***Oh FuK the Secret's out***

[Voltaire]

So when did you decide to create a secret forum?

It wouldn’t be a secret if I went and told everyone now would it?

Anything can be a private discussion.

Indeed.

Yeah that's right... you got p!ssed off and demolished the constitution didn't you?

These rights were never in the constitution to begin with.

[Voltaire]

Does this entitle us to respect? Honour? A small gift of some kind?

To be left alone to do the work no one else wants to do, not so much to ask for.

People invest their time as they choose. They may invest it fruitfully or wastefully.

People chose to either invest their time, or not to. Then they further chose to invest it productively or not, those who invest it productively allow for the rest to keep using their time as they please.

Sure you can justify people's anger at seeing the fruits of their labour go up in smoke, but it is not our responsibility to see that we all get what we want, nor is it some 'grand code of the universe' that work begets respect.

Whose responsibility do you speak of when you say “we”? The many can and will demand to have their way all the time, their way being whatever they find in their best interests, those who have been employing their time in running the turn have attempted to work in the best interests of the whole, which means compromises. You want democracy where we simply have a yes/no vote, frankly I prefer the compromises that have been attempted under the administration of Kody over that. As for respect, those who do not labor will not give respect to those who do, only those who labor can understand that labor itself is worthy of respect.

**** happens; deal with it.

I am, but its such a hard job cleaning it all up.

Correct. But nobody has any responsibility to bend to your complaints (except perhaps the complainer him/herself)

Sure, then don’t interfere with the work.

Fair?
Kody takes up work. As Kody is skilled and willing, this is fair.
Kody gets stressed. As he is doing all the work, this is fair.
Kody leaves because he is stressed. This is fair.
The Hive collapses because nobody did any work. Fair.
How do you define 'fair' anyway?
I don't believe in standards like 'good', 'just' and 'fair'. They are tools used by those in authority to subject their will upon their followers.
How do you judge what is just, fair and good? With subjective values. If you allow subjective belief to have weigh on an argument then enough belief will make anything true.

No, it is not fair that other benefit or take credit for Kody’s work. As a member of the Hive you in part bask in the light of the Hive’s success, which in effect is only Kody’s success. Taking credit for work you have not done, indirectly or not, I consider it unfair. Complaining when you have no cause to, also unfair. It is unfair that Kody because stressed for no one else helped him despite his many attempt to get people to do work.

The fact that you do not believe in them makes then no less real. I won’t get into a debate with you on this, frankly I don’t know what we have to discuss since you’re the one that borders on nihilism in the rejection of everything, not I.

Let us test this claim, Chairman. Do not suppose that people need laws and rules, or a preset structure to live their life by.
I believe that an Anarchic system will work just fine here.
But the only way to find out... is to test it.

By all means, do so. I will sit back and enjoy the show.

And you have no right to presume that your own subjective values are starting grounds for a logical argument.

Let’s get this strait once and for all, just because you call something subjective it doesn’t make it so.

You're defining 'inapropriate' and judging things by your own subjective view.

Again, the fact that you do not believe in objectivity does not mean that it does not exist.

Take your straw men and stand in the field, 'Voltaire'.

Straw man? I would beg to differ, how am I misinterpreting your argument? You’re the one denying the existence of objective values.

Quite frankly your opinion of Right and Wrong is worth sh!t all. I do not believe it, I am not forced to follow it, and in trying to get people to follow it you prove how much of a despot you are.

Now, now. Let’s refrain from ad homenims shall we? The fact that you do not believe in something does not make it false. You’re not forced to follow it, you’re right, absolutely, you’re not forced to believe it, absolutely, this makes your comments no less inappropriate. If you thought murder was ok, it wouldn’t make it as such.

How much of a despot I am because I believe in objective values and reject the tenets of anarchy?

Now we know why you lead Yang's faction...

Please share it with us all, I’d like to know your insight into my mind.

Easily allowing you to dismiss the opinions of those that would rather not work under your regime (and hence to some extent support your opinions).
*Enigma extends his left arm outwards in salute

As opposed to easily allowing me to dismiss everyone statements on the grounds of subjectivity? You’re absolutely right, your way is better.

Games are what you make them to be, Chairman. Fun? A Challenge? Training? Something else I haven't thought of?
The 1s and 0s are the same, but the game is perceived differently by everyone.

Sure, fine. But I at least suscribe to the principle of playing nice, attacking HongHu and Kody because they were trying to get work done with the shadow forums crossed that line.

You may know 'Reality' better than I do, but in your solid one-truth stance you neglect the option of perceptions. I don't believe in truth or an absolute existence; people perceive a thing in many different ways. What is true to one is false to another, and to a third may be neither true nor false.
You'd do well to explore a more... idealist viewpoint.
You should be more like me.

Straw man and red herring. I said nothing of the sorts about knowing reality, nor am I a monist. Nor do I reject perceptions. Furthermore this really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Thank you for the belated recommendation, though I already do explore many viewpoints, it is nonetheless welcomed.

And of course, we know what a bastion of perfection you are Enigma, we should all try to emulate you.

Life goes on when you're gone, Chairman. Send me your adress and I will prove it.
Falling down in flames? Well... if only you had as much faith in us as you had in your precious 'reality' (or whatever guise you hold for your personal opinions these days)

I thought we couldn’t prove anything?

I have no faith, period, be it in your or some misrepresentation of my stance. Enigma, not everyone who disagrees with you idealistic view of metaphysics and epistemology is a dogmatist.

And the biggest flame is yet to come, you worthless excuse for a so-called leader. You couldn't lead a horse to water - and yet you're still trying to make him drink.

Bravo! Our man can quote. And wasn’t it you who said a witty saying proves nothing?

As if we didn't need them both.
You're so concerned with the practical and the real, chairman. If the sole point of our existence is to keep our machine working then why the heck did we build the machine in the first place?
Sure we need to keep the system working but if the system's sole point is self-sustaining then there really is no point at all (as arguments for continuing the system would be circular)

We need Ideaspeople and Artists and whatnot. Ideaspeople to find a way to improve the system, or just to invent new ideas to ponder which may later be useful. Artists can tailor to the human condition.
Like it or not we are beings with creative streaks, emotions and our own values, not merely worker ants in some grand practical framework.
We evolved many parts to us for a reason; we have differing viewpoints for a reason. While I don't understand why some things are evolved it would be folly of us to ignore any aspect of who we are, be it the Artisan, the Scientist, the Engineer, the Counsellor...

Abstract: 185 word strawman of my statement.

But what good is society?
Why does it need to function?
Then again practical matters such as 'society', 'the way', 'rules' and whatnot are paramount in your mind.
Quite frankly I think they're a load of crap.
I may be wrong, but I explain it by having my own viewpoint, the Introspective Idealist. I have my own thoughts, values perceptions and beliefs.
Neither the Pro-Reality nor the Pro-Thought person is wrong; we merely have different takes on the matter.

Not that you'd understand perception theory to the depth that I do... but then again I don't undersand your way of thinking either.

Remove the engineers and it would collapse. Frankly PRAVDA and the remaining superfluous work need not be done when we do not even have someone to play the turn. The fact remains no one wishes to dedicate the time to playing the turn “properly.”

Again Enigma, just because you want the world to be a certain way won’t make it so, remember that.

Thank you for the wonderful ad homenims, I truly enjoyed them, I mean your very subtle you know, sometimes it escapes me. My simple mind cannot comprehend the subtlety of your insults.

But not all of us.

That’s why I said some of us.

If it serves my own ends I have no problem.
There is nothing inherently wrong with aristocracy.

Well there’s the good egoist you proclaim yourself to be, good job, Ayn Rand would be proud.

*ahem*

Yes, did someone say something?

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Jamski-Enigma turn anyone?

While I don't care for impressing Voltaire, someone has to do the dirty work, and it might as well be us.

You know what, be my guests.

…and so begins the decline and fall of the Human Hive, where’s a Gibson when you need one…

[Octavian X]

Please, everyone, calm down. Let these personal attacks stop: It's obvious this is getting us nowhere. If you have a personal problem with someone else, work it out in private at the very least. If we are to continue to stand as a united team, this needs to stop now.

With a little clearminded thought, allow me to make a few neutral observations.

1. Democracy failed. We had a case of too many people taking positions they didn't care to work for. Jobs weren't done by the people who were supposed to do them.

2. The shadow government failed. People felt they were being ignored. Even if it was an effective administration, those without the time or skill to contribute on the level of this ministry demanded openness. By moving discussion away from the public, even fewer were encouraged to participate.

We've gone from one form of government to an opposite, and neither have worked. They were strong points to both, though.

Because a democratic government did give a feel of openness, those who could only contribute little did do so. The shadow ministry was a tool to encourage in-depth planning when others were unwilling, and gave power to those who were willing to work.

These lessons in mind, I will go on to propose that we eliminate all sense of government in the Hive. This does include dissolving the Central Continuing Committee, removing it's Chairman from power, and abolishing the People's Court.

It is clear that this faction has always been run by those willing to take responsibility to actually do something for the Hive. Those who historically have had any sort of power were those willing to step up to the plate and actually do something.

How would we run the Hive, then? Call me crazy, but it seems to me that the best way to do things would be:
1. discuss something.
2. do it.
We don't need any sort of government. We can talk things out amongst ourselves, and then just do it. The governments we've created all inevitably have some sort of weak point. They've all, and continue to, hinder the best way to run the Hive, the way we've always done it.

In my opinion, that solves the problem. People would be free to contribute at any level they so wished. Everyone has as much say in this process they want.

Another piece of evidence? I point to the Gathering Storm Team of Apolyton's PTWDG, of which I am a proud member. The original administration basically, and unoffically, dissolved itself. A few groups formed to allow people to discuss specific aspects of the game, but that was about it. The six or seven still active players (myself not included) simply discuss possiblities, and then take action. No polls, no middlemen, no government telling anyone what to do. And things get done.

In short, we get rid of any sort of government (though we could keep an unofficial one just for RP). If someone wants to do something, they do it, so long as it's generally agreed that he's taking the best course of action.

Of course, it's possible that's all idealistic thought that'll never work.

My point is, stop this fighting. If you want to respond to anyone else's negative comments from this point onward, just don't. We're not going to resolve this issue by fighting like this. Take it to private conversation, and let's get on with the business of running this faction.

[Voltaire]

You’re right Octavian; I will be the first to apologize for I was out of line.

I am willing to listen to people’s suggestions on how we should govern ourselves, by all means let us write up another constitution to everyone’s liking, but I do not appreciate being bullied into action.

Infighting within the Hive must stop; we should all work in the best interests of the Hive itself leaving aside our personal grudges.

[Jamski]

Octavian has the best suggestions of any of us.

We can lose the government.
We can lose the system.
We can even stop trying to be so PERFECT in our turn playing. 90% perfect will get us by, Kody has done such good work, that an average performance now will lead us to a comfortable second place hanging on the Drones' tails.

Let me be the second to apologise. I was MORE out of line than Voltaire.

Oh, and an Enigma-Jamski turn?

-Jam

[Enigma_Nova]

EDIT: This anti-voltaire post has been deleted and archived on my hard disk

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Octavian X
Please, everyone, calm down. Let these personal attacks stop: It's obvious this is getting us nowhere.

So be it. As a personal favor to you I shall pledge Truce with
$TITLE0 $NAME1.

If we are to continue to stand as a united team, this needs to stop now.

Well spoken. Let it be done.

1. Democracy failed. We had a case of too many people taking positions they didn't care to work for. Jobs weren't done by the people who were supposed to do them.

$TITLE0 $NAME1, allowing this free-thinking society in the
name of 'fulfilling your potential' is truly wrong-headed. The
only way a drone can 'fulfill its potential' is by a wise and
benevolent ruler telling it exactly what to do. I pray you will
see the wisdom of this path soon.

These lessons in mind, I will go on to propose that we eliminate all sense of government in the Hive. This does include dissolving the Central Continuing Committee, removing it's Chairman from power, and abolishing the People's Court.

Well it would be good to try, at least.
I'm saving my own designs for later while I work on a new political system, one that focusses on Creativity rather than following rules and orders.

Those who historically have had any sort of power were those willing to step up to the plate and actually do something.

That's right, I guess. However having the will to use power and the skill to use power are not enough. Somehow you also have to convince people to give you power.
I'm all good for the first two but I'll be damned if my unyielding stance will allow me the third. :/

How would we run the Hive, then? Call me crazy, but it seems to me that the best way to do things would be:
1. discuss something.
2. do it.

Are we all ready, willing and able to do that?
*Enigma puts down his attack weapon to show a willingness to work together

Anarchic systems fail mainly because men are too lazy to govern for themselves, and secondarily because of selfishness and the will to manipulate others.
The latter can be worked around, because if someone notices it and most people hate it then they'll work to stop it. But, not all people value their sovereignty.

It would work if men loved to lead themselves and put their ability to do this as a high priority. Of course it fails in practise because not everyone is interested in leading themselves!

We don't need any sort of government. We can talk things out amongst ourselves, and then just do it.

There are a lot of government systems that fail because of the inherent contradictions of human nature, or because the system's own value system takes a while to implement.

People reject Despotism and Anarchy, because while antipodal we posess parts of both to our nature. Decide / Conform, Invent / Manufacture, Apathy / Enthusiasm, Individual / Group, Fight / Negotiate, Ignorant / Openminded, Adaptive / Stagnant.
We are not just on one side of these dualities, we are on both sides, many people with many skews.

A system to appeal to only one side is doomed to fail as it flies in the face of human nature. Likewise, a system that applies to any one strict balance is inefficient as only a very few people will be similar to the skews of the society.
If the system keeps a single level across its whole environment, which shifts with time, it is akin to the single strict system above. It has less inefficiency but is still pretty clunky.

I've tried making an adaptive system that varies from person to person, but its energy needs were too high to be practical, and it's a bastard to do the ethical calculations for something so complex.

Any ideal government would appeal to all of that in us, not one side of the duality, or its antethesis, but the synthesis of these parts. It would accept differing values and differing people.
The problem in this, is that it requires a person who in himself accepts and understands the syntheses to synthesise.

In my opinion, that solves the problem. People would be free to contribute at any level they so wished. Everyone has as much say in this process they want.

I can see it working at this level because on the Apathy / Enthusiasm duality, the Apathetic won't slow us down, and on the Lead / Follow duality people here (having played their own PBEMs) are out to lead.

It works because our value systems are well in touch with this system. But do not presume it will work for all, because we may differ markedly from the PTWDG.

In short, we get rid of any sort of government (though we could keep an unofficial one just for RP). If someone wants to do something, they do it, so long as it's generally agreed that he's taking the best course of action.

Well like I edited out of my voltaire reply:
"A DG is just a PBEM with lots of sources of ideas.
So long as one person is willing to play well, we have a functional PBEM, and having more thoughts can only make it better."
The Anarchic system would only fail if those that prefer inaction or misinformed action fillibuster the forum. While apathy and ignorance will shoot any self-leading (anarchic) system in the foot I do not think we have the critical mass here to destroy the system.

We're not going to resolve this issue by fighting like this. Take it to private conversation, and let's get on with the business of running this faction.

Stuff it.
*Enigma puts down his sword and picks up a shovel
I'm never the man to be told what to do, but this man has a point and I'd be a fool to ignore it.

How do you design a new political system?
We'll need to brainstorm this very well, as we all have different values, needs and wants.
The system must accomodate these AND allow us to play a game of SMAX.
We'll need HongHu, and after that debate I'll have to work together with Voltaire.
*cringe*
But why allow personal feelings to blind what is clearly the best course of action?

I'm with you on this one, $TITLE0 $NAME1.

[Enigma_Nova]

My meditation on dualities and the human condition will help here.
But IMO we'll need HongHu's excellent diplomatic ability, my puny 125 EIQ cannot possibly compete with her elite ability to understand you all, and we'll need to work with both the people and the game itself.

This system must suit all people, not just the majority, and it must suit the game, too.
Of course, in my headlong rush into a perfect system, I've already ignored Jamski's request of not overdoing it.

Okay... let me think.
We have Jamski, Voltaire, Octavian X and Enigma_Nova.
That's enough alternate opinions to get me started.
Let's see what we have to work with here:

Enigma_Nova:
Hates to be told what to think
Wants ability to express all thoughts
Wants game analysis to be thought about and analysed
Hates censoring or changing for others
Wants adaptive, non-rigid system that can be updated

Octavian X:
Wants the jobs to get done
Hates a solely elitist system
Hates a solely democratic system
Wants an anarchic system
Wants people to contribute of their own volition

Voltaire:
Wants people to support The Hive
Wants to appeal to a sense of Existence
Hates infighting
Wants clearly written-up suggestions
Wants people to value The Hive over personal grudges

Note that Voltaire 4 conflicts with Enigma 5
And conflicts conflict with Voltaire 3

Jamski:
Hates obcessive perfection
Wants to get the turn done

---

Need better understanding of the motivations of others...

[Voltaire]

I commend you Enigma for your last post; it very eloquently put our predicament and the options which we seem to be faced with. Regardless it must be said that we have no means by which to ‘democratically’ choose a path which to follow given that there seem to be too few of us to actually make a meaningful decision. The four propose viewpoints plus the extra few active members hardly allow for a majority decision on anything, let alone something of this significance.

Because of this, and the fact that I set this committee out to reach compromises, I cannot in goodwill let the Hive walk down an absolutist path to one system vs. another. You correctly state we need to reach a decision which everyone can live with so to speak, I agree, we must walk down the path of compromise.

I for one will state for one that I care now how people contribute ideas; this seems to be of minor importance in relation to them actually contributing ideas. The problem has never been that of a procedural matter of the formal for contribution, but rather one of contribution itself. We have not had enough members contributing seriously to even being to consider formatting procedures for proper contribution.

What I find rather humorous, if not off topic, seems that many of us overlap on the issues of getting the turn done. The turn was always completed in time with near optimum results within our last system; I for one favor this over anything which change can bring about. Some of you speak of participation and its lack in the face of secrecy among the administration, well to you now I call out and participate since the administration has been brought into the open, I take the approach that the system we have not only is not broken but work beyond compare to anything which we may replace it with, if we do replace it we will be taking a step down, not up.

Enough of me for tonight, I have gone on for too long and I must retire to bed, head my words if you wish it seems to matter little really, regardless I still speak even if no one listens but myself.

[Jamski]

I commend you Enigma for your last post

Ditto - I like the new Enigma much more.

The turn was always completed in time with near optimum results within our last system; I for one favor this over anything which change can bring about. Some of you speak of participation and its lack in the face of secrecy among the administration, well to you now I call out and participate since the administration has been brought into the open, I take the approach that the system we have not only is not broken but work beyond compare to anything which we may replace it with, if we do replace it we will be taking a step down, not up.

The system HAS produced good results, that is true, but it has done so at great cost :

• The over-reliance on Kody.
• The exclusion of those for whom Kody's playing style is too complicated.
• The demand that people "do jobs to help Kody".

Obviously this may be the most efficient way to play a demo game - to let the most able player, or at least the most methodical player, run the turns, with little imput from the rest of the team - but its not much fun for those sitting on the side watching.

Perhaps we could use the very inefficient method of the last demo game and give people regions of bases to control. They would send the orders for thier 3-5 bases to Kody, or whoever was playing the turn, who would simply repeat them. Govenors would be elected, and replaced if people thought they were crap. Of course, our faction wouldn't do so well...

-Jam

[Snowflake]

It will take me many hours to try to understand and reponse to all the comments here in this thread. (We are so productive aren't we? But my understanding from reading the last few posts has led me to think that people are tired of fighting now. And we are ready to do some more productive work rather than counter productive "infights". I am very glad to see that. I will try to response briefly to some of the comments. Please let me know if there is anything I missed when I try practising this newly learnt "skimming" skill.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Octavian X


May I, then, propose a referendum on the subject? A simple yes/no poll is all we really need...

Thank you Comrade Oct for this suggestion. I will try to post a poll today after I finish reading and perhaps responding to all posts (if that is possible).

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova

This thread is about the secrecy, not the forum. If the forum were not secret this thread would not happen.
Is your time really so valuable, Honghu? Why are you complaining?
Do you feel it is your sworn sacred vow to care for those who know less than you?
What prevents you from spending 90% of your oh-so-valuable time elsewhere?
You are free to bugger off from the Hive, you know that. Nor will many of us care if you do; we can manage fine.

Why land yourself in a rut then complain about your circumstances? Seems to me all you have to blame are a set of conflicting needs and a lack of foresight.

You are right Enigma. Life is formed by each of our own choice. Unfortunetaly it was not really a choice for me. I had to love the team even if this means overspending myself for it. And I do not complain about it. The shaddow forum was my choice to deal with the conflict bt my love of the team and my limited time and energy. It may not be the best choice. But the choice was made, and I have to accept its consequences.

As for the matter of secrecy, well I do believe if I had announced from the first day that a shaddow ministry will be constructed with limited access we would have this exact thread, just several weeks early.

It's an entertaining look into both your psyches. It may not have any benefit to either of you but I'm gaining useful knowledge.

Glad that I was able to be any use to you.

IMO Hiverian folk are not inherently equal. There are those with more enthusiasm, those that do more work, those that have more skill.
There are those, skilled in literary or interpersonal skills, that make fine diplomats. There are those skilled in spatial abilities in logic, that make good turn players.
Still others vent their psyches in the form of PRAVDA, while others know the value of a good postcount.

It would be useless to try to value one person over another. All people are inherently useful and of value, in my opinion, because all can offer their insights, abilities and virtues.
What would the Hive become if we start devaluing those who do not follow our path? Why,we'd become a Police state, and in the spirit of a democracy game I doubt this path of action is appropriate.

This is an excellent analysis. We need to let everybody do what he can do best and what he enjoys doing. It sounds to be is the best starting point if we want to figure out what structure the team should have in the future.

So THAT'S what your motivator... Group Support.
Of course, you show ignorance to those with other goals.
The Valiant Kody, always eager to unlock new secrets, he is here to learn.
Enigma_Nova, strong of will, has come here to flex his mental muscle.
Surely many of our hiverian comrades are also here for fun?

Now, to translate your own statement by any of the 3 virtues above:
1. If you aren't willing to learn, then why stay around?
2. Why should we nurture skillless weaklings?
3. What's the point, if not for fun? Don't spoil our good time.
Any of these seem a bit outrageous to you?
4. If you don't care about the team, you have no need to be here
All comments are on par with that one.

Again you are right Enigma. I do not see anything wrong in the three statements you presented. (Well perhaps I disagree a little with the second.) But anyway, you are right. Different people have different views regarding different issues and they may be in conflict but they may not be simply judged as right or wrong. That statement of mine is too narrow minded. I have boasted that I am open minded, but I have to admit that one can always learn to think from a new perspective. Once somebody thought that he/she had excelled/been good enough for something, it is time for him/her to rethink about it. Yes your wisdom (as well as that of others) has greatly enriched me. I appreciate this. And this is exactly why I have come here.

Everyone step forward if you understand communism!
Not so fast HongHu...
You described Aristocracy, not Communism. Communist societies insist on supplying their workers with however much bread they need, but never any caviar, regardless of how much they want caviar.

I was taught about Communism when I was a child but I don't claim being an expert. My understanding is that in a Communism society because the productivity is so high and the resouces and products are so abundant, everybody can get what they need without any conditions. Working bacame a necessity because everybody WANTS to work, in stead of being forced to work (and that's one reason why the productivity is so high too). Compare to socialism, where products are assigned to people according to the amount of their work. Of course that is only in theroy as described by Marx (and others perhaps). The "communisitic" countries are not really in communism yet, they just have it as their goal.

No HongHu resources are -not- limited they are plentiful, and you'd do well to note that this is a skill-and-class matter and not a supply/demand matter.

Resources ARE limited dear Enigma. It is the first principle in your Economics 101.

Safest way to save time and effort is to not do stuff you'd rather not do.

Exactly. That's what I did.

We disagree. Now what are you going to do?
Bend and conform to our will, or be stagnant and stubborn?
Not pretty either way.

Nah. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

A Fundamental rule of human effort:
If people don't see a problem they don't try to fix it.

Exactly. If you don't look, you will not see a problem.

Well that's your own damn fault isn't it?
Get some rest and quit the team, then see how you feel.
Or not, your choice. You'll probably be torn between letting us down and supporting yourself.

You'll let no-one down by leaving. I'm sure we can conquer Chiron without you.

Sigh. I have already tried that. I quitted the team in November (before you were really giving this forum any of your limited time I think ) for I have a filing deadline coming on Dec 2nd (changed to the 9th). I was planning not to return until after that because I was really hard pressed for my work. Well after about couple weeks or so, tass contacted me and asked me to vote to dissemble this demo game since the game was practically dead. I told him that I couldn't do that for I love it too much. Tass said that nobody had been willing to do anything for the game and for Hive Jamski had been trying alone here without any real response. That's when I decided to come back and help him. I have tried my hardest. I sent out PMs to different people trying to encourage them to participate the game, I bugged people through MSN chats asking them for opinioins, I looked at the turns and posted all info I can get and my analyses in the forum, contacted other teams for diplomatic issues, played the turn when I couldn't get anybody else to do it, and tried to pursuade Kody back to the team even when I know that he was in a pretty crucial time in his real life (PhD confirmation, and thus the shaddow forum, partially for Kody's sake for he really can't afford otherwise). At that time Jamksi was focused on the Dungeon of Apolyton, you were occupied to coup all positions in ACPSD (), everybody else was having exams/holidays, with only Comrade Micha here helping me and Chairman Voltaire trying his hardest between his exams supporting me. I worked till 4am in many days to get both the game and my own work done. No I am not complaining. I am proud that I could pull it through. And I am so happy to see the team and the entire game back to life again. When I talked to tass I said "I haven't tried yet". And now I can say "I have tried and I have successed". I would not have successed without all of you. I am very happy that I have all of you again.

I just realized that it is not "briefly responding". Guess I just have a habit of running off with my mouth. Well you know one always loves to talk about things that she loves. Sorry.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Voltaire
I commend you Enigma for your last post; it very eloquently put our predicament and the options which we seem to be faced with.

Well... when I'm not trying to be obscure I can be clear.
Thing is I automatically become obscure when I feel threatened.
I deceive even myself in these states, the principal reason I call myself Enigma.

Regardless it must be said that we have no means by which to ‘democratically’ choose a path which to follow

You can always make a decision. You can never make a fully informed or totally objective decision.
Who is to say 'Democracy' is the right way to judge? Not I.
So, I reckon we should try to appeal to all of our thinking styles.

Voltaire, the "Because it exists" man, aimed on showing what the practical evidence suggests, then working with it.
Enigma, where the world is a riddle in his mind, always a new question about how it works and what it is, each answer gives new mysteries.
Octavian, how there are people going about their business and how to best move these people, to acheive efficient function.
Jamski, who would rather not be tired by the systems of old, or tied with red tape, who wants to see TURN DONE. Period.
HongHu, always looking out for people, and indeed focussed on how to better the people, not the plan.

What way has been tried and tested, that works?
Which path is least of confusion and most of integrity?
So how do we get it to work without breaking?
And does it get the job done? That's all it needs to do.
More importantly, are we all happy with it?
A question for each of us, and an answer for none of us.
(Save for the fact that mine is the only unanswerable question)

In addition to our patterns of thought, we also have values, which I tried to find out from your posts. Perhaps you'd better correct me as to what you want!
Like it or not, Knowledge and Wisdom are needed. We need correct information and the ability to craft something with it.
Between the 5 of us we have the wisdom.
Now all we need is the information.

given that there seem to be too few of us to actually make a meaningful decision.

I do not know what you mean by 'meaningful'.
You need one man to make a decision.
You need two men to make an error.
We have 4 men (and a woman). We're bound to all make decisions. Many of them conflicting.
To work something out amicably, the less people the better. To find a practical solution, the more people the better.
But it is irrelevant to judge the number of people, because 5 is what we have, and 5 is what we must work with, not 1, not 25, not 5000 and not 50 million.

"To judge is irrelevant"
Sig takers anyone?

The four propose viewpoints plus the extra few active members hardly allow for a majority decision on anything, let alone something of this significance.

We decide how to spend our time
We decide how to play the turn
We decide how to get along
And we may even decide who we are and what we want.
Surely seems important to me, but we look at the matter from quite different angles.

Because of this, and the fact that I set this committee out to reach compromises, I cannot in goodwill let the Hive walk down an absolutist path to one system vs. another.

I'm sorry Voltaire, but I think you did. :/

Compromise is dangerous territory. Let me tell you why.
Everyone has their own notions of value. Good and Bad, Right and Wrong, Smart and Stupid.
Compromise, is an attempt to have more than one person obtain what they value.
The thing is, we cannot judge what we give to the other person by our own value system. For instance, offer me a choice between a wise friend and a loyal army, I would take the friend, some would take the army.
These things, while comprised of the same atoms, are seen through different perspections and judged by different values.

Compromise is dangerous when you presume you can judge what a 'good' compromise is from what a 'bad' compromise is.
Surely all people have different values. To you, a trade of a $100 book for a $500 antique may be a good compromise. But for a critic or an editor, they may eagerly trade $500 for the opportunity to work on the book.
Likewise, what one Hiverian sees as a good system may be what another Hiverian sees as a bad system.
So how do you judge where the compromise Equilibriates?
When both parties think they're better off?
When both parties are better off to a similar degree?
When the majority is the best off?
When it gets the trade done?
The fact is, you can judge what you want, but you can't make the choices for others.
Nor can you presume to know what a 'good deal' is from the offset, for others have different opinions.

There is no such thing as the ideal compromise because neither side can see into the others' mind and derive exactly what value they place on things.
The best we can do is work with what we know and run with it.
Don't presume you know everything, especially not absolute right from wrong.

It all sounds obvious but I've been confronted with far too many people that have a preconceived notion of good from bad and present what they think is a 'good' deal, only to be offended when my values differ from theirs.
Understand that people have different perceptions and values, which is a good first step to interpersonal wisdom.

You correctly state we need to reach a decision which everyone can live with so to speak, I agree, we must walk down the path of compromise.

Maybe my experience is biased, but if one party does not agree, then it is tyranny not compromise.
Being forced to choose between two things you love is compromise, surely, but how can that be said to be fair when your opponent keeps all that he loves?
(For example Cite the parent that offers the child a cookie or a dollar but maintains that they must obey a specific order. I would call this tyranny.)

I've seen compromise thrown about to deny the weak (or just plan inactive) of one of the two things they love while the strong choose to keep all they want.
"So do you want to be the leader of X or the leader of Y?"
"Sorry I think that X and Y are flawed notions of jobs."
"We're working for a compromise. Look, I give you a little power and you in turn work for my government."
"I think it's unfair that you ensure that I work for you and get what you want, while I have to pick which thing I lose."
"Well that's the nature of compromise."
That, people, is compromise. But it's not the type of compromise I want.

I want the follwing type of compromise:
"So do you want to be the leader of X or the leader of Y?"
"Sorry I think that X and Y are flawed notions of jobs."
"Then what do you want the jobs to be like?"
"I want to see jobs A, B, C and D."
"A, B, C and D? Do you have any idea what that would cost to implement?"
"I know. But do you know how I would feel if forced to choose between X and Y?"
"You make a point, and I do not want to stifle your spirit, but how can I afford to make A,B,C and D?"
"How about if I work hard at B, for smaller wage, getting your profit back?"
"So you would spend your effort working for me if I accomodate a job you would not lose anything by doing?"
"Yes."
"Well, you must sign this contract to say that you must thoroughly support me in B, because I do not want to be ripped off."
"I shall see to it that I shall have the job I love and you will keep your profits."
"Deal."

This, too, is compromise. But it is a better kind - co-operation. While I would not force co-operation upon others, I find it to be a decent virtue to work with ad hoc, until we can find something better to work with like an honour system.

We have not had enough members contributing seriously to even being to consider formatting procedures for proper contribution.

I advise you not to stifle creativity by jamming it into a box.
That said I don't know what you're proposing so cannot comment.

The turn was always completed in time with near optimum results within our last system; I for one favor this over anything which change can bring about.

But Change brings the absence of Kody, and the optimum results will fall if we neglect them.

I take the approach that the system we have not only is not broken but work beyond compare to anything which we may replace it with, if we do replace it we will be taking a step down, not up.

It works in getting the turn done but does not work in making people happy.
Like I said, we must ensure that we all have something that we value, not just all have a share in whatever the guy in charge values.

This (If I understand correctly) means we need:
A real, practical system that ensures our system is stable
A true and uncorrupted system not tied down by misconceptions
A system that the people support, and do not revolt against
A system that GETS THE DAMN TURN DONE
And a system that allows us all to have fun
Correct me if I'm wrong but that's all of our concerns there. Feel free to add some more.
The system must not just ensure we all have ability to contribute to the turn; it must ensure that those who want the turn can see it, those who value turn playing skills can play it, those that value reformation can reshape and those that value fun can have it.

The greatest problem I see is in my need for input and adaptation, and Voltaire's need for a system that will not be usurped and demolished.
The Real and the Ideal must meet on this matter, and I know that's going to be a tricky challenge.

Enough of me for tonight, I have gone on for too long

Heh. You?
I speak my mind. I like to have my consciousness valued.
Brevity is not my strong point.

and I must retire to bed, head my words if you wish it seems to matter little really, regardless I still speak even if no one listens but myself.

Well me too. Except the bed thing.
It may be 3 AM but there's a government to make!