Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lyn Farel]

I think the subject is slightly derailing into a very subjective discussion...

[lallara zhuul]

Exactly.

When RL views are brought into EVE it always makes things less fun.

[Senn Typhos]

When it comes to political or, especially, philosophical debates between EVE characters, there's inevitably going to be some tie-ins to RL ideas.

We're all people living in this universe, and even if we made up authors in those fields for our characters to read from, it would still be influenced by our current ideals.

It would be handy if there were an essay-style forum for such discussion or something. The IGS is too easily bogged down by the instantly appearing super-edgey nihilists crying "all government is dumb and you're all dumb for thinking otherwise."

[Seriphyn]

It would be handy if there were an essay-style forum for such discussion or something. The IGS is too easily bogged down by the instantly appearing super-edgey nihilists crying "all government is dumb and you're all dumb for thinking otherwise."

Perhaps it's like getting a physicist to discuss politics. It perhaps has the same disastrous effect as a sociologist trying to discuss quantum physics.

[Bastian Valoron]

I'm not sure how real life comparisons can be completely avoided. For instance, when capsuleers talk about what ships they have, what are their properties and how they are fitted, they do it pretty much in the same manner as someone might talk about cars in real life, and I think it's actually quite plausible point of reference in this case.

When it comes to religion or politics, it would be strange to not use the existing best practices to convince the listeners, induce uncertainty, appeal to emotion, sell ideas etc. There is evidence that these practices have not changed dramatically over the course of history and I think it is generally not better for role-playing purposes to come up with completely new ways to interact with other people.

While budget, constitution or local affairs are poorly detailed in PF, there's still no real lack of concrete topics for Gallente political discussion. Philosophical questions or prejudices like here are perhaps more accessible for a wide audience and that's probably why they make interesting IGS material.

I agree with others here that if you form a mixture of your own and your character's opinions, it becomes very difficult to play with you, especially when there's a contentious topic under discussion. I think this the real problem, rather than having something similar existing in real life.

[Seriphyn]

Quickly chipping in with aesthetics...

There's this image to think about for the Gallente, and this one for the Caldari.

But they are ye olde.

[Senn Typhos]

It would be handy if there were an essay-style forum for such discussion or something. The IGS is too easily bogged down by the instantly appearing super-edgey nihilists crying "all government is dumb and you're all dumb for thinking otherwise."

Perhaps it's like getting a physicist to discuss politics. It perhaps has the same disastrous effect as a sociologist trying to discuss quantum physics.

Well I don't think we're incapable. I mean, I've always toyed with the idea of producing some abstracts for philosophers/political analysts from the State and Federation because I honestly would like to see some binary discussion on the nature of their nations.

There's two problems, which I mentioned before; one, if I bring up a concept like "patriotic militant capitalists," or "ultra-nationalist democrats," or what have you, there IS a real-world author who has likely already covered the topic. I could alter the ideas, or try to base mine off of those authors, but in the end I'm still chained to the real-world versions of those ideologies. I don't think I'm capable of a totally detached viewpoint on socio-political circumstances.

The second is, as I said, there's no forum for these discussions. Rich as they could be, there's no channel that wouldn't devolve, nor is there a way to avoid the pitfall of the IGS which always comes to some random voice from the uninspired black-flag community derailing the whole thread. 

Hell, some open exchange of IC essays would be preferable to the space-waste that the IGS poses for any worthwhile, civil character debate.

[Gottii]

Like how a factory has machines, you don't want to be abusing those machines.

Yet 99.9% of factories do so because it's cheaper not to maintain their equipment and run to failure and replace whatever breaks, or the entire machine, or to use sub standard parts.

I'd assume given experience as an Engineer in heavy industry for the last 10 years, in a LOT of places, probably the majority of the empire, slave labour is not a pretty thing at all.

Why give them more than the bare essentials they need to survive?

Best example I can think of from history is the sugar cane plantation in the British and Dutch West Indies in the 1700s.  They realized it was more profitable to simply work their slaves to death within a couple months, and simply rotate in new ones as the old batch died.  So thats what they did.

You beat your slaves down.  You crush them.  You wear them out.  It makes much more sense for a slave owner to lose a bit of profit than risk your life in a slave revolt.  Besides, what you gain in treating your slaves well rarely is worth what you give up in production.  Most slave populations routinely died out within a generation or two, either through integration into the overall population or simply dying off without replacing their numbers.  Slave populations in history that survived for more than a few generations have been the exception, not the norm.

[Valdezi]

It seems as if the thread has evolved into a new and interesting debate. Surely this is a good thing.

[Matariki Rain]

Best example I can think of from history is the sugar cane plantation in the British and Dutch West Indies in the 1700s.  They realized it was more profitable to simply work their slaves to death within a couple months, and simply rotate in new ones as the old batch died.  So thats what they did.

I wonder about the economic differences between capturing slaves and raising them. It feels like capturing slaves is (relatively) quick and cheap, and the "product" is therefore consumable. If you have to grow them yourself it rather changes the investment, and therefore the required return on investment.

(You can set up stable systems for this, but at some point it seems to become more effective to turn your slaves into private contractors who carry their own risk and raising/training investments.)

[Norrin Ellis]

Best example I can think of from history is the sugar cane plantation in the British and Dutch West Indies in the 1700s.  They realized it was more profitable to simply work their slaves to death within a couple months, and simply rotate in new ones as the old batch died.  So thats what they did.

I wonder about the economic differences between capturing slaves and raising them. It feels like capturing slaves is (relatively) quick and cheap, and the "product" is therefore consumable. If you have to grow them yourself it rather changes the investment, and therefore the required return on investment.

(You can set up stable systems for this, but at some point it seems to become more effective to turn your slaves into private contractors who carry their own risk and raising/training investments.)

American slavery largely developed along the economic line that it was more profitable to keep the slaves alive and in good health.  While the Europeans bought directly from Africa or engaged in capturing slaves, the Americans tended to buy slaves that had already been "seasoned" in the West Indies.  This necessarily drove up the cost to purchase slaves on the American market because the traders had already significantly invested in the slaves.

The US Constitution also provided that importation of foreign slaves would cease in 1808, so American planters had another incentive beginning at the end of the 18th century to put more thought into the care of their current stock.  Lincoln's position on the matter by 1860 was that containing institutionalized slavery to the states where it was already legal would necessarily choke the practice out gradually.  By that point, of course, we had at least three generations of slaves born and raised in the United States (1808-1860), and I can only imagine that the economic investment in "homegrown" slaves was substantial, given that the [false] perception of Lincoln as an abolitionist turned out to be the straw that broke the camel's back in the secession crisis.

What the hell am I rambling about?

[Graelyn]