- Location
- ?
No but can we actually make one? I want one.*I'm pretty sure development's symbol should be that proposed mobile Exascale Planetary Mining Phaser Station.
*I want two, but I'd deal.
No but can we actually make one? I want one.*I'm pretty sure development's symbol should be that proposed mobile Exascale Planetary Mining Phaser Station.
As a society, the Federation leans more towards the Pacifistic side than the Hawkish side though, so it would make sense for the Pacifists to have more power.I'd like to see the Hawks have approximately the power of the Pacifists, if only so we don't have to pay PP for the privilege of remembering that our ships have phasers for things other than dealing with space debris.
I'm in favor of increasing expansion to a larger plurality.The current balance looks pretty good to me, I don't think I'd want to change the power of any faction by more than 5%. Maybe 36% Expansion, 23% Development, 26% Pacifist, 15% Hawks.
But Akuz if we did that we wouldn't have had the PP to stroke our REVENGE BONER...I miss Admiral other Nash. We should have gone to bat for her. I feel bad now for not arguing for that...
Thanks!
Just for you, here's the Hawk symbol. Its a stylized depiction of the Amarki goddess of war, Mag-Ukka.
A lot of people are going to judge the current head of SFI based on a cost-benefit basis, so please answer me what the expected benefit of having the klingon's believe us about the cloaked ship? The cloak in question was so badly damaged everyone thought it was destroyed. I will be astonished if it isn't the mother of all kit bashes. Even if the klingons still have the schematics I doubt they would be very helpful. Were we hoping for them to send us some ships? Why would the cloak matter? hell, they're gearing up for a war with the romulans
I propose a simple but perhaps unorthodox solution:Linderly just did some not insignificant damage to their respect for us.
But Akuz if we did that we wouldn't have had the PP to stroke our REVENGE BONER
Being skeptical is a very different thing from a positive belief that you have been lied to and generally doesn't cause any strong negative reaction. In fact long term it might cause them to be less skeptical the next time once it becomes clear we were telling them the truth this time.Don't look at the benefit, look at the cost. The Klingons now believe we lied to them for some nebulous political gain, possibly to use them. This is a problem considering they're seeing an honor-based cultural resurgence around this time. Linderly just did some not insignificant damage to their respect for us.
You also gave them a wacky "eye on the pyramid" vibe.I used the IDIC (combined with the standard peace symbol) for the Pacifists because, well, they're majority Vulcan, and their philosophy about the worth of all life is a large part of why they're pacifists. Also Sehlats are a bit cartoony >.>
The catch is that if we have ships far from the crisis area, and we don't start moving them now, they may not get there until the crisis comes to a head. If the crisis resolves itself in a fleet battle, that could result in us getting defeated in detail.I would like to remember everybody that this crisis will go through in 1 week increments. So for instance, not breaking off any ships from the RBZ doesn't cost us anything because Solitude is as close as they could get anyway.
Well, the system would work pretty well if we were just fighting, oh, the Sydraxians, because we'd only have to worry about moving a relatively small number of ships. But against a combined Cardassian-Sydraxian threat with a side order of wandering stealth cruiser, we're moving basically every ship we have including the member world fleets. Keeping track of that on a single-ship level is going to be exhausting.Alright, I'm back in action and there's like six votes and a lot of indications that this format is a pain in the backside. So, let's take a look.
I may have been a little too blase in setting the original system.
The problem is that our trained NPC staff is in fact OneirosTheWriter, who while undoubtedly a fine strategist isn't necessarily a better strategist than, say, Briefvoice. It's not obvious that letting Oneiros write three plans and hand them to us leads to better outcomes than soliciting write-ins from the players. Furthermore, then it's Oneiros moving all the chess-pieces on both sides of the board, which can detract from the fun a bit in my opinion.I would favour that. As I said before, I fell like there is very little benefit in complicating the issue.
The problem I have with that is that I have a hard time imagining a scenario where a player could come up with a plan that is better than what a trained NPC staff would come up with. You often end up with plans who are very simplistic and centred around a single neat idea that requires everything to go right (which I find highly unrealistic)
I'm going to be honest, my suspicions were very broad and I leapt to the worst-case scenario in there, but my general fear was that he would start acting like a generic 'spook' That the 'spook' mentality would color his actions in ways that would be counterproductive, because counterintelligence is a world where the distorting hall of mirrors is at its most distorting.To the people who are gloating about having voted against Linderley, can you kindly stop?
Not a single one of you predicted that he'd act like this. You didn't want him because either a) you thought he'd go McCarthy, or b) you thought one of the others had a better bonus. He has not done a), and there's no indication so far that he ever will. b) we will only ever know in retrospect.
None of you suspected he'd be overprotective to a fault of intelligence assets. You were wrong. So drop the smug.
I see it on tumblr but I honestly have no clue otherwise.
As a society, the Federation leans more towards the Pacifistic side than the Hawkish side though, so it would make sense for the Pacifists to have more power.
Linderley says it's skepticism. Linderley was also shifting awkwardly and hesitating to respond. I think Linderley may have been trying to recast things in a favorable light...They said they were skeptical of our claim. IE, we seem to be jumping at shadows. they didn't call us liars
This is actually not a bad plan, fraternity bros would get along well with Klingons. Although Klingons seem to have a surprisingly diverse outlook and are accepting of all kinds of people, as long as they are suitably cranky, violent, and honorable.I propose a simple but perhaps unorthodox solution:
Step the fuck back Linderly I got psyops on lock
- We get the USS Sappho
- We get them drunk
- We give them knives
- We send them into Klingon space
- ???
- Respect
There was arguably a third back there earlier- when the Courageous incident was still being investigated, Linderley got busy hunting for moles who 'blew' the operation, rather than, say, focusing on where the Syndicate got their weapons from or something like that. I suspect that his mole hunt turned up nothing, while we might have learned something about, say, Cardassian supply channels to and from the Syndicate otherwise.Honestly while I don't agree with his assessment that isn't my problem with Linderly. My problem with him is that he made two critical fuckups in a very short period of time.
Lesbian Klingons was actually so surprising and unexpected I thought I'd misunderstood something. I imagine my character didn't know Klingon that well and had a Gal Pals moment.[ @AKuz , I know you've been playing Star Trek Online; given your achievements in the field of yuri I have to ask, did you ever run into the Klingon lesbians?]