NewtonPulsifer wrote:

I don't buy the whole premise. It's like saying most transhumans have a low SAV score when actually they surpass flats on average. It's easy to forget transhumans surpass flats even in things like empathy and range of expression (sylph morphs, kinesics detection sensors/software etc. )

In terms of game mechanics, maybe. And you don't have to buy anything from me, I'm not selling. Just engaging in free discussion. But a high savvy score doesn't have to translate into a high respect for others' feelings or well being. It could represent exceptional prowess in Socratic argument, developing win-win bargaining positions, rapidly developing secondary and tertiary supporting positions to back your primary point, making it near undeniable, exceptional ability to mask kinesic response and voice modulation, or a number of other factors influencing interpersonal relations that don't rely on empathy for fellow beings. Beyond the point in the passage in the story where Cassandra fails to find the baby cute and cuddly, I'd draw your attention to two other response mechanisms: 1)On the floor in front of her lies another sapient being screaming in pain. Her response is to turn to her muse and say "That's really annoying, can you tune that out for me? Thanks." As she sees it, if Lily wanted to feel better, she should have just negotiated some rep for better pain-control measures, so it's not Cassandra's problem to worry about. 2)For better or for worse, Lily and Bill have spent nine months nurturing their new offspring in Lily's womb, and will dedicate the rest of their existence caring for it. Misguided or not, this is a key turning point for their lives. Cassandra's response to the new arrival is to note that their new morph is of a shoddy design and she can upgrade it so it doesn't have to be so inferior. I would submit both of the above seem like perfectly reasonable, normal transhuman responses. There's nothing evil or malicious about them. But they also represent a level of disconnection from the fellow sapient beings she's living with that could be found an undesirable cultural outcome. So, the question is, has transhumanism been achieved without error and without loss of any kind? If it is as the canon setting seems to portray it, everyone are the same personalities and cultures as they were before this massive tectonic shift in existence, just amplified and enhanced. Then it's all gain and no pain (except a prediliction to pursue seed AI technology and thus trip the booby traps that the Lovecraftian horrors beyond the stars have left for us). With circumstances like that, then there can only be a small set of motivations for a biocon agenda: xenophobia, religious zealotry, fascist oppression, luddite-like resistance to progress and change. The Jovians as published definitely fit that mold. On the other hand, there might be room for the premise that the growth and expansion of certain aspects of transhuman culture has resulted in atrophy of other aspects: empathy, altruism, familial bonds, sense of community, charity, the pursuit of meaning to one's life or many other aspects that have been present before ascending to transhuman status. And none of these losses need be an amputation from existence. They could just be wasting away as the concept of normal is changing. Then transhumanism becomes a cost-benefit tradeoff. With that premise in place, a new array of biocon motivations open up based not on irrational fear, but on a reasoned evaluation of costs and benefits, and determining that the aspects of life that are slipping away have intrinsic value to the Jovians. Their political position now revolves around preserving an endangered piece of society that they recognize will continue to dissolve as the pervasive wave of technological progress crashes at their borders. So they place their communities on lockdown. Not out of hatred for everyone else, but love for each other and out of sorrow for the losses they are seeing. This position definitely jives with a NeoBudhist or NeoHindu spiritualism, liberation theology, or survivalist paranoia, as some of the other posts suggested. Again, this is significantly different then the iron-fisted regime as published, jacking up their spies on neural drugs, psycho-surgery to make them bloodthirsty and sicking them on the frankenfreaks.

Sure you can go this route, but progressive transhumanism is a much bigger part of the setting than reactionary bioconservatism. The reason I'd want to change things would be to make things *more* self-consistent, not less so. Changing everything else much more than the Jovians is like going back to geocentric astronomy. It creates more problems than it solves and raises more questions than it answers. Some things are a trade-off or a zero sum exercise. Sometimes something comes along that is just better with no downside.

NewtonPulsifer wrote:

Sure you can go this route, but progressive transhumanism is a much bigger part of the setting than reactionary bioconservatism. The reason I'd want to change things would be to make things *more* self-consistent, not less so. ... Some things are a trade-off or a zero sum exercise. Sometimes something comes along that is just better with no downside.

There's some points to be made there, I'd agree. But like some of the observations Alka made about the state of anarchism and capitalism in the setting, there's a certain aire of perfection to the former and raw moral turpitude to the latter. I find the concept of the immensely radical transhuman evolution occurring without error, loss or downside somewhat overly optimistic. Adding at least the presence, if not prevalence of cultural breakdown to go along with the hedonistic self-interested pursuits many are engaged in seems like a reasonable development. And it need not be ubiquitous. Just a discernible undercurrent. Making the Jovians rational and free-thinking in their opposition to transhumanism instead of ignorant and reactionary would seem to enrich rather than detract from the panoply of clades in the solar system. Which seems the reason the OP posted in the first place.

amv451 wrote:

I could agree on general terms but on this specific subject, correct me if I misunderstood, it seems that some of you are irritated by the fact that the authors decided that the autonomist utopia, at least partially, works. Instead the traditional capitalist or conservative ideology still seems to keep the usual old flaws. This, in your opinion, generate too much two-dimensional bad guys and a sort of manicheism more typical of fantasy or childish games than the adult hard-SF RPG that EP claims to be.... Am I correct?

My problem with the anarchists is that their society is unrealistic and that their "utopia" is built entirely on an assumption that anarchists are nicer, more rational, more tolerant and so on and so forth than people who live in the Inner System. Meanwhile, my problem with the Jovians and the PC is not that they "keep the usual old flaws", as you put it, it's that their flaws are exaggerated to cartoonish levels. You will not find the extreme corporatocracy of the PC or the ridiculous fascism of the Jovian Republic anywhere on Earth today, and yet in the future it seems as if those aberrations have out-competed normal liberalism and conservatism for the sole reason of creating more "evil" antagonists.

amv451 wrote:

This probably has less to do with the flaw finding and more with personal taste, I suppose. Ideology or cultural values are only a part of the personality traits of the antagonists and surely they don't define their degree of stupidity or vacuity!

That's not really what I'm talking about.

amv451 wrote:

Furtherly, we are not talking of the Tables of Law. EP is a game setting, the authors propose their ideas and vision and you are free to modify, alter or discard them as you like.

"We're allowed to change stuff" is not really a good argument for why a particular piece of writing is good or bad.

amv451 wrote:

You want a shadier Commonwealth, let's add some hidden less philantropic agendas like Arenamontanus and me do. You want an happier Inner System population, let's assume that some Enterpreneurs are enlightened and are happy to share their profits with the workers/employees as well the benefits with the consumers.... it is a Science Fiction setting after all.... ;)

What was it you said, about ideological comfort zones and how this game encourages one to challenge them?

amv451 wrote:

In my opinion, unless the authors unveil something different, the reasons why some Political and Idelogical Blocs looks more evil than the rest are the result of a conscious decision. They are not a "flaw".

I'm not sure how the conclusions follows from the premise. I'm not arguing that the writers didn't want to make the Jovians and the PC into bad guys. I'm arguing that they did it in a bad way.

amv451 wrote:

The point remains, that Transhuman Space is "conservative" in every aspect of the game, super powers are more or less the same of today (China the dominant and EU / USA as most advanced and wealthiest).

That's not really a flaw, considering that one of the premises of Transhuman Space is that no world war of catastrophe happened between now and 2100. In such a situation, it's reasonable to expect that the major powers would remain roughly the same.

amv451 wrote:

Powerful memes (Mechanism, Nanosocialism, Pantropy or Anarchocapitalism) only add colour to the setting without any real impact on character creation. Instead, in EP, memes as well as cultural rising is of critical importance in player character generation and they remain a key factor for the rest of protagonists development.

Just because there is no "insert motivation here" slot in the GURPS character creation system, doesn't mean that memes play no role in character creation. Heck, there's an entire Transhuman Space book solely dedicated to memes and memetics.

amv451 wrote:

Probably it is a matter of sensibility, I don't perceive the same level of manicheism you feel in the game. Some factions are more modern and open and it is simply that. This does not automatically means that they are better on "any other way". Inner System citizens are normally richer and live in nicer habitats than Autonomists. They simply traded some of their freedom with some material wealth.... nothing new under the sun....

Core book, page 62: "Regardless of the reason, outsiders from new economy habitants often see them as somewhat poor and deprived, while many residents of transitional economies consider new economy societies both exceptionally wealthy and somewhat frightening." There's some other quote I can't find right now, about people from the Inner System seeing autonomist habitats as filled with "shocking displays of wealth" or something like that. In any case, the message is clear: It's not a matter of choosing freedom or wealth. Anarchists have freedom and more wealth than people from "transitional" economies. Then again, by naming the economies "old", "transitional" and "new" instead of "money", "mixed" and "rep" the writers seem to have already decided the inevitable path of history.

amv451 wrote:

Players choose a faction or a meme because they like it, they want to test it or only because it is very close to their beliefs. They surely not sympathize because the game says that it is better.... if not everybody would choose Elves in Fantasy or Romulans in Star Trek. In Star Wars, on the other side, you are perfectly aware of where the Good side is, as well as in any game set in WWII .... or not?

I'm not sure how that's relevant to what we're discussing.

amv451 wrote:

My compliments! Anyway, you don't have to prove anything to anyone. I as simply saying that in my limited experience (statistical?) the doubts most of you rised are the same of some my conservative, right-wing (veeeeery right-wing) players. Again, you don't need any kind of licence or pedigree to give credibility to your opinions. I ask your forgiveness if my words led you think otherwise.

Being right-wing is no more a flaw than being left-wing is a virtue. The fact that you feel the need to "compliment" me on having certain political opinions illustrates the communication problem we seem to be having.

amv451 wrote:

I absolute don't think anarchist are nicer, the have more freedom and care more about other people, this is true. Is this a strenght? maybe. First not all autonomists are the same and some of them are absolutely not rationale. Second, they are more tolerant. Possibly true, but again there are so many variations that you will never be 100% sure that your status, or origin or beliefs will be automatically tolerated. For example, I don't think they will be very tolerant with biocon activists....

The books, as written, seem to have a very hard time pinning anything negative on the anarchists. Go ahead, try to find the "criticisms" of the rep economy and anarchism. They are there, but they are sort of... weak. I am discussing the setting as it is described in the books, not anyone's headcanon.

amv451 wrote:

In order to reach an agreement most of them agreed on the Four Points of Unity (or whatever they call them) where the starting ground is the acceptance of any kind of Sapient being. This make them more tolerant.

First of all, even by assuming that the anarchists would include sapient rights in their Points of Unity while the PC did not include them in their ideological foundation, the writers have engaged in the kind of thinking I find problematic. Why would the anarchists do that, while the PC did not? Second of all, just because someone somewhere said that the anarchists will respect sentient rights, we have no reason to believe that other anarchists would necessarily follow.The PC officially embraced democracy, even though their democracy is explicitly stated to be a sham. I've yet to read a single sentence describing anarchists not respecting sentient rights. Heck, the PC actually has laws to encourage people to obey their fundamental values. The anarchists don't even have that.

amv451 wrote:

Why Inner Blocs don't have the same Statement of Rights? simply for economic (Planetary Consortium) and political (Jovians) control reasons.

You know, if capitalism necessarily leads to not respecting fundamental rights, it's a bit odd that capitalist societies are the best at respecting human rights on modern-day Earth.

amv451 wrote:

It is definitively more convenient to have intelligent beings that are property (or slaves) because they lack physical body (infomorphs), they are of digital (AGI) or entirely non-human origin (uplifts).

Slavery was outlawed for good economic reasons, not just because people suddenly became more moral. I'm not seeing this "slavery -> profit" logic.

amv451 wrote:

On the other side, hypercapitalists only cares what has value for them.... is this so different from what is happening now? Is there a way capitalism can evolve benefiting everybody and not only the shareholders? Do you see any other option for capitalism other then exploit other men labour for profit? I don't know.

Again, what was that about ideological comfort zones you were talking about?

amv451 wrote:

C'mon, PC is NOT struggling! PC simply don't care! Planetary Consortium elites find more profitable exploiting cheap labour force with the indentured servitude system! Only the people with limited skills remain "dead" in infomorph stasis, PC don't need them as long as a cobbler is required in a Physics Laboratory.

So as a matter of fact, the influx of vast amount of refugees could have been handled perfectly by the PC if only they had decided to not be evil. The anarchists, not being evil, have no problem with absorbing these people into their culture, providing them with morphs and, apparently, making them into good anarchists, regardless of whatever belief systems they held back on Earth. You're really making my case for me.

amv451 wrote:

That is simply because Autonomists need to unite the disparity and need every single resource to stay alive!

So, what you're saying is that the anarchist reacted to the destruction of the vast majority of transhumanity and the economic and social chaos that followed by accepting everyone, living in perfect harmony with octopi and AGIs alike. The PC reacted to the destruction of the vast majority of transhumanity and the economic and social chaos that followed by bringing back slavery.

amv451 wrote:

In Rimward there are many examples of the problems generated by reputational economis and how criminal factions use them to prosper (for not talking of potential sabotage from PC or Jovians)

Page reference? The books are full of examples of the exploitation, poverty, lack of freedom and even slavery that the old and transitional economies lead to. In Rimward, it seems that the major "problem" with the reputation economy is that "petulant spoiled hypercorp execs" can't indulge in their "selfish whims".

amv451 wrote:

You assume wrongly, among my players the autonomists have different opinions of how to relate with AGIs and uplifts, or even with the Backup insurance concept. there are many shades of grey even among anarchists and they are very interesting to explore as a Game Master.

Since I don't have a camera installed in your home, I can't very well know what your gaming group does, can I? I am talking about the books here, and nothing but the books.

amv451 wrote:

Even Nazis or Fascists during XX century were rational and free-thinking at the end..... this surely enrich any RPG set in WWII and make characters less two-dimensional. At the same time it does not detract from the Allies..... However.... I suspect everybody understand the aire of moral turpitude that in someway surround them.... or not? The key point of this discussion is not to find a way to make character (or antagonists) intriguing to be confronted. Every good Game Master is capable to do that. Even the most horrible monster has its own sympathetic reasons or motivations.

The problem I have is that based on the authors' experiences with the transhuman movement, they've equated the single social group not participating in transhumanism as equivalent to Nazis and Facists. A more sensible parallel could be found in the Amish and Mennonites. They are aware of the power of all the technology surrounding them, but feel there is a cultural peril in adopting it. Yet you don't see them sending their agents out into the world to conduct industrial espionage and crash the power grid, forcing everyone else to live according to their ideals. Nor do you see them standing at the border of their communities armed with pitchforks saying "Back, techie devil!!!" They simply have decided, if you want to adopt modern technology, you can't be part of their community. The assumption seems that in a transhuman future, the only reason not to participate would be out of facist oppression, curtailment of rights and choices, and loading the citizenry with vitriolic propaganda. Otherwise, everyone would absolutely want to be transhuman. After all, it has immense benefits with no side effects. And just because a game master may have the ability to modify their campaign as they see fit doesn't mean they shouldn't be free to solicit ideas and options on how to do so from the fellow players and GMs here at the forum. That's the whole point.

amv451 wrote:

Said this, what I was trying to express is simply that, for my purely personal taste, the way PC or Jovian Junta are depicted are neither unrealistic, flat or illogical.

That's pretty much the feeling I was trying to express as well.

It's quite hard to quote several different posts here, so Ill try to sum things up in points. 1. [b]Infugees and immigrants.[/b] The core specifies that anarchists had theirs and gave them free morphs, that's true. It is, however, very unlikely they had to deal with as many of them as the Planetary Consortium, mostly because no one had any reason to send any backups to Locus. Most of them were stored in corporate and government databanks. Also, there is no point in sending a large number of refugees to small habitats, as they will most likely not be able to even house them. The good places to send infugees are the one with plenty of spare space - Venus, Mars, Titan, Luna. From the same reason, I don't see many people migrating to anarchist habitats regularly. As you can see from the population map, the largest one - Locus - has 6 times less inhabitants than Elysium, which is only one of the cities on Mars, and not even the largest one. On a planet, if living space becomes sparse, you can relocate excess population somewhere else or expand the city. Adding new living quarters to a habitat is much trickier. How would immigration to Locus look like? Realistically, you find yourself a collective which is willing to let you join. Most of them will first look at your @-rep, check your conduct and see if you are a valuable community member. You have no rep yet? Well, you must somehow prove you will be a nice addition to have. Useful skills will definitely help, as will some community work. Meanwhile, everyone makes up their mind if they want you or not. Of course, if they don't have enough space, power or oxygen, they will most likely turn you down before you have any chance to prove your usefulness. This usually means that you land alone with a significant group of people who already know each other. You either get along with them, which usually means being a good anarchist, or try another collective and repeat the entire ordeal. Anarchist societies grow slowly, but assimilate new members pretty thoroughly. Not a good model to colonize a bountiful planet (where you can afford to expand quickly), but seems OK for space habitats. 2. [b]Elves in space.[/b] Keep in mind that, despite all these free morphs and cornucopia machines for masses, there are better places to live. Even if you absolutely despise transitional economy and Planetary Consortium, if you value safety, Titan is most probably a better place to emigrate. It has its own gravity well, a government with functioning military, plenty of living space and no militaristic juntas anywhere nearby. The only people who come to Locus and similar settlements are those who really want to have their home there and don't mind the relative lack of privacy. It's easier to builld your utopia when the only people you get are the ones who tend to agree with you.

amv451 wrote:

A whole section in Rimward is about the Problems of Anarchism p.158 and following. I find it acceptable, you apparently dont't.

Now read that section next to the one describing problems on Mars and tell me a certain bias isn't being betrayed. Apparently anarchists' problems boil down to 'some people are jerks and we haven't solved that yet' while their political opponents are guilty of everything from systematic corruption to pseudo-slavery. I don't appreciate this sort of thing from writers on the right wing and I'm not going to feel good about it coming from the other direction either.

Lilith wrote:

I certainly don't see the words "Fair and Balanced" on the cover.

I didn't think it had to be specified.

Lilith wrote:

You're really just kind of needling at this point, as if there were some sort of great imbalance between the (relative) handful of people that live out in the Rim and the veritable legions that life sunward.

But there [i]is[/i]. As has been mentioned before, anarchists are portrayed as being universally more intelligent, more respectful of others' rights, more individualistic while also forming tighter-knit communities, all while enjoying a relative abundance of resources.

Lilith wrote:

All I really hear is "They have problems, but those problems aren't [i]good[/i] enough for me!",

Well, yes. Their problems are described as anecdotal and solvable. But contrast, the problems attributed to their political opponents are described as pervasive, grand in scale and reach, and deeply rooted in the system itself. The bias runs well beyond 'anarchism is the best system' and into 'anarchists are the best people.'

Lilith wrote:

but if that's the case, what do you want? An ongoing war against the Jovians? Underground soul-trading? Rep-gaming groups fixing the system for profit?

Well, the setting did a good enough job of outlining the issues inherent in letting a corporation run everything. These problems mostly came from critics of corporations. I'd obviously look to the critics of anarchism to give it some problems. Off the top of my head, look at what these opponents will say about direct democracy, trying to have fundamental rights in a system without formal law enforcement, trial by mediation, and the absence of safety codes. Go with that.

Lilith wrote:

Because really, I don't see how making the inner system look better is supposed to make the outer system look worse.

It doesn't [i]have[/i] to, no. It's just that as things stand, anarchists have managed to build their idealized utopia which works [i]exactly[/i] how the people who advocate anarchism say it should. Meanwhile every other political and economic system is portrayed as deeply flawed, corrupt, and not [i]at all[/i] like how its advocates think it would look if actually implemented. I like Eclipse Phase. I think it's a great game. I just don't think it loses anything by not favoring paritcular factions quite so much.

back to the issue after the flu...... Well Alka.... it seems you like to have the last word, right? ;) and this is probably another thing we have in common! Perfectly agree on the reasons behind the “flame”, I understand your point and I think it is quite common to warm-up the tone a bit of a conversation on topics so linked to our inner beliefs. Just let me hope that we are NOT that kind of readers / players who whimper with game designers about this or that faction because it is not as powerful as the others..... this is at least my whishful thinking.

Alkahest wrote:

"Capitalists" aren't some kind of subhuman evildoers with alien motivations and minds. There is no reason for capitalists to be more or less selfish, stupid or intolerant than anarchists, or any other political group.

well.... they are surely not subhuman, I never said that. What instead I've said is that for Capitalists I intend the kind of people who actually manage the Capital, who own it. And for Capital I mean the large amount of money needed to make investments either financial or physical on large scale. A simple bank account doesn't make you automatically a Capitalist.. This kind of people vary, some of them could be considered visionary even philanthropist some times, but they were, are and will be a minority. The rest, in my personal opinion, is and will be the same kind of opportunists, cunning guys who will do whatever is possible to reach their profits. The reason for this is simply that Capitalism as a social-economic system remunerate selfish strategies. You can balance them in some ways, maybe you can even mitigate this approach, but at the end you have to minimize the costs and maximize the profits to be successful. So yes, selfish behavior is a renown feature of Capitalism. I never said that Capitalist are stupid and there is no reason to say that. Finally, “tolerance” is cultural index and you are right to say that has nothing to do automatically with Capitalism. However it has a lot to do with Fascism and Conservatism. We can debate why in EP most of the Hypercorp habitats are Conservative but there are many exceptions like Venusians that exemplify the possibility of more open-minded “hypercapitalists” communities.

Alkahest wrote:

Most people just try to live good lives and provide for themselves and their own while not being complete dicks to everyone else. That's true no matter what political colors you're flying.

OK Alka this is valid for everyone. However the people you are talking are not the leaders, the Capitalists (or HyperCapitalists) but the subjects, the employees, the end-users. These are more or less like … Consumers, people who have money but not the Capital. In the Hypercorp worlds of EP (but even in Cyberpunk, or in the books of Morgan) this means that you are negligible. You behave, think, watch, buy and love whatever the Media system decide for you. You are free to choose between many different brands, product or services but this not always make you more free than other people living in different environments.

Alkahest wrote:

I'm not even sure what "politically correct" means anymore. But I don't really think you can fault Transhuman Space for being clichéd while celebrating a setting where an antagonist faction names one moon "Bush" and another "Pinochet". I love Eclipse Phase, but I think that little piece of trivia sums up my major gripe with the setting.

Why not? Up to now we have been overwhelmed by stereotypical SF RPGs with the same “mainstream”concepts of good guys, powerful nations, neutral ideological settings and so on. EP is new also for this. Pinochet and Bush are just a satirical piece which I appreciate in the same way I appreciated Iron Sky..... (have you ever read the name of the Spaceships in Warhammer 40.000? sometimes they are really embarrassing ahahaha!) Yes, someone could feel offended, like the Catholics could be for the Pope destiny and role, or the Africans for their almost-annihilation, but... ehi! It's a only a game about transhuman future!

Alkahest wrote:

Extropian =/= anarchist.

True, but all of them are part of the SAME reputational network and, most importantly, are part of the Autonomist Alliance where the “tolerance” is inherent part of their Points of Unity: AUTONOMIST ALLIANCE POINTS OF UNITY • We demand autonomy, self-organization, and self-governance for all sapient beings. • We support direct democracy and forms of organization where sapients collectively decide their own future. • We promote mutual aid and reciprocating altruism between sapients. • We affirm the right to engage in self-defense against oppression and coercive authority and stand in solidarity with sapients so attacked. n In theory every autonomist (Anarchist, Extroprian, Titanian, Scum ecc.) should behave following above behavioral precepts. In reality the authors said in the whole book the this is not the case, that there are variations and possible aberrations. And that was exactly what I was trying to exemplify you: if it happens on Izulu could happen everywhere in the Autonomist Alliance. What do you want more? Again the stereotypical anarcho-communities made of no-man's land full of raging bands of raiders brutalizing the good fearful and honest tourist tax-payer from inner-space? Mmmmm..... interesting idea!

Alkahest wrote:

Neither of those quotes in any way compare the situation in anarchist habs with the situation in the Inner System.

I think you understand that this discussion is becoming specious.

Alkahest wrote:

I very much doubt that bodies, spacecrafts and so on and so forth are not in short supply in the Inner System. If bodies weren't in short supply, infugees wouldn't have to work so long to get access to decent ones.

Please read the numbers of population distribution in the system. It is clear that larger and older habitats like Luna or Mars have bigger facilities, biggest shipyard and higher resources immediately available. Therefore your doubts have been already answered by the authors. 1) majority of infugees fled in the Inner System 2) instead of giving a free morph the inner system polities decided to exploit the infugee labour force for indentured servitude 3) inner system powers invested more in synthomorph production 4) rest of infugees remain in cold storage or locked in infomorph status

Alkahest wrote:

Well, the "problems with anarchy" can be summed up as "There are still some dicks around"...

Noted and understood, again for you it would be better to have more failings because everybody fails, therefore even anarchists should..... However, I suspect that for some it is not acceptable that only the practice of this new form of mutualism has some problems: the theory, in your and many other opinion here MUST fail. Unfortunately for all of you, it seems that the laughable idea of a working new different society is exactly what EP authors (and of many SF writers) have in mind.

Alkahest wrote:

Clichés are boring, no matter what "direction" they go in.

Alka, yes, they can be boring, but many times clichès tell the truth!

Alkahest wrote:

But if I were to point out a problem I see as realistic in an anarchist hab, it would be a certain degree of groupthink and social conservatism. In a liberal democratic/capitalist society, it's relatively easy to live a good life even if the majority of the population hates you guts.

Tell it to non-western communities residing in Europe! Ask them how they live in the suburbia of liberal democratic/capitalist societies. Racism is rampant and brutal in most major cities of the Old Continent. Racism is useful for some political forces even in liberal western society because it is a tool to get easy votes, a tool to ask more authoritarian laws, a way to address impoverished lower &middle-class anger against the weakest part of the society. Furtherly, capitalist society doe not equal automatically to complete liberalism or democracy, you know better than me. All examples that we have today are of Representative Democracies. However even if Representative Democracies vary a lot in transparency and openness, they are normally subject to powerful economic Lobbies in the long term. Lobbies don't answer to the citizens but to their own stakeholders only. Just one example, last year Greek citizens have been prevented to express their view about taxes and cuts that they were supposed to bear. A simple, democratic tool such as the Referendum has been discarded only because FMI, EB and EU decided..... i.e. the banks decided, not the citizens.

Alkahest wrote:

That's because in a capitalist society, all it takes is one person being willing to pay you (or not even that, in the case of a capitalist economy with a solid social security system) for you to have enough money to get by and live a comfortable life.

Mmmmm that's not the truth. In order to be accepted in a capitalist society you need to have money. It is not so important how did you get them but the quantity of money you have at disposal make the difference. Solid social security system is based on the fact that you (or the State) are capable to pay it. Again, without the money there is no social security. Again, ask the Greeks (or the Spanish)what is happening in their country. Rules of social contribution changed not because the people or their government decided but because international banks did. We are still in the area of TurboCapitalism bust sooner or later Hypercapitalism will rise.....

Alkahest wrote:

In an anarchist hab, everyone who dislikes you can in essence take away "money" from you.

In Hypercapitalist habs this is more structured, I agree with you. You have only to take care of: price of the services that change at whim, hidden clauses, memetic advertising and trivial con men.....

Alkahest wrote:

While I don't doubt that this will have positive effects on social cohesion and altruistic behavior (what I imagine this kind of anarchism excelling at), I think it will be hard to introduce new ideas without being punished for it.

Not harder than in any other hab, consider you are the best screenplayer on Mars..... you are nobody until you find a sponsor that is interested in your piece of art. The same happen in the companies or in the glitterati circles. Without the proper supporter you will not go anywhere. In autonomist habs the procedure would be slightly different but the process will remain more or less the same. You would need to have hi-rep or convince an hi-rep owner of the goodnes of your own idea....

Alkahest wrote:

I can even imagine a kind of "brain drain" of freethinkers leaving for scum barges and similar more individualistic places.

Not convinced of this because the assumption above has some failings. I anyway agree that the most individualistic will leave for scum, brinker, hulder or whatever isolate communities.

Alkahest wrote:

I don't think anarchist societies will be utopias or dystopias but rather "weirdtopias": Better or worse depending on your values and inclinations, and definitely weird compared to what we consider "normal".

Infact, authors on Rimward openly said that there are many people unable to fit in. Weird is not for everyone.

Alkahest wrote:

Personally, I'm a bit socially awkward, something of a loner and instinctively anti-authoritarian, so I don't think I would fit in all that well in an anarchist hab.

This explains a lot of things.... ;)

Alkahest wrote:

Isn't that the definition of anarchy?

Don't see how. Anyway, anarchism of EP is dramaticallly different from any historical precedents due to the combination of reputational accountability and nanofabrication.....

Alkahest wrote:

There is no more reason for the government of the PC to mercilessly exploit its population and piss on their rights than there is for the governments on our world to do the same.

First, The reason is economical. Secondly, no laws will be ever approved against their interest. Have you ever played Cyberpunk? C'mon you have all those fabulous Megacorps and no State saying what they can or not do! In our world we can not charge a bank because its manager dealt with drug traffickers. The bank is too important to be charged like other companies or people. In our world, pharmaceuticals are manufactured and commercialized even if the cause big problems to citizens. If something arise a scapegoat-manager is found guilty but the company is not liable. In our world financial analysts grade the quality of the same financial products that their companies will sell.... it doesn't care if those product caused the worst crises since '29. In our world, CEO decide to undercuts the gasoline re-fillings of the airplanes in their airlines without paying attention to any security issues. All this is happening NOW with the laws and rules approved by external /third-party authorities. What will happen if those authorities depend from the same executives and protect the same interests? I can't believe that you can consider this option. Yes, we can also imagine a future when enlightened Companies will pay the maximum possible wage and benefits to their employees, will give their consumers cheap, error-free eternal products and will harmoniously agree with competitors on equally sharing the market....... but this is Fantasy, not Science Fiction.

Alkahest wrote:

CEOs and politicians are driven by roughly the same desires and values, you don't suddenly become more evil just because you work in the private sector.

True. However, I am not saying they are naturally evil I am simply saying that if they have to choose between their company profits or the well-being of their employees and consumer they will choose the first.

Alkahest wrote:

Even de facto dictatorships like Russia and China know that there's no necessary conflict between profit and providing for its population, and the natural progression as society becomes more prosperous seems to be to allow citizens to have a greater say in how their government is run.

You probably have not been in China or Russia lately, haven't you? Have you been in any factory in Guandong, or in the building sites of Shanghai or Beijing... ?? don't believe always in what the TV says.

Alkahest wrote:

There are some examples where de facto dictatorships are combined with high prosperity, like Singapore, but in general prosperity brings liberty as well as altruism.

Hope you are kidding..... altruism in Singapore? Liberty? I suspect you don't know exactly what you are talking about.

Alkahest wrote:

The PC seems to be a very prosperous society indeed, and I really don't see why it should be this bizarre caricature of neoliberalism that it is.

PC is what Corps could become without control. Not so different from many other RPG settings like Cyberpunk, Cyberspace, Shadowrun, AEON Trinity, Corporations and many others. However Capitalism has other faces in EP: Extropia and Venusian Sovereign for example.... interesting and different faces of the same social-economic system probably they are the best scions of old capitalist democracies, why you can't consider that?

Alkahest wrote:

Do we have a clear number on how many infugees were actually beamed to which parts of the system?

Clear not but we can calculate the poplulation as some people did it before.

Alkahest wrote:

If the anarchists got far, far fewer infugees, you'd think that it would be relevant to bring up next to the claim that the anarchists embraced everyone and gave everyone who showed up bodies. That's sort of relevant information.

Are you sure it is so relevant? The accurate number? It is important that they are far, far fewer or only fewer? Are we accountants or gamers? The concept is that they need immigrants, even infugees to populate the outer part of our galaxy and they approached the problem like any Tourist Board would: advertising and propaganding.

Alkahest wrote:

The PC has also been trying to win hearts and minds.

I am not sure that is as important as for Rimward polities. They managed the first waves and probably they don't need more people as long as they need more scarce rescources which are in the Belt or on the far Gas Giants.

Alkahest wrote:

You'd think that the PC would also be able to use the skills of all "sapient" (I personally think that term's meaningless, but that's an entirely different discussion) beings.

Don't know. Probably yes but it is irrelevant. They simply decided to manage the issue of uplift as property instead of considering them intelligent beings. Therefore they are able to use their skills because they own them. The point is that same Hypercorps who “engineered” the uplifts are making the laws. Will you grant your product the right to vote? Mmmmm don't think so

Alkahest wrote:

. And as I have already said, there are good economic reasons for why slavery is no longer legal. It's not all that profitable outside a few unskilled professions.

First we have to divide between indentured servitude which is a temporary slavery to long term slavery to which only AGI or uplift are subject. The indentured service is extremely economic way to have high profile skills available at only a portion of their market value. Further the clear possibility in the mid term to be free is a way to decrease the stress of the service. I personally agree with authors that in this way slavery can be a viable option. Regarding long term slavery even if on a general term I can agree with you I already discussed the reasons why for Hypercorps is more convenient to keep their property stripped of any rights. It is easier to control them, less expensive and give the average citizens a subclass to compare with. Indispensable for any regime to survive in the long term. Quoting George Orwell: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.”

Alkahest wrote:

Again, I think it's been fun to discuss this subject with you, and I hope that you haven't taken offense in some way. I personally enjoy slightly spirited debates, but tastes vary from person to person.

it's a fun for me too, I am not offended, don't worry! ciao

Ilmarinen wrote:

amv451 wrote:

Noted and understood, again for you it would be better to have more failings because everybody fails, therefore even anarchists should..... However, I suspect that for some it is not acceptable that only the practice of this new form of mutualism has some problems: the theory, in your and many other opinion here MUST fail. Unfortunately for all of you, it seems that the laughable idea of a working new different society is exactly what EP authors (and of many SF writers) have in mind.

When I read the Rimward descriptions of the anarchist habs I'm reminded of reading Soviet children's books. They always seemed to have in them a country where everyone got along and helped another, where people were good and hardworking, where people's rights were universally respected. They also seemed to have a country full of equally good innocent people being oppressed by a number of stereotypical rich: fat, greedy and shortsighted, willing to do anything for their own gratification and unconcerned with other people. I'm getting way too many flashbacks here, that's all I'm saying. I'd say a good exercise with regards to PC is to stop imagining the people in charge as Generic Political Opponent #2 and read some biographies of real-life CEOs or at least some summaries thereof and incorporate those into hypercors' leaders.

I find them to be pretty lulzy myself. Man, I would *SO* just walk off with those autonomist's cornucopia machines. Again and again. My crime wave there would be epic.

Gantolandon wrote:

There are plenty of problems with anarchist habitats from the purely utilitarian point of view. They are too decentralized and oriented inwardly to expand fast and claim resources, and their military is a joke. The only time PC went after them, they had to be bailed out by both Titanians and Jovians

Wait what? The Jovians?

Gantolandon wrote:

Granted, this kind of flaws are not the ones that most people here would like to see - they are more interested in something that would counterbalance PC's atrocities and exploitation. It makes me puzzled, because I don't understand why would every side need to be portrayed on equal moral ground.

Well, one of the reason is that there aren't single 'sides' here. The PC is made up of dozens if not hundreds of distinct corporations which would logically have to be run according to drastically different philosophies. Likewise, there are potentially [i]hundreds[/i] of anarchist habitats, each one probably inhabited by a completely different small group of individuals. And yet apparently the anarchist habs manage to be uniformly freer, always have a higher standard of living, never experience any of the problems people who aren't anarchists would expect from anarchism, etc., etc. Judging by the description of the events that led to the Fall and the subsequent developments it seems like the book is trying to sell us on the idea that profit-driven companies are inherently evil and not having a state is inherently good. Worse, it does this to almost absurd levels.

Gantolandon wrote:

Well, not every side - no one seems to care about Ultimates being the space nazis or Titan being portrayed almost as positively as the Locus.

I'm not a fan of the latter - Titan is clearly made out to be like our current system except with some weird modifications the writers are fans of so [i]clearly[/i] it works much better - but it's at least kept within tolerable levels. There may not be a lot of [i]practical[/i] difference but there is a [i]world[/i] of difference in the tone used in the descriptions, even from supposedly omniscient narration.

Gantolandon wrote:

I'm not sure why it is a big problem that life in anarchist habitat is portrayed a bit more positively than in other AA states and organizations?

Again, I wouldn't mind 'a bit'. When it's portrayed to be better on every conceivable level with no real drawbacks? Well, see my post about Soviet-era children's books. As a rule, whenever you write a political or economic philosophy as working [i]exactly[/i] how the people who love it the most think it would, you need to go back and insert some stuff by the people who hate it the most. And if you think it's okay because a philosophy you like is winning, consider what the book might look like if the PC was written by Objectivists or the Jovians were written by Tom Clancy.

Libertad wrote:

As to the Jovians, I don't mind them being oppressive and authoritarian, but having them as the main Bioconservative faction sort of demonizes the whole ideology.

I think that's my problem, as well as the OP of this thread. Those who are satisfied with the Jovian ideology and motivations as published are perfectly within reason to maintain them as-is. However, I personally think there's value in de-coupling the bioconservative position with it being imposed upon its populace via oppression. It allows more varied viewpoints into the transhuman dialogue then what the authors appear to prefer. They're entitled to write their viewpoint, and play groups are free to modify to individual tastes. That's the beauty of the roleplaying hobby (kind of hard to modify the setting in a PC/video game or movie).

Ilmarinen wrote:

As has been mentioned before, anarchists are portrayed as being universally more intelligent, more respectful of others' rights, more individualistic while also forming tighter-knit communities, all while enjoying a relative abundance of resources.

I still think that last part is especially bullshit -- "relative" is a key word here, considering the long lines for public fab access, especially on scum swarms -- but I guess it's a moot point by now. I've never seen anything to convince me anything you've said is true (especially given the self-contradictory statement you just gave), but if that's how you want to see it, knock yourself out.

Well it's not even that, I just like to think of myself (erroneously or otherwise) as someone that readily sees both sides of most arguments. I do get the general gist of what's being said here, but it just seems like bias in the opposite direction more than any fault of the writers of the setting. I'm certainly not going to deny there's a certain slant in the setting as-is, but compared to other things I've read (pretty much anything [i]CthulhuTech[/i] comes to mind) it doesn't seem nearly as overt or heavy-handed. Anarchism is anything but perfect (really, name me one system of rule that is), and I'm not inclined to believe that EP as a setting makes it out to be otherwise. But that's me, naturally. Mileage, variation, yadda yadda yadda.

Gantolandon wrote:

Please elaborate then, what kind of problems would you expect from anarchism in Eclipse Phase and consider satisfactory.

All right, off the top of my head: Direct democracy has proven to have questionable outcomes because people end up voting for things they like without considering the restricted resources of a budget. Likewise, not having people whose full-time job is to review the myriad factors involved in every aspect of society is a questionable approach to government. You can't have a society of people dedicated to self-sufficiency and individualism and combine it with an 'allowance' of goods and energy. Where is this allowance coming from? Why did anarchists decide to give this source power over their economic decisions? The 'new economy' needs to pick whether it's trying to be individualist or collectivist. The rep economy relies on the idea that someone with access to the Mesh and a fabber will somehow know their neighbor's [i]name[/i], much less monitor their activities closely enough to make an accurate assessment of their usefulness. The 'community-based conflict resolution' needs to be way less seamless than it's implied to be. Finally, many of the most anti-authoritarian people I come across are in no way the paragons of tolerance and open-mindedness anarchists are described as. There is no reason for the same prejudices that show up in the inner systems - anti-synth sentiment, anti-AGI sentiment, anti-uplift sentiment, etc. not to be present in the same percentage in the outer system habs. It may be a matter of private opinion rather than direct policy, but it should nevertheless be there.

Gantolandon wrote:

This is not what I felt when reading the description of the Fall. Moreover, I got the idea that dissidents of that era are also responsible for what happened.

Really. Because when I read it the whole thing came out as 'wondrous new technologies were invnted but evil corporations and lobbyists wanted to put them down so badly they took over the government, turned everything fascist, and ruined everything.'

Gantolandon wrote:

I would agree with you that anarchist description read like a Soviet children book, if the laws of universe bent themselves to accommodate the utopia. But despite the sympathetic tone, I managed to find several glaring flaws in anarchist societies of Eclipse Phase, which were already pointed out in this thread.

I guess the tone does matter to me. And as far as I could see the flaws you found basically came down to anarchists not being populous enough. Which, again, brings up the problem that the solution to any proposed problems with anarchism seems to be 'more anarchism.'

Gantolandon wrote:

No. I don't get the idea that any writer has a responsibility to ensure their point of view is fair and balanced, no matter if they are writing a novel or a roleplaying game. I don't even think something like that is even possible. The only thing I expect is not bending the laws of their own universe to give their favorite hero or faction an edge. This didn't happen in EP.

Doesn't it? Seems to me like anarchists have had consistently good luck with their projects and their lives in general. Everything from the economy to the way societies operate seems to have been subtly warped to give anarchists an edge.

Gantolandon wrote:

Can't speak about Tom Clancy, but if PC was written by Ayn Rand, it would have dominated the entire galaxy without even breaking a sweat, as its enemies would be not only morally bankrupt, but also stupid and incompetent. In "Atlas Shrugged", the main hero solves all the problems with one overly long speech, which apparently convinces everyone to leave their societies and create a new one. Moreover, the world governments, the main villain in the book, are apparently not only powerless to prevent their plan from coming to fruition, but also unable to corrupt the signal, preventing the speech from being transmitted. The main problem with her books is generally not that they are ideological tracts - it's that they are horribly written and the plot is merely a pretext to shove her ideology into the reader's throat.

It was perhaps a somewhat extreme example. Let's say PC is written by an advocate of lassiez-faire capitalism. So that instead of being corrupt each of the hypercorps does perfectly honest business with its customers and competes using only legitimate business strategies. So that the indenture is stripped of 'hidden clauses', 'surprise fees' and 'planned obsolescence' and works exactly as described by the companies' agents. So that in the absence of government regulation corporations are able to operate efficiently to deliver prompt and affordable service to their customers, guided only by the profit motive. So that racism doesn't exist because racism is unprofitable. Does this sound fun?

Lilith wrote:

I swear you're not reading the same book I am.

"The nation states, [b]as always[/b], resorted to repression." "Residents of old economy societies tend to look at residents of transitional and new economy societies with envy, while residents of habitats that use both transitional and new economies look upon residents of old economy habitats with a mixture of horror and pity." "This problem is less serious in the reputation-based economies of the outer system, however, as it signicantly easier to build reputation through hard work and dedication, as opposed to the rigidly-controlled monetary economies of the inner system and the Jovian Republic, where class stratication is institutionalized and upward mobility is largely a myth." "In some spots, mostly in the [b]more anarchistic[/b] outer system, attitudes towards AGIs are more relaxed and AGIs may even be openly welcomed." "It was impossible in creating this orientation document for Firewall agents operating on Mars to find Martians who were able to be as objective as professionalism dictates in describing their homeworld." "Mars is a place of social upheaval and deepseated unrest, the locus of a long, cold war being fought between transhumanity’s [b]past[/b] and its [b]future[/b]." "Now the TTO is just a rubber stamp for whatever [b]crazy plan[/b] the PC’s cooked up that month to make the city folk think they’ll get to come out of their domes some time during the lifespan of their current morph." "Though we paint a rosy picture of life in anarchist colonies, we’d be remiss if we said it was perfect.We have our share of problems and difficulties, though most of these are at least acknowledged and addressed rather than ignored or institutionalized." "Thankfully, the problem is usually [b]short-lived and self-correcting[/b]" --- There. Are we reading the same book now?

Lilith wrote:

No, because my book isn't snippets of passages that only support your narrow viewpoint.

Really. I take it your book also didn't decide that Mars should be described by someone who hates the PC while the Autonomist alliance should be described by someone who loves anarchism? Does your book's description of pre-Fall society manage to get through half a page without mentioning how the economic system was horrible for everyone except a tiny minority or how the nation states' response to every single thing was to crank up the oppression? Does your book have a single functioning democracy or republic whose description isn't filled with buzzwords of 'horizontal power' and 'community involvement'? Does it present a [i]single[/i] major failure of anarchists' consensus-based decision-making?

Hello, just registered and signed in, making this my first post in these forums. In my honest opinion, while the books do tend to lean towards the red and black flag, that in of itself, is not a bad thing. As an individual can often learn just as much if not more from the things that idealogies (sp?) try to sweep under the rug. If one considers the simple fact that none of the example anarchist factions have provisions to deal with the tyranny of the majority, it tells a considerable amount about them. For one, since the only approval or disproval is measured by the societal norm of the surrounding area, deviating(sp?) from that can be unpleasant or sometimes fatal. Secondly, the vast majority of anarchists are decentralized, which, while handy for when operating as fugitive cells or frontier habitats, can't really DO anything. Sure they can be a nuisuance, even advance tech a little by the people who do it as a hobby, but they really can't build or design anything past their individual needs or their habitats needs. I mean it is one thing to have "mutual defense pacts". But if they don't regularly maintain at least a small squad of ships they can't come to their aid of their fellows as the treaty requires. And that is even if they are willing to obey a treaty that doesn't appeal to their self-interest. Once you have a self-sufficent habitat, taking a rep hit for welching out of a deal, is nowhere near the level of danger of the very real threat of your habitat being simply rendered inihabitable. Especially since there is no method of verifying said treaties by a higher authority, because in anarchism no one stands above another, leaving open the option that the aggrieved party is merely lying.

This thread actually gave me some interesting ideas for a group of legitimate anarchist terrorists. They're the Blue Roses described in Rimward, except they're far from docile and are much more radical and direct in "liberating the oppressed masses in the inner system". These folks have hundreds of active agents and quite a number of supporters. They're a minority amongst the outer system autonomists, but they're a significant and vocal minority (and therefore the perfect model image of anarchists in Consortium propaganda). They believe in using whatever means necessary to achieve their goals of "liberation"---even if that means killing a few (hundred) biocons or hypercorp drones. What does it matter to them? The wage slaves can just resleeve, right? And the biocons are filthy bigots anyway, better them than us. Because of how much press they get, most other autonomist habitats as a whole has kept as far a distance from them as possible, but the more aggressive the Blue Roses get, the better an excuse the Consortium can get to finally declare an end to the outer system renegades and declare war. I like this idea, since I plan on completely throwing my players off. They as a whole are left-leaning in political ideology, so they might very well think that they're being manipulated by a inner system power, or the Junta perhaps. They're already in a game of intrigue and conspiracy, and I've pulled something similar before, so I'm counting on it. But there's no corporate overlords here. These guys are their own masters, as the team will soon find out. "No Gods, No Masters", remember? And that idea I tossed out earlier, of a few anarchists deciding to hurl a huge asteroid at a Jovian habitat? Yeah, things are gonna get interesting. Ignorance and bigotry goes both sides of the political spectrum.

DamionW wrote:

The shuttle hurtled towards Liberty’s spaceport on crippled thrusters as the bow shock of Jupiter’s vicious magnetotail doggedly pursued us. (Snipped)

(fractionally raises eyebrow) Fascinating

Ilmarinen wrote:

The sole 'capitalist' power in the game is a serf-owning, price-fixing, technology-suppressing evil cartel. Anything recognizable as non-caricature capitalism has apparently gone extinct, along with every functioning democracy not tinged by esoteric ideologies. Even the economic systems themselves are 'traditional', 'transitional' and 'new', implying that money-based systems will inevitably become reputation-based systems as soon as the technology inherent in the setting is introduced. Despite the fact that goods and services are still being exchanged and that there is no reason money can't continue serving its calling as a medium of exchange and a store of value, capitalism apparently can't perform is sole function.

I have to disagree with the above. The PC is the biggest capitalist power, but definitely not SOLE. There are mutalists and extropians in the Main Belt and Rimward, as well as the LLA and Morningstar Constellation, both of which are hypercapitalist but not PC. There are other shades of capitalist in the game, combining them under one flag is too simple. Like combining brinkers, anarchists, scum, and the Titanians!

I love it, consumerdestroyer. +1