I'll be sure to remember to only support cheap, low risk, low reward, and unambitious deals in the future.

Assuming we can make anymore in the future.
See it that way:
Sousa had an idea.
She asked her various commanders what they think of the idea.
She asked the representants of the political factions what they think of the idea.

It turned out most people didn't like it and it wouldn't be worth pursuing the idea.
So it gets retracted.

Completly harmless. And certainly better than trying to push a problematic project at any costs. We just had a good omake what that can lead to, with our pre-predecessor.
 
She puts this deal together from a fractured command team (us) who immediately abandon her after it's presented because they 'never liked it anyway' and 'it isn't cheap'.
For starters; what? We aren't Sousa's command team or anything. Unless I've missed something major we are Sousa.

Aside from that though you are completely wrong on what people are backing out. Almost everyone agrees that pacifist's deal is a fairly good use of PP. The problem is that after seeing Linderly's and Sulu's comments on the security issue people decided they were right and that it was too big of a risk. Well that and seeing the overall reception of the council ranging from "meh" to "hell no!".
 
You have to watch how SWB and I do it. We were the ones backing the proposal in Snakepit with slightly varying versions, and now we can't back away fast enough. Yrillians? What's a Yrillian? I don't even know! :lol
 
Ambitious is okay IF we pick a a deal with support.

Given the in thread disagreements on the deal, it isn't too surprising that there was resistance.
 
You have to watch how SWB and I do it. We were the ones backing the proposal in Snakepit with slightly varying versions, and now we can't back away fast enough. Yrillians? What's a Yrillian? I don't even know! :lol


I mean, if the Yrillians want to work in the Federation, they can already do so within existing frameworks. It's not like we'd turn a trade ship away if it passed inspection, right? They just have to apply for the correct permits and wait the requisite twenty-four months for their trade certificate and work visas to be approved. The delays for background checks for every member of the work gang are unfortunate, but one of the downsides of applying in a group. The tariffs are really quite reasonable too.
 
For starters; what? We aren't Sousa's command team or anything. Unless I've missed something major we are Sousa.

Aside from that though you are completely wrong on what people are backing out. Almost everyone agrees that pacifist's deal is a fairly good use of PP. The problem is that after seeing Linderly's and Sulu's comments on the security issue people decided they were right and that it was too big of a risk. Well that and seeing the overall reception of the council ranging from "meh" to "hell no!".
Really? Because I remember the security issues coming up in the debates.

A lot.

But people accepted the risks, and voted for it. Linderly and Sulu told us nothing that we didn't already know and exhaustively debate in the lead up.

No, that's just an excuse. The reason this is being rejected is because it's not cheap enough.

So let me amend my earlier hyperbolic statement.

"I'll remember to only support cheap deals in the future"
 
Really? Because I remember the security issues coming up in the debates.

A lot.

But people accepted the risks, and voted for it. Linderly and Sulu told us nothing that we didn't already know and exhaustively debate in the lead up.

No, that's just an excuse. The reason this is being rejected is because it's not cheap enough.

So let me amend my earlier hyperbolic statement.

"I'll remember to only support cheap deals in the future"
...you must be remebering a Mirror Universe version of this discussion, because I don't remember us discussing the security aspects of the proposal.

Edit:Granted, we probably SHOULD have thought of it, and it would have likely changed the approach on the idea, but oh well
 
Last edited:
Really? Because I remember the security issues coming up in the debates.

A lot.

But people accepted the risks, and voted for it. Linderly and Sulu told us nothing that we didn't already know and exhaustively debate in the lead up.

No, that's just an excuse. The reason this is being rejected is because it's not cheap enough.

So let me amend my earlier hyperbolic statement.

"I'll remember to only support cheap deals in the future"

You mean you have the ability to determine the pp cost of a deal before Oneiros writes it? That's amazing! How do you do it?
 
You Peeps are being a little uncharitable.

There is nothing wrong with @Gear being a little salty and grumbling when things haven't gone as planned. It's just how things go sometimes. There is nothing wrong with it.

No need to start spreading the salt around and piling it up for a fairly minor thing all told.
 
Last edited:
...you must be remebering a Mirror Universe version of this discussion, because I don't remember us discussing the security aspects of the proposal.
Really? Because worry about Cardie\Syndy spies and\or pirates was the first thing brought up when the idea was first proposed, and it dogged it for quite a while as we decided.
 
Really? Because I remember the security issues coming up in the debates.

A lot.

But people accepted the risks, and voted for it. Linderly and Sulu told us nothing that we didn't already know and exhaustively debate in the lead up.

No, that's just an excuse. The reason this is being rejected is because it's not cheap enough.

So let me amend my earlier hyperbolic statement.

"I'll remember to only support cheap deals in the future"
It's only expensive because of lack of support. If we were to propose a deal everyone could get behind, like the Relief Bomb, the cost would be small.


The number of voters at the time was "69".

SVers are juvenile

> : P
Huh. I didn't notice.
 
Back
Top