ELECTION: Director of Social Engineering

[Archaic]

I have more of an understanding of emotions than you think. However, emotions have no place in rational debate, and to bring them into one is a style over substance fallacy. I've been cold because people continued both with these, and with personal attacks against me. I'm open because I'm honest. An honest politican is a hard person to find, but an honest politician is also the best kind of politician. Kindly tell me what your point is supposed to be.

And I ask you, when was the last time you interacted with your member of parliment beyond a phamplet in your mailbox? Seriously now. Democracy is voting for whoever you think will do a better job. So who will you vote for? The person who *can* do it and stodd up to be counted? Or someone you've dragged in unwillingly just so you wouldn't have to vote for me?

[Nubclear]

However, emotions have no place in rational debate,

In ANY debate emotions are required in order to win. Because again, if you come off like an a** then you can be sure that most people wont recognize that you won. Even if you did. And if your the only one preaching that you won...

I've been cold because people continued both with these, and with personal attacks against me.

Yes, people haven't treated you with respect but...You've kind of rubbed most people the wrong way.

An honest politican is a hard person to find, but an honest politician is also the best kind of politician

A politician needs to be both in touch with his or her emotions and be able to express them. So far I haven't seen too much of that in you. The best politican is one that can do what I just mentioned and be honest (within the confines of the demo game)

And I ask you, when was the last time you interacted with your member of parliment beyond a phamplet in your mailbox?

For me it would be a member of congress, and it was through electionic mail. Unfortunately, you usually can't invite a congressman for a cup of tea.

. Democracy is voting for whoever you think will do a better job. So who will you vote for? The person who *can* do it and stodd up to be counted?

Democracy is voting for WHOM YOU WANT. If people do not wish to vote for you, then that is their fundamental right in a democracy.

Or someone you've dragged in unwillingly just so you wouldn't have to vote for me?

In the poll I do not see any other candidates.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
In ANY debate emotions are required in order to win. Because again, if you come off like an a** then you can be sure that most people wont recognize that you won. Even if you did. And if your the only one preaching that you won...

Style over substance fallacy again, not to mention completly untrue. Emotions are *not* required to win a debate. And they should never be if one doesn't have an audience that's not biased towards emotions for lack of a better way to determine things. Political debates IRL often go to emotions because the common man cannot hope to understand the complex issues involved with running a country. (Indeed, it's debatable if the politicians themselves do, or if it's only their aides and advisors who do.)
BTW. often the only one preaching that they've won are the ones going for emotions if you haven't already noticed.

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Yes, people haven't treated you with respect but...You've kind of rubbed most people the wrong way.

So? Their personal feelings about what kind of person I am don't come into this.

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
A politician needs to be both in touch with his or her emotions and be able to express them. So far I haven't seen too much of that in you. The best politican is one that can do what I just mentioned and be honest (within the confines of the demo game)

So you didn't notice me calling people Morons then? I'm well in touch with my emotions I can assure you. However, they should have no place in the political arena, or in any sort of debate, so I do not bring my emotions into those. Perhaps you should learn to do the same.

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
For me it would be a member of congress, and it was through electionic mail. Unfortunately, you usually can't invite a congressman for a cup of tea.

Can you class an inpersonal email (And I'm assuming it wasn't an email exchange, or that one of his flunkies emailed back) interacting?

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Democracy is voting for WHOM YOU WANT. If people do not wish to vote for you, then that is their fundamental right in a democracy.

I'm the only canditate. I'm the only person who stood up to be counted. You can vote for me, or not vote out of protest for me not being the kind of person you like. Live with it. Again, you can abstain all you like, but do you have any ground for a vote of no confidence that couldn't be equally applied to canditates already voted in or on their way to be?

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
In the poll I do not see any other candidates.

/me points to Kass's earlier post, plus what you've been saying about what should be done if a no confidence vote is held.

[GeneralTacticus]

Explain your position beyond the rather obvious fact that you hate me for speaking up and out against you and your hypocrisy and give a few valid reasons for why you think I couldn't do the job.

1) Your determination to make the switch to FM/Wealth as soon as possible, which would kill our expansion (ubless we are willing to use probes, which would be either vulenerable to worms or expensive), as well as leaving us militarily vulnerable.

2) The fact that you are willing to advocate fundamentalism in wartime. I have given my reasons for opposing this before, so I won't restate them.

[Nubclear]

. Emotions are *not* required to win a debate.

I am assuming win meaning convince the others of your side, and if you can conver them to your side. If you make them dislike you very much, you can't achieve either. Thats just how humans behave (generally)

So? Their personal feelings about what kind of person I am don't come into this.

Other than the fact that they're human. Humans act on emotions as a rule moreso than they do theyre brains. Yes, the intellect side makes a large conrtibution but it all depends on the emotion to do it or not.

So, if people hate you to the core, no matter how good or how correct you are they will not support you. If you have a job and your doing it better than anyone else, can you go up to your boss, call him a bunch of names (some better than others) and except to still have your job?

So you didn't notice me calling people Morons then? I'm well in touch with my emotions I can assure you. However, they should have no place in the political arena, or in any sort of debate, so I do not bring my emotions into those. Perhaps you should learn to do the same.

"Much of that in you." - Tassadar

You have shown those emotions yes, but not many others. Really does rub people the wrong way. And *sigh* again, emotions belong in every debate. If they do not like you at all you will NEVER win the debate. Its that simple.

I'm the only canditate. I'm the only person who stood up to be counted. You can vote for me, or not vote out of protest for me not being the kind of person you like. Live with it. Again, you can abstain all you like, but do you have any ground for a vote of no confidence that couldn't be equally applied to canditates already voted in or on their way to be?

Sure. If you dont like a candidate, ABSTAIN. If the majority of everyone does not like a candidate, then that candidate will not be in office. Its very simple...And it applies to all elections.

In the C3DG, after UberKrux posted the revolution and elections came up....Many more abstain votes appeared in the first few hours. Then they slowed down because he did a good job and only made that mistake, however....It is still indicative that people were reacting to his revolution thread.

* Archaic points to Kass's earlier post, plus what you've been saying about what should be done if a no confidence vote is held.

Correct, however currently there is no other candidate running because this election isn't finished. Once it is and if abstain wins, then there will be another candidate...However nobody has put up any other candidate to steal votes away because put simply, they can't.

[Archaic]

1) State reasons for how this will kill our expansion. Exploration and expansion are two very different things. Yes, it will be harder potentially to explore, but this is what Independant Scout Patrols (We still have ours, don't we? I'll have to check up on that one) and popped Rovers, etc are for.
Furthermore, being in FM / Wealth will increase our cash flow significantly. Extra drones caused by no police can be handled by facilities we would need to build anyway, facilities that we could better rush with that cash flow plus the +1 Industry. Not to mention the fact that we have +1 Talent per base.

2) A fair enough justification, however consider that in a wartime situation, SE becomes (Or should become) subordinate to the Director of Peacekeeping operations, a position I believe you yourself are going for. While I may give them an arguement for taking a "Fundi" postion (And I've already stated many times that's not religious Fundamentalism) to the DoPO, s/he would still have the final say on where they need our SE to go for the duration of the emergency. While I might not agree with your position on the arguement, that would not mean I wouldn't accept your decision once it was made.

Like I've said to many people here, give me a reason why you think I can't do the job. With the way the powers of the elected body have been set, I can't actually make the decisions anyone has an issue against me making. I have to poll you, and offer both sides of the arguement fairly. I'm still waiting for someone to give me a reason why they think I can't post a topic.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
I am assuming win meaning convince the others of your side, and if you can conver them to your side. If you make them dislike you very much, you can't achieve either. Thats just how humans behave (generally)

And (generally) humans are idiots. You *did* realise that, didn't you?
When I debate, I debate to an audience of my peers, not to an audience of the common man. I would've thought they most people here could've been my peers, able to shut off their emotions for a moment and think rationally about the arguements presented for either side. Are you trying to prove me wrong?

Originally posted by Tassadar5000 Other than the fact that they're human. Humans act on emotions as a rule moreso than they do theyre brains. Yes, the intellect side makes a large conrtibution but it all depends on the emotion to do it or not.

So, if people hate you to the core, no matter how good or how correct you are they will not support you. If you have a job and your doing it better than anyone else, can you go up to your boss, call him a bunch of names (some better than others) and except to still have your job?

Again, that applies to the idiot masses, not the people here, supposedly my peers.

And the second's a strawman distortion of my position.

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
"Much of that in you." - Tassadar

You have shown those emotions yes, but not many others. Really does rub people the wrong way. And *sigh* again, emotions belong in every debate. If they do not like you at all you will NEVER win the debate. Its that simple.

Style over substance fallacy *again*. Would you quit it already with the emotion crap? Emotions have no place in rational debate. Get that through your think skull already. A debate based on emotions isn't a debate. It's petty bickering. A debate where one person is trying to use emotions to win isn't a debate. It's a farce.
And here, read this, so maybe you'll understand what I'm saying when I say style over substance. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Sure. If you dont like a candidate, ABSTAIN. If the majority of everyone does not like a candidate, then that candidate will not be in office. Its very simple...And it applies to all elections.

Except in the US, where 50%+ of the population as a rule tend to not vote (ie. ABSTAIN) from national elections.

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
In the C3DG, after UberKrux posted the revolution and elections came up....Many more abstain votes appeared in the first few hours. Then they slowed down because he did a good job and only made that mistake, however....It is still indicative that people were reacting to his revolution thread.

And this is relevant how?

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Correct, however currently there is no other candidate running because this election isn't finished. Once it is and if abstain wins, then there will be another candidate...However nobody has put up any other candidate to steal votes away because put simply, they can't.

The other canditate is whoever you put in in the second election, a canditate who's already been declared. That looks like another canditate out to steal votes to me.

[GeneralTacticus]

1) State reasons for how this will kill our expansion. Exploration and expansion are two very different things.

I meant exploration, that was a mistake.

Yes, it will be harder potentially to explore, but this is what Independant Scout Patrols (We still have ours, don't we? I'll have to check up on that one) and popped Rovers, etc are for.

No, I believe we lost it to worms in the chat before last. In any case, there is no guarantee that rovers we find will be independant, and we still need to explore in order to get them in the first place.

Furthermore, being in FM / Wealth will increase our cash flow significantly. Extra drones caused by no police can be handled by facilities we would need to build anyway, facilities that we could better rush with that cash flow plus the +1 Industry. Not to mention the fact that we have +1 Talent per base.

It would rather help if we didn't have to deal with the drone problem to begin with. I'm all for using FM once we've established ourselves, but you seem to be advocating that we switch as soon as we get Industrial Economics (correct me if I'm wrong).

2) A fair enough justification, however consider that in a wartime situation, SE becomes (Or should become) subordinate to the Director of Peacekeeping operations, a position I believe you yourself are going for.

That was last term. This term I'm going for Director of Foreign Affairs.

(And I've already stated many times that's not religious Fundamentalism)

And I have stated many times that this doesn't matter. The ideology that is enforced doesn't change the fact that the enforcement itself is wrong.

[quoteLike I've said to many people here, give me a reason why you think I can't do the job. With the way the powers of the elected body have been set, I can't actually make the decisions anyone has an issue against me making. I have to poll you, and offer both sides of the arguement fairly. I'm still waiting for someone to give me a reason why they think I can't post a topic.[/quote]

You have so far been basing your arguments on the principle that you can do the job. If the job is simply obeying the results of polls, then whether we want you in office depends on whether we have confidence in you as a person. I don't.

[GeneralTacticus]

Except in the US, where 50%+ of the population as a rule tend to not vote (ie. ABSTAIN) from national elections.

There is no 'abstain' option in US elections. There is here, hence the two cannot be compared.

[Nubclear]

Are you trying to prove me wrong?

Hmm.....

YES!!!

Style over substance fallacy *again*. Would you quit it already with the emotion crap? Emotions have no place in rational debate.

But humans aren't rational (generally)

Get that through your think skull already. A debate based on emotions isn't a debate. It's petty bickering. A debate where one person is trying to use emotions to win isn't a debate. It's a farce.
And here, read this, so maybe you'll understand what I'm saying when I say style over substance.

I never said they had to try to use emotions. But you must have emotions in order to convince someone to your side. This election is a VERY good example. You aren't. Your being a pure rational, but arrogent (excuse me, 'confident') candidate and people dont want to vote for you. Understandbly so.

And the second's a strawman distortion of my position.

Not gonna work with me.....

Except in the US, where 50%+ of the population as a rule tend to not vote (ie. ABSTAIN) from national elections.

Oh yes, the model country for all elections of the world...

Also, thats quite irrelevant.

And this is relevant how?

Just evidence to support the fact that people do use emotions. Most of the people on poly do ues emotions as a major consideration in their decision making processes.

The other canditate is whoever you put in in the second election, a canditate who's already been declared. That looks like another canditate out to steal votes to me.

Even is Kass didn't declare he was running, dont you think this would still continue? Considering how this started before Kass came up.....

[Archaic]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
No, I believe we lost it to worms in the chat before last. In any case, there is no guarantee that rovers we find will be independant, and we still need to explore in order to get them in the first place.

Can someone pull up a log of the chat for me then? In any case....with the -5 Police, having units in base won't help with Drones anyway. Send units out there and have them explore as far as our borders. As we plant more bases, those borders increase, and we can explore more. And thisa way, we don't accidently intrdce on anyone's territory and piss them off, something that should appeal to your new position. Problem solved.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
It would rather help if we didn't have to deal with the drone problem to begin with. I'm all for using FM once we've established ourselves, but you seem to be advocating that we switch as soon as we get Industrial Economics (correct me if I'm wrong).

We won't have to deal with a Drone Problem to begin with. With our +1 Talent, it'll be staved off for more than long enough, even under FM. The infrastructure needs to be there anyway, and with FM/Wealth we can get it in there sooner.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
That was last term. This term I'm going for Director of Foreign Affairs.

My mistake. Who's going this time then?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And I have stated many times that this doesn't matter. The ideology that is enforced doesn't change the fact that the enforcement itself is wrong.

Who says it has to be enforced in that sort of manner? Please take a look at China before the corruption and the communism. No enforcement, essentially a fundi philosophy, and it worked fine.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
You have so far been basing your arguments on the principle that you can do the job. If the job is simply obeying the results of polls, then whether we want you in office depends on whether we have confidence in you as a person. I don't.

And you don't why? I'd say I'm perhaps the most honest person here, and I don't tend to speak out against authority. The people have the authority in polls, and I'm duty bound to accept their ruling. How do you think I can't post polls I ask again?

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


Hmm.....

YES!!!

Thank you for confirming your status as a LCD.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
But humans aren't rational (generally)

Because they're generally like you, stupid. If you can't be rational about anything, your opinions aren't worth anything.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I never said they had to try to use emotions. But you must have emotions in order to convince someone to your side. This election is a VERY good example. You aren't. Your being a pure rational, but arrogent (excuse me, 'confident') candidate and people dont want to vote for you. Understandbly so.

Yes you did. You said that emotions are required in all debates, and that they must have emotions, which is a fallacy. I have plenty of emotions, but I choose not to bring them into a debate, where they have no place. Concession accepted.
If you don't want to vote for me because you think I'm an arsehole, then admit that fact and stop this no confidence bull. You have plenty of confidence I can do this, but you're just spiteful.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Not gonna work with me.....

Because you can't understand basic logic. Next.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Oh yes, the model country for all elections of the world...

It's better than the current system here. Remember, I'm the one who tried to get prefferential voting in. You yelled me down.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Also, thats quite irrelevant.

No it's not. It's a similar situation to this. 50%+ of their pop gives up their right to vote by abstaining. 50%+ of the pop here is doing the same thing.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Just evidence to support the fact that people do use emotions. Most of the people on poly do ues emotions as a major consideration in their decision making processes.

Because they have no other recourse, because they don't understand the situation sufficiently to make a rational decision, unless they're rational enough to admit "I don't know enough to be qualified to make a decision here".

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Even is Kass didn't declare he was running, dont you think this would still continue? Considering how this started before Kass came up.....

Like there was any doubt that you'd press for a CCCP canditate after trying to force me out. You should've got a canditate in on time. Try again next term.

[Nubclear]

Thank you for confirming your status as a LCD.

Isn't that a personal attack?

Because they're generally like you, stupid.

Yawn.

You said that emotions are required in all debates, and that they must have emotions, which is a fallacy

If an emotion is required in all debates, does that mean that its always an APPEAL to emotions?

Because you can't understand basic logic. Next.

If your going to try to throw the 'rulebook' at me, then maybe you should follow it yourself. Its quite sad when you violate the same 'rule', eh, three times now? Hmm....

No it's not. It's a similar situation to this. 50%+ of their pop gives up their right to vote by abstaining. 50%+ of the pop here is doing the same thing.

Actually, 50+ of the people voting in this elections are giving you a vote of no confidence. Abstain is a wrong word for it.

Like there was any doubt that you'd press for a CCCP canditate

Yes, like there was any doubt. I'm just the little CCCPer. Most loyal member I tell you.

You should've got a canditate in on time. Try again next term.

If I was simply putting people to go against you for the sake of you not winning, I simply would've put myeslf up.

Because they have no other recourse, because they don't understand the situation sufficiently to make a rational decision, unless they're rational enough to admit "I don't know enough to be qualified to make a decision here".

Your basing rationality on your view of it...

This 'debate' is quite entertaining.....I assume everyone is having as fun a time as I? (Archaic, you have no need to respond to this. Just want to see how everyone is taking this debate of ours )

[GeneralTacticus]

Can someone pull up a log of the chat for me then?

No need. I just looked at the latest save file and we have no free scout patrol. We have 3 garrisons and two explorers, all of them supported by bases.

In any case....with the -5 Police, having units in base won't help with Drones anyway. Send units out there and have them explore as far as our borders. As we plant more bases, those borders increase, and we can explore more. And thisa way, we don't accidently intrdce on anyone's territory and piss them off, something that should appeal to your new position. Problem solved.

I had that thought myself, but it will still slow our exploration down a lot. We already know most of the areas within our borders anyway.

We won't have to deal with a Drone Problem to begin with. With our +1 Talent, it'll be staved off for more than long enough, even under FM. The infrastructure needs to be there anyway, and with FM/Wealth we can get it in there sooner.

At this level, if we go FM then w'll have 2 Drones and 1 Talent by the time we hit size 4. Having units out of our borders would mean an additional two drones, which would be a big problem.

My mistake. Who's going this time then?

Darkness' Edge & MWIA. Currently DE is leading by a long way.

Who says it has to be enforced in that sort of manner? Please take a look at China before the corruption and the communism. No enforcement, essentially a fundi philosophy, and it worked fine.

Fundy isn't a system of values, it's a system fo government which operates by forcing a set of values on the population whether they want it or not.

And you don't why? I'd say I'm perhaps the most honest person here, and I don't tend to speak out against authority. The people have the authority in polls, and I'm duty bound to accept their ruling. How do you think I can't post polls I ask again?

I never said I didn't think you could post polls. My point was that as anyone can post polls, then the election comes down to whether or not you have confidence in the candidate as a person. I must say, I am not looking forward to having to keep on wrangling over SE time and time again when you are in charge of it.

[GeneralTacticus]

err, Archaic, you credited all of tassadar's points to me in your last post.