevent one party to gain control of all military units in one succesful coup.
This needs lots of ironing out, but how do you find the basic idea?
Of course, if we're gonna allow different assocations/secret societies, we'll need a detailed constitution to prevent arguments of authority between eg a governor and an Internal Affairs director of a different group.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-09-2003 15:09
I like the Chairman idea, although what happens if they turn inactive? Can the Chairman run for in game positions? Although Yang seems against the idea of placating the populace. He would just nervestaple. Indeed, the mere idea of involving the people to some insignificant degree would probably earn a nervestaple 
|