The EDP Manifesto

[Voltaire]

The CDC offers you much more in return for your support. The possibility of taking the Commissioner chair at some point in the future, several seats in various ministries if you so desire. And our goals are much more in tune with your own that those of the P4. And we also consider expansion and exploration to be curtail in early game in order to ensure a large empire later on. Also, as you yourself mentioned you consider research to be curtail, as do members of the CDC, myself perhaps the most (seeing as I was the founder of the Da Vinci Development Party).

[Crisler]

Adam,

By your own admission your party and mine share many common interests. The only real sticking area for us is the SE issue. I have never understood why people feel that Fundamentalists are anti-research this is simply not so.

What I proposed in way of a coalition was first, support of each other candidates. The fundamentalists will also support all your initatives for exploration and colonization. We can work together on the military since we seem to fairly well agree. We favor a small but strong force and the use of force only after peacful solutions have failed.

We agree that Autrocities are not to be allowed period!

The issue of the SE we will go our seperate ways with no dispute over, that is an understood area of contention.

As of right now there are only two real factions showing any power. Meaning we will quickly digress to a two party system. By our possible alliance we can bring a true third faction into the mix. One that will make the other factions take our stances a bit more seriously.

To date no other faction has expressed the desire for rapid colonization and exploration that our two factions have mentioned.

By uniting now with this vote we show the power of our factions and have some leverage to make some of our agednas come true.

I am a realist, not a fanatic. I hold my convictions true and will not waver. But when I know I will lose I will try to get a position advanced that will be as close to my ideals as I can.

I ask your party to come on board, you might be surpised at the backing I have already had promised. We can use this election to show our stance.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Voltaire
The CDC offers you much more in return for your support. The possibility of taking the Commissioner chair at some point in the future, several seats in various ministries if you so desire.

Naturally P4 would offer the same. However so far EDP only expressed interest in the Research seat; therefore my above proposal.

And we also consider expansion and exploration to be curtail in early game in order to ensure a large empire later on.

So do we, early game.

Also, as you yourself mentioned you consider research to be curtail, as do members of the CDC, myself perhaps the most (seeing as I was the founder of the Da Vinci Development Party).

If you would be really interested in technological progress, free market is the only decent economic choice. Thus P4 is the biggest defender of research.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Crisler
To date no other faction has expressed the desire for rapid colonization and exploration that our two factions have mentioned.

Actually if I was Director of T&C I would support the construction of as many formers and CPs as realistically possible. The more bases we have the earlier in the game, the faster our longterm progress.

[Voltaire]

Naturally P4 would offer the same. However so far EDP only expressed interest in the Research seat; therefore my above proposal.

No one ever said I wouldn’t give up my bid for the research position and take on something else. I’m perfectly willing to compromise.

If you would be really interested in technological progress, free market is the only decent economic choice. Thus P4 is the biggest defender of research.

Yes, I agree Free Marked does give some advantages towards research particularly mid-game. But nonetheless, this tends to be only 1 turn fasten then the Green alternative. And besides, P4 from the looks of it is also committed to Free Market late-game, which tends to be quite inefficient, compared to a combination of Green/Eudaimonia when it comes to credits; though I still personally support the Cybernetic alternative due to research benefits (seeing as we’re not playing the University but rather the PK as far as I’m aware).

[Crisler]

Adam,

As these two vie for your attention now, remember who came to you before it mattered :-)

Now then another thing to consider. Very quietly and in private a number of smaller factions have allied themselves with the Fundamentalist Faction. While we do not possess the numbers of the other two colaitions, we do possess enough to swning any vote to the direction we deisre if choosing between the two.

As such we offer the chance to be a part of a powerful third faction and thus a real chance to get our expansion and colonization ideas implamented.

However the choice in the end is yours.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[Maniac]

Yes, I agree Free Marked does give some advantages towards research particularly mid-game. But nonetheless, this tends to be only 1 turn fasten then the Green alternative.

Explain? In my experience my research almost doubles.

And besides, P4 from the looks of it is also committed to Free Market late-game

Actually, a closer look at our party thread would reveal we are in favour of Green-Eudaimonic late game. Our ultimate goal is not to go free market. P4's goal is to build and prosper. Therefore +2Eco seems required. Mid-game through FM, later through Eudaimonic.

[Voltaire]

Explain? In my experience my research almost doubles.

Sorry, I should make it clear that I tend to play the University most of the time, and this is probably due to the +2 research bonus they have. And yes you are right initially it does tend to double, but from my experience a short period of time later switching to Green when you have several well established bases keeps the research rate relatively constant.

Actually, a closer look at our party thread would reveal we are in favour of Green-Eudaimonic late game. Our ultimate goal is not to go free market. P4's goal is to build and prosper. Therefore +2Eco seems required. Mid-game through FM, later through Eudaimonic.

Yes, that does make sense. But I would still push for Cybernetic over Eudaimonic seeing as we’re not playing University.

[Maniac]

+2 Research or -2 Research. The energy still doubles and so does the research. UoP has no effect on that.

One tech per 9999 turns is also constant.

[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]

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.)

[Method]

with democracy, green, knowledge, and eudaimonic, we would not only have the crucial +2 economy, but a paradigm economy, and +2 research. IIRC, childrens creches produce +2 efficiency also, so a paradigm economy could be reached in those bases with this essential facility, under market

[FlameFlash]

I agree whole-heartedly about the victory conditions we should pursue: diplomatic and trancendance.

I also agree about your explanation of defense rather than lots of military, however I'm more of the belief that unless we're far ahead technologically that two ground units for defense in the base are better. Each with the police special ability while one has ECM and the other AAA. The mineral costs are minimal.

Of course this would be something about running for some kind of unit design position to get this into place.

Adam's insight again...
However, if coalition mean that we work together to mobilie voter support in the areas we do agree -- exploration and expansion -- than I am for it.

Agreed.

Have some private messages sitting in my inbox as well since it looks like Adam and I are the more active members of this part currently.

GT... what are your thoughts?

[FlameFlash]

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.

[AdamTG02]

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.

[FlameFlash]

Looks good, Adam

What do you think of my Probe policy ideas... your input would be appreciated.

[AdamTG02]

I like what I see, and am completely in support of your candidacy.

Sorry I can't be more verbose, but I'm juggling a few things right now.

[FlameFlash]

quite all right, and many thanks... I certainly understand juggling.

[AdamTG02]

Commissioner Crisler wrote:

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]

Since the Constitutional Committee doesn't seem to be organizing itself very quickly, I realize that its deliberations may extend into the period of my long-planned exploratory survey into the Xenofungus beds near our first base (or out-of-character my family vacation). Therefore, I am nominating FlameFlash to represent the EDP on the committee while I am gone.

FlameFlash, if you'd rather be the EDP representative for the entire life of the committee, I can go with that, although I'd prefer to have some direct input into our constitution, even if it's only for a short time.

Everybody, let me know your thoughts.

[AdamTG02]

I am leaving tomorrow on my exploratory mission, and this will be my final post on this board until it concludes in one week. Constitutional debate seems to be happening on the board, but if the Constitutional Committee as Commissioner Crisler conceiveed it ever meet, FlameFlash has my support as EDP delegate.

Let us follow our curiosity in the search for understanding as we explore this new world.

[FlameFlash]

I'll happily accept to only sit on the committee until your return, Adam.

And have fun in the xenofungus.

[GeneralTacticus]

Sorry about my absence, we had to move out of the house for a week and I didn't have access to the internet.

There's certainly room for more militaristic views within the EDP, but in the main I think we favor exploration rather than conquest.

My own views are probably more aggressive than yours, being that we should allow the other factions to live in peace as long as they are friendly, but once they begin to seriously opposem us, we should destroy them without mercy. This applies particularly to the Hive (above all), and the Spartans & Believers to a lesser extent. Note that this will apply only if we are capable of carrying this out: if we are not, and other factions are threatening us, we should make the devlopment of this capability our first priority.

[FlameFlash]

Welcome back aboard GT!

It does stand to reason that if a faction constantly is harassing us then we need to take due action to cripple said faction, however I've always been more of a fan of sibmissives rather than totally destroying them.

[AdamTG02]

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.

[FlameFlash]

It's good to hear from you, Adam. And thanks.

Have fun in the xenofungus

I'm more one for trying to hold the party together though, and agree with editing the atrocity stance to make it a per member thing rather than an official stance thing.

[GeneralTacticus]

It does stand to reason that if a faction constantly is harassing us then we need to take due action to cripple said faction, however I've always been more of a fan of sibmissives rather than totally destroying them.

I too agree that submissives can be useful, however sometimes it is better simply to eliminate another faction entirely.

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.

I believe that while the Charter is in force, we should commit no atrocities whatsoever, both because of the negative effect on our reputation and the economic sanctions that will result. Punishment Spheres are unlikely to be useful outside of a Free Market, but I have no problem with using them in penal colonies if necessary.

[FlameFlash]

*gives this thread a swift kick just others may be able to see and read it.*

[AdamTG02]

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

[Method]

debate? ok, how about that punishment sphere policy? i'm against it. it's not necessary. PB's are also not necessary, though DBTS thinks otherwise. discuss....