The EDP Manifesto

[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]

Constitutional convention

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]

An addendum to the above

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]

Absence

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....