Libertarian Pink Senate Election Campaign for November 10th, 2014

[Sephiroth]

 

Currently on the Pink Sphere, the economic prosperity and freedom of many nations is being infringed upon, so nations large enough they don't need the money can make a little extra if they constantly cycle resources.

 

Make Burgers Not War (Received On 10/21/2014 2:03:59 AM, Proposal passed on 10/22/2014)

Causes -$9 Citizen Income or -4.5 Happiness for all Pink Nations with a war capable setup.

Uranium, Aluminum and Iron are all essential if at war or you might end up at war.

 

Highly regarded chefs throughout the Pink team sphere have petitioned leaders to shift the current emphasis on military might to a more culinary focus.

 

Proposal: Resources Cattle, Spices, Sugar, and Wine each provide +2.5 happiness. Resources Uranium, Aluminum, and Iron each provide -1.5 happiness. 

 

Fur Trade (Received On 10/14/2014 8:51:37 AM; Proposal passed on 10/15/2014)

-$4 Citizen Income or -2 Happiness for all Pink Nations with a war capable setup.

Lumber is needed for Construction, which is needed for war and building up infrastructure

 

Fur trappers within the Pink team sphere have lobbied to halt the destruction of forests throughout the sphere, which the trappers depend on to sustain the animal species that make up their fur trade.

 

Proposal: Stop the destruction of forests. Lumber resources provide -2 happiness. Fur resources provide +3 happiness. 

 

 

From The Poor To The Rich (Received On 9/21/2014 12:56:06 AM; Proposal passed on 9/22/2014)

This one finally expired, but for a while this one was also stacking with the Fur and Burger Proposal,

causing most nations on the Pink Sphere to experience the equivalent of $14 income penalty or extra tax per citizen placed upon them for being on the Pink Sphere.

 

Some large nations within the Pink team sphere, citing difficulties in maintaining expensive infrastructure and other expenses due to their sheer size, have requested assistance from smaller nations to help them keep afloat.

 

Proposal: Spread the wealth! All nations over average Pink team strength of 71,041 gain $2.00 citizen income. All nations under the average Pink team strength of 71,041 lose $2.00 citizen income.

 

Libertarian Position

 

It is unjust to be placing heavy fees on most nations of the pink sphere, so a few nations can make a little extra money at the expense of everyone else.

 

Not only do these bills hurt the smaller nations on the pink sphere and those to "lazy" to cycle their resources constantly; they also take away our ability to fight effectively without experiencing heavy penalties.

 

I would be at a major disadvantage in any fight if I didn't have Iron, Lumber, Aluminum and Uranium. Not only for the benefits each give on their own, but also them being needed for bonus resources essential for war and rebuilding. Without these resources you lose coal, construction and radiation cleanup. All helpful in war, with construction essential for rebuilding and having a decent air force.

 

The Pink Sphere needs a Senator who will look out for the interests of all the nations and vote based on what is right, rather than what might benefit me in the current situation.

 

I won't vote on a bill which gives a penalty to the nations of the pink sphere for having resources needed to defend themselves. I also won't vote for bills which give a benefit to some, while hurting most.

 

I'll look out for the interests of small nations, while also not voting in favor of bills which hurt our bigger nations. The trade off isn't worth, we should make the Pink Sphere a good place for everyone here. Making it harder for smaller nations to rebuild and war effectively is not worth it!

 

With the Fur and Burgers proposal in effect currently, that is still a $11 penalty on all nations with Aluminum, Iron, Lumber and Uranium in their trade circle. For me I would make more on collections if I left Pink and gave up all my Color Team Bonuses before collecting. The Color Bonus for having all your trades with the same color only comes out to +$10 citizen income.

 

So why stay on Pink if it hurts most of us economically? Its because we want to make the Pink Sphere better and work together with our friends here.

 

If elected, I will still work closely with senators like Bones, Cuba and Hartfw to ensure bad bills fail and try to coordinate with them to improve the sphere. I've already spoken with Bones regarding my concerns regarding bills who hurt most us and we seem to be in agreement its not worth passing bills which are harmful towards most, but he is just one vote. We need more Senators who want to do what is right for the entire color sphere.

 

With the Libertarian Perspective in play, we will see less bills which hurt most of us in order to assist a small special interest group. Not only will I vote against bills which place heavy fines on most of our nations, I'll also speak with other senators to get them to also vote against bad bills.

 

When the next election cycle begins on 11/10/2014,

Vote for the Libertarian Empire for the Pink Senate

 

Together we can not only avoid experiencing heavy economic penalties for being on Pink, but instead see Pink become prosperous for everyone. I hope everyone who loves freedom and wants Pink to be a great sphere for everyone gives me their support.

[Hereno]

Proposal: Resources Cattle, Spices, Sugar, and Wine each provide +2.5 happiness. Resources Uranium, Aluminum, and Iron each provide -1.5 happiness.

This one is pretty objectively good. Even if you have all three of the negative resources, merely having two of the positive ones would result in a net happiness gain of 0.5.

[Sephiroth]

This one is pretty objectively good. Even if you have all three of the negative resources, merely having two of the positive ones would result in a net happiness gain of 0.5.

Its very bad for anyone with a setup geared towards war. While a 3Br is a decent setup, its not in a lot of circumstances. The only fast food resource which would really benefit someone in war, Pigs, was not included among the ones giving any bonus. So for nations like mine and many other who want a war ready setup, this bill hurt a lot. Some resources which provide a minor benefit with this bill are really bad if you don't have the full FF setup, like spices.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Methrage

[Ch33kY]

And yet you just voted for Bones, who in every case listed, voted for a different option to the one you whined for.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Ch33kY

[ChairmanHal]

At some point it should occur to you that Pink is the last place for a small, developing alliance.  Too many large, developed nations that have more or less stopped growing and set themselves up in max income producing trade sets.

[CubaQuerida]

I really don't get all the overreaction to all these senate proposals.  It always seems to come from nations with less than 1,000 infra too (which was you Methrage until less than a week ago).  I don't know how more clearly to iterate this: the purchase of one bank would literally have more impact on your nation than any of these proposals and the relative impact these have on tiny nations versus large nations is astounding.  For every negative event that costs these tiny nations a few thousand per collection it ends up being a multimillion dollar swing in the larger ranges, sometimes over 100 million.  Again, all the financial 'damage' you insist you are taking can be negated with literally one tech deal.

 

I'm also very glad that this needed to be published on the OWF, like anyone else gives a crap what is going on there.  As I've stated on pink message boards, instead of publicly complaining you'd be far better off if you were actively doing tech deals, building infra and trade swapping when possible on backcollects.  

 

As a senator, I try to be as judicious as possible with regards to sphere-based proposals, but I see my efforts are being countered with irrational behavior.  I expect nothing less from pink :awesome:

[hartfw]

I do not endorse such a message.

 

I like Burgers more than War.

Edited November 7, 2014 by hartfw

[Auctor]

I could see an argument made about the +2 bucks for people above 71k NS one(but it's really not that massive a penalty...), but the other two cited are income boosters for everyone active enough to take advantage of them regardless of size. It's kind of bizarre to see the lazy position be equated with the freedom position.

Pink is a fantastic sphere to grow on, if you are willing to develop your skills and put the effort in. The people that are hurting are the people that are hurting themselves.

[TJack75]

"Libertarians" also follow a Non Agressive Foreign Policy. Why adhere to a strict definition when it comes to Economics?

[Saladjoe]

If elected, I will still work closely with senators like Bones, Cuba and Hartfw

So you refuse to work with the two senators from TOP? Also Auctor's right, you can't rationally blame your lack of initiative to properly nation build on bigger nations. 

[Petro]

It's kind of bizarre to see the lazy position be equated with the freedom position.

 

 

We don't let Auctor go out and see the world very much...

[The Pansy]

I'd move to pink for that kinda bonus on my collection, and I am well below the half way mark.

I swap out to collect because it takes a little of my time, and the benefits are massive.
Looks to me like the Pink Sphere is geared for the more active player

also in this day and age, if you don't like the sphere proposals you have, it would take you just as much time to message your trade partners and change to one you like, as it is to write this diatribe

Edited November 7, 2014 by The Pansy

[Sephiroth]

So you refuse to work with the two senators from TOP? Also Auctor's right, you can't rationally blame your lack of initiative to properly nation build on bigger nations. 

I never said that. If they are trying to pass bills like "From The Poor To The Rich", then I'll fight them on it. However I'm willing to work with any Senators who want to oppose bills which negatively effect large portions of the pink sphere, while only benefiting some. If a bill hurts a lot of nations, it should be voted down. Gaining $2 income per citizen isn't worth it if you're causing more than half the nations on pink to lose $2 income per citizen. A senator should do what is right for the sphere and not just what helps their nation or alliance, while hurting most others on the color.

 

Levying heavy fees on nations who don't conform to certain trade setups is very authoritarian and needs to be opposed. Currently with the resources gaining bonuses and the resources losing people extra revenue, the only setups which can benefit are ones meant purely for maximizing collections.

 

Also I know how to nation build and have almost all the improvements/wonders. However nation building while avoiding any risky wars endlessly is boring. I've built my nation very large many times, also I have enough wonders to offset most of these penalties imposed by the proposals. However for newer nations without a lot of wonders, they come to the pink sphere and see it near uninhabitable for them. Even when my nation is larger, I would still be opposed to these anti-freedom proposals, which penalize nations who need the money more in order help those who don't make a little extra. Newer nations don't want to be on Pink when see how bad it is for them with the proposals that get passed.

[Lord Hershey]

I'm sorry, no, what you are acknowledging is that you are promoting inactivity, apathy, and misfortunate. Pink offers opportunities for those who are willing to commit some of their time exchanging or temping trades to fully utilize their potential by means of increasing or maximizing their profit margins.

 

Pink is not the place for those who are not fully wielding or taking advantage of the opportunities given to them.

[Auctor]

The fact of the matter is that certain trade sets make more money, regardless of the effects of proposals. No one is being forced to adopt an FJ/AP set of a 3BR set over a 5BR or an 8 BR, but if they do pick FJ/AP or 3BR, they will make more money. That's not authoritarian, that's simple mechanics. No "fees" are being levied from a nation that chooses an inefficient trade set, they're merely making less because their trade set is inefficient.

The proposal doesn't create an inequality between trade sets, it merely reinforces an inequality that already exists. The thing is - no one is forced to have a high BR set. That's a personal choice. If you want to make more money, do the things that make more money. If you are content with forgoing more money to get other benefits, that's great. But it's a choice you are making and not one that should punish the majority of pink nations that are in trade sets that benefit from that proposal.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Auctor

[Petro]

I never said that. If they are trying to pass bills like "From The Poor To The Rich", then I'll fight them on it. However I'm willing to work with any Senators who want to oppose bills which negatively effect large portions of the pink sphere, while only benefiting some. If a bill hurts a lot of nations, it should be voted down. Gaining $2 income per citizen isn't worth it if you're causing more than half the nations on pink to lose $2 income per citizen. A senator should do what is right for the sphere and not just what helps their nation or alliance, while hurting most others on the color.

 

And you have numbers to show how current Pink events have hurt most nations on the color?

 

 

 

Levying heavy fees on nations who don't conform to certain trade setups is very authoritarian and needs to be opposed. Currently with the resources gaining bonuses and the resources losing people extra revenue, the only setups which can benefit are ones meant purely for maximizing collections.

 

So you aren't trying to levy fees on nations who don't conform to your idea of optimal trade set ups? 

 

 

 

Also I know how to nation build and have almost all the improvements/wonders. However nation building while avoiding any risky wars endlessly is boring. I've built my nation very large many times, also I have enough wonders to offset most of these penalties imposed by the proposals. However for newer nations without a lot of wonders, they come to the pink sphere and see it near uninhabitable for them. Even when my nation is larger, I would still be opposed to these anti-freedom proposals, which penalize nations who need the money more in order help those who don't make a little extra. Newer nations don't want to be on Pink when see how bad it is for them with the proposals that get passed.

 

So now we get to the heart of the issue... You are "bored" with the way everyone else on Pink wants to play the game and instead of going somewhere that agrees with your style of play you would rather post here and try to force your opinion on us under the guise of freedom for all (as long as they agree with you). Makes sense now, carry on.

[Sephiroth]

I'm sorry, no, what you are acknowledging is that you are promoting inactivity, apathy, and misfortunate. Pink offers opportunities for those who are willing to commit some of their time exchanging or temping trades to fully utilize their potential by means of increasing or maximizing their profit margins.

 

Pink is not the place for those who are not fully wielding or taking advantage of the opportunities given to them.

Most nations in Doom Squad, Swash Plates And Tail Rotors, aNiMaLz, Badlands and almost every other alliance are having the majority of their nations negatively impacted by these bills. I don't want your resource set even if I gain a little extra income on it, most nations on pink don't either. The Pink sphere is made up of more than a few nations in a trade circle, who are constantly switching their resources to whatever they can gain a bonus on with a proposal.

 

You expect nations who haven't already bought their infrastructure up really high or are at war to suddenly give up on building up their infra or continuing to fight, because a few nations wanted to vote in a proposal to make some junk resources not as junky? There is more to resources than collections, if you haven't figured that out yet.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Methrage

[Sephiroth]

So you aren't trying to levy fees on nations who don't conform to your idea of optimal trade set ups? 

I think those types of bills should be rejected, if I didn't make that clear already. I don't want to tax your sugar and wine, so I can make more on my iron and lead. If its a bad proposal for most if they don't change their setup to conform, then it shouldn't be passed. Some colors only pass the good ones, where the benefits clearly outweigh the cons for everyone. Red had one where everyone had affluent population with barely a downside to it. Its the bills which benefit everyone which should be passed, with that benefit not requiring everyone to switch their resources around to benefit. The Senate shouldn't be hurting most of the nations on the color, just so they can make more on their resource set. Anything passed should be beneficial for everyone, without hurting people for not changing many of their core resources.

 

Lumber is a core resource, its needed for construction and building infrastructure much cheaper early on. For smaller nations who don't have enough infra to get 5 Factories along with the other essentials yet, that infra reduction could help them out a lot.

 

Iron, Aluminum and Uranium are all core resources as well. If a new nation is playing effectively, they'll have Lumber, Iron and Aluminum in their trade setup when building up their infrastructure. So starting off they will try to get it right away. Uranium is needed for nukes, so that's in pretty much every trade circle. The Senate shouldn't be deciding what the right resources for people to use are; they also shouldn't be hurting those who use resources not only essential to war, but for building up a nation.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Methrage

[Auctor]

Cattle, Pigs, Sugar are all needed for a good trade set for any growing nation. You're also working from an assumption that if a nation has aluminum, lumber, uranium in their trade sets, that they will have to collect with those resources. The happiness penalty for them goes away if you swap out for better collection resources.

At most, a nation need only be hit by a penalty for one when collecting if they're using standardized pairs like lumber/iron, marble/aluminum, water/uranium etc. But even if they aren't(which is silly and they should sort that out anyway) and they have two of them as natives, a nation without at least cattle, pigs, and sugar is screwing themselves when they hit collect. Having just three of the resources that get a bonus wipes out the effects of the penalties and then some.

Any "growing" nation that isn't at least in a 3 BR set isn't a growing nation, it's a floundering nation.

[Schad]

At 5k infra, and with far less than a full wonder set, I am one of the downtrodden waifs for whom you presume to speak. Even with a negative event and the poor-to-the-rich proposal in place, those two events you're railing against boosted my collection by more than 10%. I raise my gruel spoon defiantly in your direction, and demanded that the huddled masses have more competent representation. 

Edited November 7, 2014 by Schad

[iamthey]

Levying heavy fees on nations who don't conform to certain trade setups is very authoritarian and needs to be opposed. Currently with the resources gaining bonuses and the resources losing people extra revenue, the only setups which can benefit are ones meant purely for maximizing collections.

You seem to be mistaking trades/trade setups for the static immutable things they were in the past. In today's world a nation can freely adjust their trades to optimize themselves for a given situation. In the OP you mischaracterize the efforts required to take advantage of the burgers not war proposal: you describe the effort required as something tedious that requires intense micromanagement - this is hardly the case. A nation like mine carries multiple trades that were harmed by the proposal, trades which I only maintain while paying bills and I swap essentially once a month to collect. This requires barely any effort at all and garnered the full benefit of the proposal.

Maybe you're right though, maybe I'm just a large wealthy nation and thus make for an unfair standard. In either case your position is still silly because there remains classic 3br's (FF/construction/beer) directed at growth which also benefited from the proposal as for each of the three resources they took a penalty on they had three others to offset- for them the proposal was a net gain. This includes most of our small growth oriented nations and tech sellers- smaller nations you purport to represent. It seems the only group who failed to benefit from the proposal were those whose circles included no economic buffs and were directed entirely at war capability. The only nations who in fact require such a circle are those at war, and as this is a period of relative peace I can't imagine why that tiny minority should exclude the majority of others from significant boosts to their income.

[Petro]

At 5k infra, and with far less than a full wonder set, I am one of the downtrodden waifs for whom you presume to speak. Even with a negative event and the poor-to-the-rich proposal in place, those two events you're railing against boosted my collection by more than 10%. I raise my gruel spoon defiantly in your direction, and demanded that the huddled masses have more competent representation. 

 

That gruel spoon is Sengoku property, put it back where you found it and remember your place plebe.

[Sephiroth]

My focus is on the future more than the past, these bad proposals will expire eventually. Its the mentality that needs to change though. Being hit with some bad bills can be tolerable, but when its one negative bill after another, they keep stacking up. The Pink Sphere could be so much better, but we need to change the mentality of trying to make one trade setup better than the rest; then expect everyone who doesn't want to get screwed over to switch to it. Making some trade setups bad through senate action is not a good habit to get into.

 

No senate bills effecting anything in a good or bad way means the senate is doing a good job. If they can selectively only pass the good bills, without negative effects overpowering the positive for anyone, then we have a very good senate. I think there is much room for improvement with the kind of proposals we pass and I would have a positive effect on the Senate. Looking out for interests of all and not any specific group, at the expense of another.

[Ch33kY]

I'm sorry, no, what you are acknowledging is that you are promoting inactivity, apathy, and misfortunate. Pink offers opportunities for those who are willing to commit some of their time exchanging or temping trades to fully utilize their potential by means of increasing or maximizing their profit margins.
 
Pink is not the place for those who are not fully wielding or taking advantage of the opportunities given to them.

I think this is the underlying philosophy of PECS. Pink is not the place for Methrage-mediocrity.

[Sephiroth]

I think this is the underlying philosophy of PECS. Pink is not the place for Methrage-mediocrity.

Nobody gives a shit about TOP's little pet project PECS. Not being in PECS I think is an additional reason to vote for me.