Pre-ChaNES: Into the Void

[Lord_Iggy]

I have pointed out how the EU's insistence on not joining the SF is simply one of a lack of an acceptable compromise. If one is made, I'll join. However, Sym, you seem to be more interested in pointing out how my actions are improper, IC and OOC. So for now, the EU/IC will remain an independent entity.

 

[Symphony D.]

I have pointed out how the EU's insistence on not joining the SF is simply one of a lack of an acceptable compromise. If one is made, I'll join.

OOC: Did you not read the part where I said I don't want to join you at this stage because your compromise would destroy this game?

Why the hell am I even typing any of this? Either nobody is actually reading it or they're just not processing the content. Screw it, do whatever makes you happy--all of you. Once again, I clearly have no concept of what I'm talking about.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

I was pointing out that there is, as you said, a lack of an acceptable compromise. Thus, I am not joining. You are reaching a point of simply arguing for the sake of argument.

But at any rate, I agree on your last point- this conversation, at least between us, is going nowhere.

 

[Symphony D.]

I was pointing out that there is, as you said, a lack of an acceptable compromise. Thus, I am not joining. You are reaching a point of simply arguing for the sake of argument.

But at any rate, I agree on your last point- this conversation, at least between us, is going nowhere.

OOC: You're completely right Iggy, pointing out a fatal flaw in the logical system of the opposing side is arguing for the sake of argument.

So you're saying that, knowing full well that a compromise with you would lead to a monolithic political entity interested in inducting all colonies, mandating they have democratic governments, policing them through a vast military force, and requiring them to tow a general party line--a situation which would be the equivalent of, let's say, a NES2 VI where GEAR, the EUA, and HRE united--with all the consequences that has for players outside the main entity, you would still gladly accept if we simply knuckled under and agreed that you had the moral high ground?

Is that what you're saying? Because then no, I have not been arguing for the sake of arguing, I have simply been arguing in vain.

 

[BananaLee]

OOC: ...Rhetoric defending decision...

Okay, perhaps I'm an idiot.

But your reply post didn't seem to answer the question as to whether my impression was correct or wrong.

Rather, it seems to be a whole lot of points defending the SF policy. Now, I honestly don't care of the points, the good or bad behind either the SF or IC policy. All I want to know is "is my impression of the two systems correct or not"?

Please, don't be so defensive when I was asking an honest-to-God question for clarification

 

[Symphony D.]

But your reply post didn't seem to answer the question as to whether my impression was correct or wrong.

OOC: It was my opinion the material answered the question, but alright.

Every colony is holding a referendum effectively immediately this update. The colonists--and we have called for international observers to verify this--can choose whether to continue the existing policy of only allowing people from the homeland in, or they can elect to drop the restriction. Those that opt to open up will not receive new polls, but may undertake modifications to their immigration options through their local governments as they so choose. Those that don't are to be re-polled on the issue at 20 year intervals to monitor for any change in public opinion.

So to answer your question, right now, no an Israeli can't. After the polls are held, yes, they can go to whatever colony opted for open settlement. We currently predict the overwhelming majority will, with some later than others (to construct a "core identity" first). It's out of our hands (and in Chandrasekhar's).

These restrictions also obviously only apply in regards to permanent settlement, not work visits, tourism, ad infinitum.

 

[BananaLee]

Sweet as. That cleared things up. Cheers.

Now, onward with the game and arguments!

 

[a_propagandist]

Actually, I'm curious: What happened to all the small states in SF? Where's Nicaragua, or Namibia, or Afghanistan and so on in the grand scheme of things?

 

[TerrisH]

and... you have yet to say anything I did not know before. Statement still stands, undisputed. they still do not have major differences in my eyes.

the EU has no rules prohibiting, preventing, nor hindering any of their member nations form starting a single culture colony. but none of their member nations have chosen to do this.

 

[a_propagandist]

SF policy predetermines the colonization for 20 years, then allows those on the ground to vote on the colonization policy for the next 20 years.

ICom policy consists of letting people choose where they want to go, regardless of what those on the ground believe.

That's how I see it. A difference between letting colonists choose or letting prospective colonists choose.

 

[Adrogans]

And yet such a simple difference could lead to god only knows what. Especially when you add in the PRC.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I love sincere ideological debate in my NES. It's even better than stories, in its way.

Anyway, I'm back from my trip, and can now begin work on the update. Yes, I set the deadline at a couple of days before I got back, anticipating some slightly late ordersets. Quite a few missing orders this time around - I may have to clear out the list of players to get rid of the inactive ones and make room for anyone else that wants to join. Keep in mind that I'll still accept late orders, though. Better late than never.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Welcome back Chandrasekhar!

 

[Symphony D.]

Actually, I'm curious: What happened to all the small states in SF?

OOC: They're still there. Unless you phrase your question more specifically, I don't know what it is you want addressed.

Statement still stands, undisputed.

Funny, because I disputed them.

they still do not have major differences in my eyes.

Then you are not a logical person. Do you want an award or something?

the EU has no rules prohibiting, preventing, nor hindering any of their member nations form starting a single culture colony.

Yes, they do. They are opposed to streamed colonies. QED, they cannot have a single culture colony. Thank you and goodbye.

That's how I see it. A difference between letting colonists choose or letting prospective colonists choose.

So would you let all the people who are in the immigration roster of the United States, or who are in the process of naturalization, or who are even there illegally, should be allowed to vote for President because he or she's going to affect their livelihood through his or her policies? Hell, why not let the whole world vote for US President, since they're so important and have a global impact? Yeah, that makes sense.

The law is responsible to the people who live in a place, not to the people who might live there.

 

[Abaddon]

This may be a daft question, I ask every few months.. but when are we going to get to the actual NES?

 

[Adrogans]

I cannot recall now and I cleared my box, Did I send orders?

 

[Adrogans]

OOC: This whole debate on the ICom and SF I actually imagine taking place in game between experts arguing on news channels.

 

[Azale]

I thought I had sent but apparently I have not....basically the same policies are continuing.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

This may be a daft question, I ask every few months.. but when are we going to get to the actual NES?

After update 12. These last few turns of the Pre-NES will each last 5 years.

I cannot recall now and I cleared my box, Did I send orders?

Yeah, you sent in an early set.

OOC: This whole debate on the ICom and SF I actually imagine taking place in game between experts arguing on news channels.

Public posted diplomacy does represent statements issued or at least leaked to the media, at least for in-character points, yes, and you can bet that the talking heads are having a field day with it.

 

[TerrisH]

OOC: They're still there. Unless you phrase your question more specifically, I don't know what it is you want addressed.


Funny, because I disputed them.

and proved not a dang thing with what you said. I consider it undisputed. you may have another definition of the world, but meh, thats you.

Then you are not a logical person. Do you want an award or something?

and now your yelling insults and falsehoods trying to get the last word in. how childish. I looked at your reasons, and thought about them. the systems are basically the same. the long term results are not nor the mid term results. if anything, your is the more restrictive.

Yes, they do. They are opposed to streamed colonies. QED, they cannot have a single culture colony. Thank you and goodbye.

WRONG! they have chosen to not establish a single cultural colony as of yet, but again, their is nothing in their policy preventing the establishing of one by them. they have merely chosen not to do so.

So would you let all the people who are in the immigration roster of the United States, or who are in the process of naturalization, or who are even there illegally, should be allowed to vote for President because he or she's going to affect their livelihood through his or her policies? Hell, why not let the whole world vote for US President, since they're so important and have a global impact? Yeah, that makes sense.

The law is responsible to the people who live in a place, not to the people who might live there.

and your now going off on a pointless tangent to convince somebody by logic of associating. elections and colonizations are two vastly different things. what is right for one is not right for the other.