P4 annoucement : Morale Policy - Page 2

Voltaire · August 9, 2002, 18:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Juliennew

Because the official stance of the CDC seemed to be anti-PS, especially the CCCP.

First of all, I doubt this sort of situation would arise in the first place seeing as I don’t believe anyone in the CDC or P4 is interested in getting into war in the first place, so it should be a non-issue.

Second, yes that is the policy of the CCCP, please tell me where (since I cannot seem to recall) the CDC has ever officially stated that it is against the use of PS at all???

Maniac · August 9, 2002, 18:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Juliennew
especially the CCCP.

Yes, especially Pandemoniak. My ears are still hurting.

Kassiopeia, you would even nervestaple. Even P4 wouldn't do that. Besides building a Sphere as a simple means of deterrence, you would actually staple every citizen, including women and children. Not to mention that we will be seen as dishonorable scum by all faction, likely to lead to economic sanctions.

Method · August 9, 2002, 18:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Kassiopeia
I still prefer NS over PS to get the time to do this tho.

and cause sanctions? it only lasts for 10 turns too.

Quote:

Originally posted by Voltaire
First of all, I doubt this sort of situation would arise in the first place.

do you need another screenshot?

Juliennew · August 9, 2002, 18:11

Quote:

the CDC or P4 is interested in getting into war in the first place, so it should be a non-issue

Yes for sure, but I doubt that the others factions shares the same view as us. And I doubt we will avoid being attacked by another faction.

Quote:

the CDC has ever officially stated that it is against the use of PS at all???

I think that an alliance mean that a common view has been adopted by the different parties. So when the CCCP joined, I think the CDC delt with this high-tension atrocity policy. So :
1) The CCCP renounced to his strict morale policy
or
2) The CDC renounced to commit any atrocity at all

Which one is right ?

Voltaire · August 9, 2002, 18:12

Quote:

Originally posted by TKG
do you need another screenshot?

No I doubt we would get into a war in the first place; yes of course it is possible that another faction will attack but our response should not be full retaliation rather just to defend ourselves and return to peace. Though again, it can happen, we really won’t know until we get to that point, it would be better to discuss what to do at that time rather than argue about hypothetical situations.

Kassiopeia · August 9, 2002, 18:13

Quote:

Kassiopeia, you would even nervestaple. Even P4 wouldn't do that. Besides building a Sphere as a simple means of deterrence, you would actually staple every citizen, including women and children. Not to mention that we will be seen as dishonorable scum by all faction, likely to lead to economic sanctions.

Shoo, where does it say NS staples every single person in the base? And like Voltaire said, CDC is Pacifistic in nature and if we'd go according to our policies we wouldn't face a situation like this. Don't pluck our methods out of context and try to use them singularly, that won't work. Our ideal system is a whole, a sum of it parts.

Also, even though all in CDC are pro-Democracy, it does not mean they are all atrocity-purists. For instance, I'm very much for Green but will tolerate FM for practicality's sake.

Method · August 9, 2002, 18:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Juliennew
I think that an alliance mean that a common view has been adopted by the different parties.

i dont think that's necessarily true...

Voltaire · August 9, 2002, 18:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Juliennew

Yes for sure, but I doubt that the others factions shares the same view as us. And I doubt we will avoid being attacked by another faction.

I think that an alliance mean that a common view has been adopted by the different parties. So when the CCCP joined, I think the CDC delt with this high-tension atrocity policy. So :
1) The CCCP renounced to his strict morale policy
or
2) The CDC renounced to commit any atrocity at all

Which one is right ?

Actually the CDC doesn’t ask for a common view on all issues, we attempt to work out compromises. The CDC opposes atrocities, but there is no official stance that forbids building a PS in all circumstances. If such a time comes where the use of PS is in question then the CDC would have to discuss things and see if some sort of arrangement can be made or if the CCCP at such a time would decide to leave; but as I said these are hypothetical situations.

Maniac · August 9, 2002, 18:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Voltaire
but as I said these are hypothetical situations.

Everything we are discussing is hypothetical. We haven't even landed yet. Why discuss SE settings?

Voltaire · August 9, 2002, 18:19

Quote:

Originally posted by M@ni@c

Everything we are discussing is hypothetical. We haven't even landed yet. Why discuss SE settings?

That is slightly more relevant seeing as it has wide implications, and this is rather just a specific case that may not even occur. Not that I mind, this is interesting. And it is helping the CDC form an official stance.

Voltaire · August 9, 2002, 18:29

We still haven’t heard from the ACE, and their opinions on the topic of atrocities are more diverse than those of the CDC. The Fundamentalist Faction will oppose any use of it whatsoever, I’m not certain about the Hawks, but I do know that their candidate for Director of Science is in favor of nerve gas, etc. (though I do want to double check on that).

AdamTG02 · August 9, 2002, 20:38

Your scenario is an interesting one. While I can't be certain what the right thing to do in that situation would be, this is what I think I would do:

First, contact the AI and see if they will accept peace in exchange for the base. If so, then I will leave the drone riot in their hands.

If that proves a wash, I would allow the riots to continue. Massive chaos is preferable to massive starvation. If the treasury would cover it with the war needs, I would rush buy base facilities from scratch until I restored order.

If it were absolutely the only way to prevent massive starvation, I would rush buy the Punishment Sphere. As it is, though, I think that any scenario where that's the only option is somewhat contrived.

gopher · August 10, 2002, 01:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Voltaire
We still haven’t heard from the ACE, and their opinions on the topic of atrocities are more diverse than those of the CDC. The Fundamentalist Faction will oppose any use of it whatsoever, I’m not certain about the Hawks, but I do know that their candidate for Director of Science is in favor of nerve gas, etc. (though I do want to double check on that).

To speak individualy, situations may arise that require a bending of ideology. Why should we refuse a weapon or advantage simply because we are squemish or because of confliciting ideology? Ideology is good at times, but when Yangs rovers are overunning Temple of Sun, and all we have left are a few scattered forces (in which case I am sure this forum would be the most exciting, frantic, and best of all fun place to be), then Nerve gas is definatly an option.

Pandemoniak · August 10, 2002, 07:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Juliennew

I think that an alliance mean that a common view has been adopted by the different parties. So when the CCCP joined, I think the CDC delt with this high-tension atrocity policy. So :
1) The CCCP renounced to his strict morale policy
or
2) The CDC renounced to commit any atrocity at all

Which one is right ?

None of your propositions are right. An alliance doesnt mean we have to agree about everything. The CCCP has a very strict morale policy, and the CDC has a strict morale policy.

Abour your scenario, it is quite simple, and we have two options.
1) We trade peace for the base we just captured.
But maybe the faction wont accept it, or maybe we dont want peace because the adversary faction commited lots of atrocities.

2) We give (or trade) the base to our pactbrother/pactsister
This way, we still have an access to the adversary land for our military campaign against atrocities, our pactbrother is very glad and he may even give us a technology, some credits, etc... for the base, and our pactbrother has a nice base to help us in our military campaign.

Maniac · August 10, 2002, 09:01

Giving the base to a pact mate would be just transferring the problem to someone else. The citizens would still die due to food shortage. We have to keep on the responsibility ourselves.

So I guess your answer is clear. You would rather let people die than give up your ideals.

Pandemoniak · August 10, 2002, 13:04

I would rather let people die than torturing them myself building a Punishment Sphere.

DeathByTheSword · August 10, 2002, 13:35

you are all getting a little bit to exsited

Kassiopeia · August 10, 2002, 14:30

DBTS talks sense.

Quote:

So I guess your answer is clear. You would rather let people die than give up your ideals.

This goes very philosophical. One must compare the amount of suffering and the value of lives; is life under pain worthy life at all? Like is life under slavery worthy life at all?

And I'd like to reiterate that using the policies of the anti-atrocity parties, we wouldn't have to worry that much about conquered bases.

Pandemoniak · August 10, 2002, 14:34

But the question remains, should we consider Punishment Spheres as an atrocities.

DeathByTheSword · August 10, 2002, 14:36

why the Planet councel doesnt in the game. (does it?

)

Pandemoniak · August 10, 2002, 14:42

No, in the game they dont take it as atrocities. But it doesnt mean it is not unethical. After, the PK decide themselves what is ethical or not, and they do it right here

DeathByTheSword · August 10, 2002, 14:49

I think it is a little bit of a backstab to this discussion now you force a desiscion on the subject that maybe will change during the coarse of the game

AdamTG02 · August 10, 2002, 14:56

It's a tough question. Personally, I would rather build the punishment sphere than let people die. Reason: Torture is a better fate than death. But the other argument is: Torture is wrong in al circumstances. You do not create the famine, so that is not your fault, but if you tortured citizens to restore order during the famine you are guilty of transgression.

The second argument holds some weight with me; however, I personally believe that letting people die is a greater transgression.

However, I don't believe in no-option circumstances. In the situation discussed, there is one more option which is better than either of the above: Let the riots continue. Massive disorder, and inevitably some deaths, but not on the massive scale that would result from starvation.

Juliennew · August 10, 2002, 15:09

In this scenario, the PS would be only temporary. As soon as the war is finished and could build some entertainments facilities, the PS could be removed. It is only necessary to resotre order during the assimilation period.

DeathByTheSword · August 10, 2002, 15:11

I like this Idea

Lemmy · August 10, 2002, 15:19

Quote:

We still haven’t heard from the ACE, and their opinions on the topic of atrocities are more diverse than those of the CDC. The Fundamentalist Faction will oppose any use of it whatsoever, I’m not certain about the Hawks, but I do know that their candidate for Director of Science is in favor of nerve gas
, etc. (though I do want to double check on that).

that would be me, and i would never rule out atrocities, you never know what situation you may find yourself in.
Although i don't think it's an appropriate first strike weapon, i feel we shouldn't rule it out as a possible means of survival.