Director of Social Engineering Campaign Thread

[Archaic]

Well la di da. Looks like I'm unopposed in this election. Can't say I'm disappointed with that. I just hope there's no limits on numbers of terms, because it's unlikely this position will get all that interesting until the following term.

Anyway, this is basically a cut/paste of what I said last time, so I may as well get on with it.

I can sum up my position in but one short word. Adaptability.

I feel our Social Engineering position should best suit our situation, but it should also fit into our ideological perspective. We are not savages, and so we should not act as such. Be us in war or in peace, we should not abandon our ideals.

As such, while I do not support the use of Nerve Stapling, I do however support usage of a single Punishment Sphere in a single Prison Base, where war criminals and other violent, unable to be rehabilitated offenders, would be put to work for the common good in useful tasks. Stationed to watch over them of course would be the bulk of our military power, a power I hope we may never need. Indeed, one would hope that the Punishment Sphere is never needed, and that its mere presence in this single base would deter the prisoners from rash actions. Of course, this is not to say that in extreme circumstances that it would not be used. Certainly dangerous war criminals who violate the UN Charter should be properly incarcerated such that they pay for their crimes.

While I see great benifits both economically and scientifically for our society in a Free Market economy, I also see the value of a Planned economy for brief spurts of growth. Under a Planned economy of course, we must also run under a Democracy, such that the inefficiency caused by this socialist economic model may be overcome. Under a Free Market, I see us as being more flexable. While Democracy is of course preferred, during periods in the first years of our colonies, a Democracy may cost us far too much in support than it gains us in efficiency and population growth. For these periods, a Frontier political model may be more appropriate, and indeed, I see us running under this sort of system for a great length of time.

As for Green Economics, I see a place for these as well in our society. But I do not see them within the next 100 years, within our lifetimes. The issue of Green economics will be debated by later governments, later directors. It is our duty to leave them with a society than can cope with the reduced growth, the reduced production and research through lack of energy, that this economic model will cause. And that is best achieved without putting unnecessary strictures on our economy. Our people will learn to cause less pollution sooner if they cause some pollution first, but if they never cause pollution to begin with, they will be stuck in a technological rut using old and surpassed equipment. In short, we must despoil the environment slightly now such that later we are in a position to be able to restore it to and keep it in pristine condition. If we run a Green economic system before we're ready, we could easily stife our societies development to the point where we're unable to remain its protectors in the future.

On the issue of Fundamentalism, or "Fundy" as it has come to be known, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the idea of any sort of religious theocracy, no matter if it be Catholic, Islamic, or any of the other religions of old earth. However, there are other styles of Fundamentalism that may be appropriate in certain circumstances. Styles based not on religion, but on ideals of philosophy, such as those of Sun-Tzu and Confucious, which I believe would be familiar to many of you. I see a use in these philosophies in our society when it comes time for us to gird ourselves for war. While I would hope such a situation never comes to pass, I am a realist, and I acknowledge that we can never hope to truly bring all the warring factions together united under the ideals of democracy without conflict.

On our societies social values, I must throughly rebut any idea that our society aspire to the ideals of "Power". As I stated earlier, we are not savages, so let us not act like them! However, I see places for both Knowledge & Wealth values in our society at certain points. Indeed, while this strays from the party line, I see a strong economy as being the ultimate driving force behind any research effort, and given the levels of expansion I would hope our society will eventually reach, aspiring to the values of "Wealth" may actually bring us in more research than the values of "Knowledge". In either case, our choice here must be carefully balanced between research and energy. There is no point researching all there is to research if our economy is such that we cannot turn this research into things!

Finally, while my opponent has made assurances to prevent drone riots, I find this an unreasonable demand of this directorship, given that we have no direct control over the work allocations or facilities built in bases. While I am certainly in favour of "doping" our citizens into Golden Ages through Psych allocation, I do not believe this should be a factor in the early years, where we should be focusing on a balance of economy and research. Our economy simply would be unable to sustain the inefficiencies created in the short term, and indeed, it may take just as long for altering Economy/Labs/Psych allocations to become reasonable as it is for Green economics to become workable.


My basic SE progression for the next 2-3 terms would be thus

Free Market ASAP

Switch to Free Market / Wealth ASAP

Switch to Demo / Free Market / Wealth once we've reached "Critical Mass", with periods in Demo / Planned / Wealth for Pop-booming

Switch to Demo / Free Market / Knowledge at the point where our tech rate would be higher under Knowledge than Wealth (Again, Planned for Pop-booming.)


Any questions?

[DeathByTheSword]

do you still support the punishment sphere? (sorry to ask ofcourse ) for the rest as ex-partymember you will have my support

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Archaic
As such, while I do not support the use of Nerve Stapling, I do however support usage of a single Punishment Sphere in a single Prison Base, where war criminals and other violent, unable to be rehabilitated offenders, would be put to work for the common good in useful tasks. Stationed to watch over them of course would be the bulk of our military power, a power I hope we may never need. Indeed, one would hope that the Punishment Sphere is never needed, and that its mere presence in this single base would deter the prisoners from rash actions. Of course, this is not to say that in extreme circumstances that it would not be used. Certainly dangerous war criminals who violate the UN Charter should be properly incarcerated such that they pay for their crimes.

Don't know if that was a serious question or not, but anyway...^^;

[DeathByTheSword]

it was a serious question i saw it in your speech but i had to be sure!

[lucky22]

Thank goodness most decisions by this directorate will have to poll the citizenry.

[Pandemoniak]

I agree with Lucky22. After all, Archaic will just start poll with the different SE choices we have, and he will post the results to the Alpha Talent or the Commissioner...

I dont understand the direct relation between the Punishment Sphere and the Social Engineering, though. Maybe Archaic considers torture a social engineering ?

[Kassiopeia]

Err. SE deals with the matter of drones too, AFAIK, and recreational facilities like rec commons, and anti-drone facilities like PSs are part of that.

[Pandemoniak]

Director of Social Engineering:
Has the right of:
*Starting polls to ask the people what there wishes are in his area
*Ordering the commissioner to change the social engineering’s page
*Advising any other part of the government

Has the duties of:
*Starting polls to ask the people what there wishes are in his area
*Listing to the will of the people in his area
*Consulting for advice directors which are effected by changes made in the social engineering’s page
*Serving his faction the best he can

May NOT:
Change the social engineering settings if there hasn’t been a poll saying it is ok.

The Director of Social Engineering is responsible for the social engineering’s page

The consitution is very clear : it concerns only the social enginnering page. So the Psych Rate is controlled by the director of SE, but he has no business to do with base production and drone facilities, except if it is the good will of the DoBP.
I repeat it : Base Punishment is an atrocity and it is torture.

[Kassiopeia]

Meh, the DoSE still can suggest and consult the DBP regarding the build queus. Any Director can. If the DoSE doesn't do it, then who looks after the drone numbers and starts to make sounds when drone riots are imminent?

[Pandemoniak]

Not only any directors can, any citizen can. So why does he put that in his campaign thread ?

[GeneralTacticus]

Not only any directors can, any citizen can. So why does he put that in his campaign thread ?

Even if it's technically not his business, it still concerns him. In a similar way, I advocated keeping a standing offensive army last term.

[Kassiopeia]

Yes, he is more seriously devoted to it then the common citizen. He has an 'obligation', if you will. Not of law but of conscience. Of course, if citizens look after things as closely, it's great.

[Archaic]

Personally, I think the fact that the Directors have to poll the electorate is pathetically inefficient. (Far too much for even -1 efficiency) A director if elected should have the right to make any final decisions, though he should probably poll the electorate to see if they support the decision or not anyway. If people don't like how he acted during his term, they can vote in someone else later.

I mean, how do people think most Demo.'s in the world are run anyway? How many do you think would hold a census about every decision they make, hmmm?

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
I repeat it : Base Punishment is an atrocity and it is torture.

And what about the implied threat of base punishment for tried and convicted criminals? It's like having an Electric Chair in the prison. The threat that we could use it is there, and so they'd be better behaved, just in case we decided to use it. Afterall, we must have built it for a reason, mustn't we?

Unskilled labourer Pan, you see things in only shades of black and white. There's more layers to these sort of things than there are with an onion. Just because the outside skin might be brown doesn't mean the inside is.

[GeneralTacticus]

Personally, I think the fact that the Directors have to poll the electorate is pathetically inefficient. (Far too much for even -1 efficiency) A director if elected should have the right to make any final decisions, though he should probably poll the electorate to see if they support the decision or not anyway. If people don't like how he acted during his term, they can vote in someone else later.

That's all well and good, but imagine how much damage an incompetent director could do in 1 term if they didn't have to poll people. This would be especially important in fields like SE or Research.

[Darkness' Edge]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


That's all well and good, but imagine how much damage an incompetent director could do in 1 term if they didn't have to poll people. This would be especially important in fields like SE or Research.

I have to agree with Tacticus. Directors should not be able to go off on their own whim - otherwise the people would just get bored. Participation is vital.

HOWEVER, at the pace we are moving at the moment, we're likely to finish the game somewhere around 2008.

It might be wise to give the directors a little more free reign. I don't agree with directors being able to go off on their own whims, but perhaps they should be allowed to make slightly more general polls, which would speed the game up a bit.

[GeneralTacticus]

I mean, how do people think most Demo.'s in the world are run anyway? How many do you think would hold a census about every decision they make, hmmm?

Most 'real world' democracies don't tend to have electorates of only 60-something people...

[Method]

[Darkness' Edge]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus Most 'real world' democracies don't tend to have electorates of only 60-something people...

Well said.