The EDP Manifesto

[Crisler]

Adam,

As I read more of your posts I become more conviced that your party and the Fundamentalist Faction share many common ideals. We too favor expansion and exploring. After all how can one expnad if we do not know what is out there.

I again offer for our parties to ally to make a powerful political force.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[AdamTG02]

I respectfully disagree.

The EDP values the pursuit of curiosity, the relentless search for knowledge. For knowledge to be analyzed and judged rationally to determine truth, the mind must be free to believe as it chooses.

You name yourself fundamentalist, Crisler, and fundamentalist governments from the ancient valley of Egypt to the Christian States of America of the 21st century have banned the free judgement of ideas in the name of loyalty and social stability. More than banning freedom of speech, the regimes that call themselves "fundamentalist" have attempted to ban the most fundamental of ights -- the right to think as one chooses, to follow ones own conscience regardless of dogma.

You have proven yourself a moderate by your statements, Crisler, and I respect your judgement. But I do not respect the philosophy which bears the name "fundamentalism," and I see elements of that philosophy in your party, however moderate you personally may be.

My views do not speak for the EDP, of course. I have organized the party, but each member is free to act as his or her conscience dictates. If a majority of the party wishes to form a coalition, I will concur. Furthermore, my mind is not closed; I may not now judge your party rightly, and you are welcome to attempt to persuade me.

Persuade a majority of the party, and we will agree to your alliance. Speaking only for myself, I do not think that it would be warranted to make a formal coalition. But I am certainly willing to cooprate in the future on those issues where we do agree.

Though I might have a different opinion, I respect your motives and your integrity. Best wishes to you.

[FlameFlash]

Aggrees with AdamTG02's statement...

Once there seems to be a need, and if our ideals match up more than they seem to (fundamentalism creates a rather large gap) then I wouldn't mind a coalition...

A coalition against another party, and our agreeing on just certain terms that we would support together might be something else to do, however.

[jdd2007]

*After a speech AdamTG02 steps off the stage. *

*Two men in suits, with briefcases, appear. They nod toward a hover-car. *

Lets talk...

I represent the Hawk Party. This my secre... i mean PR manager. We are a growing party with views similar to yours. I think it would be in the best interests of both parties to work together. Not a merge, but a partnership. You can join ACE if you want, but that is up to you. Something like, we support your candidates, and you support ours. If we dont run in the same election, of course. This would be beneficial for our members, both parties, the candidates, and our country. What do you say?

*The car stops. AdamTG02 gets out and takes a bussiness card.*

I will think about it, but no guarantees.

[FlameFlash]

*scratches his head at the sight of the car and AdamTG02...*

[Method]

they hadnt invented hover-cars in 2100!

[FlameFlash]

[jdd2007]

well too bad!!! the hawk party has all sorts of hover-cars, and you can have one if you join. they are made from 100% recycled banana.

[FlameFlash]

quotes old IBM commercial starring the captain of DS9...

It's the year 2000 and I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars!

I haven't seen a hawk party thread... since you seem to be offering us a coalition letting us know where you stand would be helpful. Especially since I see you've created a coalition with FF (not "flameflash" but Fundamentalist Faction.)

[jdd2007]

I haven't seen a hawk party thread ...

go here to see the hawk thread.

[FlameFlash]

ugh...

Hopefully, at this time, AdamTG02 will agree with my statement that says that there isn't much in the Hawk party that our stance agrees with.

Military? Enough to explore and defend ourselves, nothing excessive or world-dominating.

Our Manifesto:
Conquer! We will conquer the frontiers of ignorance, of misunderstanding and of hate. And we will take our knowledge to the others who have landed under these new stars, and we shall learn from them and they shall learn from us. Through this, we shall build friendship. But if despite all our efforts our fellow factions should be hostile, we will be ideally prepared for them, because we will have knowledge, and knowledge will prepare our defense.

Just going out and conquering for the mere want to conquer isn't what we want. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I read in the Hawk thread it looks like that's what you're going for.

Adam, I take it to mean we're looking more for a diplomatic or trancendence victory, maybe even economic?

We ought to define what winning conditions our party will want to pursue.

[AdamTG02]

I'd like to agree with FlameFlash's statements in support of our manifesto. As I envision the EDP, we support a respectable force for exploration, but oppose expansion through conquest. Putting a new base on the border to get that tempting energy resource, yes. Preemptively attacking to gain new territory, no. My experience playing SMAC, particularly on the higher difficulty levels, tells me we will have war whather we like it or not. We might as well not go around creating wars.

My opinion is that making a reasonably well-trained but minimally equipped force for exploration (i.e. Veteran scout patrols) is preferable to maintaining a massive military force, because it frees up industrial capacity for base facilities like network nodes. Personally, I support building 2 units per base (more on higher SUPPORT levels), but no more than that. That gives each base a defender and an explorer or terraformer, and the mineral cost under Democracy is negligible.

There's room for other beliefs under the EDP banner, of course -- I can definitely see members of our party championing a large exploratory force. But maintaining a large military force for conquest is not in my mind consistent with the philosophy of the EDP. That's turning away from the challenge of the unknown and turning on our fellow discoverers.

To defend ourself when we are attacked without motive r given ultimatums is reasonable. In my mind, attacking preemptively and arming oneself preemptively is not.

Feel free to argue and/or disagree, and best wishes.

[AdamTG02]

I'm going over some of the earlier posts...

FlameFlash, I consider Transcend the most attractive victory for the EDP, and consistent with our philosophy (since it is to some degree discovery through research). Diplomatic is fine. Economic for everyone except Morganites usually involvs heavy diversion of funds away from research, and I would't be too keen on that.

Conquest is in my mind inconsistent with the ideals of the EDP -- other factions are valuable allies to trade techs with, not enemies. Also, conquest involves diversion of one's focus from the unexplored fronteir to the border of settled territories. In the unlikely event that we're hemmed in (unlikely because huge maps are leading in the poll), I would support pacting with a neighbor rather than declaring Vendetta on that neighbor.

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


In reply to Crisler, I maintain that our parties have several differing ideals. You want to know, can we work together despite our differences, in some form of coalition?

I'm not sure exactly what you are proposing as far as a coalition goes. Agreement not to run against one another? Agreement to support one another's candidates? Personally, I think our differing ideals are such that the above wouldn't be possible. 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.

These are the areas where I see that we agree: We both want intensive early exploration and colonization. We both favor peaceful expansion in preference to war. We may agree on the subject of atrocities -- the Fundamentalist Party opposes them, as do I personally, but the EDP has yet to take a formal position on the issue.

As an aside, do the members think we should take a formal stand against atrocities?

Where we disagree with the Fundamentalists: Social engineering, obviously. We favor Democracy and, even without Democracy, oppose the Fundamentalist SE. The Fundamentalist party favors the Fundamentalist SE and, while Crisler is willing to negotiate on this, another member of that party has denounced all Democracy as corrupt. I also feel that the EDP favors a more permissive and encouraging attitude toward research than does the Fundamentalist Party.

Do these disagreements leave room to work together? On the one hand, they seem formidable. On the other hand, the Da Vinci Development Party, probably even more research-oriented than we are, was considering a coalition with the Fundamentalists at one time.

Members, feel free to post your thoughts.

[Voltaire]

Well, I thought it would be a good time to get in touch with the EDP. So far as far as I’m aware the EDP supports the Coalition; as I mentioned earlier it would be best if we decided on what members to support for what offices and if there are conflicts come to some sort of compromises. I encourage everyone to post in the CDC thread to discuss things further. And I am curious for what positions are EDP members running for?

[Maniac]

AdamTG02, I was wondering. If P4 supports you for the Science Director position, will your party support our candidates? We both agree research is important. We disagree about the Build versus Explore aspect but that are worries for the future. For now Explore is naturally most important. Therefore I see temporal cooperation as a realistic possibility.