Future Tech Advice and Assistance Thread [O.O.C.]

[Western Pacific Territories]

How do some of you other FT nations approach the issue of prisoners of war? Granted we have no geneva conventions or any other real international law, so it'd be interesting to see other players' takes on such a thing.

Me (my FT puppet)? I generally just take any POWS and turn them into slaves. We like to put them on the outposts we have in hostile territory.

[Singaporean Transhumans]

How do some of you other FT nations approach the issue of prisoners of war? Granted we have no geneva conventions or any other real international law, so it'd be interesting to see other players' takes on such a thing.

Disclaimer: The following content is not to be taken for reference given the PTFS/Synkom's eccentricity of even being a 'FT' nation.

---

Prisoners of war are given a warm welcome in the PTFS given the nature of Synkomese wars...well, again our definition of 'Warm' is probably off the wall so take it with a FPS gamer's worth of salt. Normally, if the prisoners are from a nation the PTFS/Synkom simply goes to war with for 'MOAR PPL 2 BE AUGMENTED XDDD' and such reasons, they immediately go through an integration procedure in which they are augmented, enhanced, ameliorated, whatever, in the PTFS method - usually the product is a man-machine hybrid that surpasses both while retaining (largely) the person's original looks with some cases of albinism and crap. From now on they're free to call themselves 'ethnic Singaporeans', a misnomer. While the first few years in Synkom integration zones may be slightly requiring adaptation, they become used to it.

Now if some sort of ideological reason is attached to the war however...they won't be that lucky. In such wars POWs are treated the worst way possible, starting from mass executions usually motivated by a general doctrine of ethnic cleansing/'education'. If they survive that, they are usually deported to penal labor camps, used as slaves, or becoming test subjects for whatever new fancy technology they have up there, or even worse, becoming Ding-class personnel for the DHQ (Synkom SCP analogue). Survival of these is next to impossible, however if one manages to get out, Integration procedure is performed and they're free to call themselves ethnic Singaporeans! Of course in some rare cases the POWs are treated nicely, mainly because it's just war with some technophobic biosupremacist luddite pig-dogs, and they can just skip straight to Integration procedure.

Now that you think of it, this is quite generic for a FT nation so I believe a degree of referencing can still be applied...

[SquareDisc City]

The UPT generally hasn't taken POWs. In a space battle it's a whole lot simpler to just bust up the enemy ships and then who gives a fig about their crews, people without a spaceship aren't much threat. Let the enemy spend time and resources getting them to safety if they want. Or blow them to smithereens if the enemy's conduct in the war is seen as justifying that.

If a hostile ship actually surrenders, well then it's a pain in the backside. The ship's weapons need neutralising quickly, which can be the most difficult part of the operation, a lot of caution needs to be exercised with the risk of fake surrenders as a ruse of war. Then the ship can be escorted to a prison system and treated as a single unit and detained, without really sweating the details of the people actually on it.

As far as ground conflict goes, well we just haven't been involved in much to really formulate ideas.

That applies just to the military. The police are another matter, they are much more focussed on bringing wrongdoers to justice. But they also won't be involved in actual wars unless there's no other choice.

[Feazanthia]

How do some of you other FT nations approach the issue of prisoners of war? Granted we have no geneva conventions or any other real international law, so it'd be interesting to see other players' takes on such a thing.

Prisoners of war who happen to be human (or belonging to a race whose brain architecture is sufficiently understood) are sedated, taken to a secure facility, and undergo a procedure to implant a temporary cybernetic device into the base of the skull. Through this device, the entirety of the prisoner's memories can be accessed and downloaded into a resident Synthetic Intelligence (SI). The memories are sifted through, irrelevant memories are deleted from the SI's databanks, and relevant memories are combined with other data to paint a more complete picture of the enemy's capabilities and plans. Once complete, the prisoner has the implant removed (with remaining synthetic neural fibers breaking down and being reabsorbed into the subject's body within a week) and is placed into cryogenic suspension. The prisoner retains no memories of undergoing the procedure.

Upon an agreement of prisoner exchange, or otherwise at the cessation of hostilities, the prisoner will be revived from cryogenic hibernation and released into the custody of either his or her nation of origin, or a willing third party of his or her choice. Prisoners are sometimes offered the ability to either seek refugee status or to fully emigrate into the Kiith Federation.

[Excidium Planetis]

How do some of you other FT nations approach the issue of prisoners of war? Granted we have no geneva conventions or any other real international law, so it'd be interesting to see other players' takes on such a thing.

We in Excidium Planetis, like presumably our sometime enemies in Tinfect and Aeiouia (and likely dozens of other FT nations I am not aware of), follow all applicable international law regarding prisoners of war.

But you may find the vast majority of FT Prime nations (of which I am only marginally one, anyway) do not acknowledge the supreme source of international law on NS.

[Apophan]

How do some of you other FT nations approach the issue of prisoners of war? Granted we have no geneva conventions or any other real international law, so it'd be interesting to see other players' takes on such a thing.

Being a civilisation of Raiders, we don't follow any form of international law on the subject, and POWs can expect to live short lives as either slaves or living shields.

[Interstellar Planets]

There was an effort (I say 'effort', but if anybody remembers the 'Galactic Assembly' threads of that era, it was more of an argument followed by insanity) a few years ago to create an international standard for such things as the treatment of prisoners of war (as part of an overarching 'rules of war' theme). If memory serves, one of the problems they had was codifying what constitutes fair treatment for different species - someone raised the issue of whether allowing eight hours of uninterrupted sleep was sufficient for all species, for example.

Generally speaking, I'd assume most 'Western democracy/good-lawful'-type nations will operate a 'treat others how you would wish to be treated' policy (presumably placing them in the realms of the Geneva Convention, if only by accident), while the 'evil for the sake of it/evil-chaotic'-type nations will operate a 'let's come up with the most evil treatment possible because LOOK HOW EVIL I AM' policy (presumably placing them in the realms of North Korea), with everybody else sitting somewhere in between the two.

Having said that, another interesting point that came out of the aforementioned Galactic Assembly thread (though it has been raised many times before) was that adhering to 'rules of war' while engaged in conflict with somebody who does not adhere to such puts signatories of a treaty like that at a serious disadvantage. Given the proliferation of sociopaths in the galaxy, the possibility of that situation happening is somewhat high.

[Vocenae]

Any overarching governing body will never work in FT, largely because people don't want to give up control of their nation. The Galactic Assembly itself wasn't anything more than a conference, it had no IC problem.

[Excidium Planetis]

Any overarching governing body will never work in FT, largely because people don't want to give up control of their nation. The Galactic Assembly itself wasn't anything more than a conference, it had no IC problem.

But by adhering to FT Prime standards (3 systems to start, ships usually 3-4 kilometers or shorter, etc) aren't nations already giving up control of their nation from an OOC perspective? What is the problem with doing it IC too?

And anyways, what of the alliances, international organizations, and just plain rules (Such as those in the Liu Xiu Economic Zone) that FT nations adhere to despite giving up national sovereignty? Isn't a Galactic Assembly just an extension of that?

A Galactic Assembly doesn't even have half the problems an FT Map does.

[Feazanthia]

Any overarching governing body will never work in FT, largely because people don't want to give up control of their nation. The Galactic Assembly itself wasn't anything more than a conference, it had no IC problem.

But by adhering to FT Prime standards (3 systems to start, ships usually 3-4 kilometers or shorter, etc) aren't nations already giving up control of their nation from an OOC perspective? What is the problem with doing it IC too?

And anyways, what of the alliances, international organizations, and just plain rules (Such as those in the Liu Xiu Economic Zone) that FT nations adhere to despite giving up national sovereignty? Isn't a Galactic Assembly just an extension of that?

A Galactic Assembly doesn't even have half the problems an FT Map does.

You have a grave misconception about FT Prime. It's really "anything goes" in FT Prime. There are literally no rules, no oversight committee, no OOC restrictions.

What you mention (handful of systems, >2km warships) are generally accepted guidelines; they are recommended to new players as a way to quickly establish themselves as respectable within the community. It's generally seen as the quickest, easiest path to relative "success" in the FT community.

FT Prime, by its very nature, is the complete opposite of exclusive.

[Excidium Planetis]

But by adhering to FT Prime standards (3 systems to start, ships usually 3-4 kilometers or shorter, etc) aren't nations already giving up control of their nation from an OOC perspective? What is the problem with doing it IC too?

And anyways, what of the alliances, international organizations, and just plain rules (Such as those in the Liu Xiu Economic Zone) that FT nations adhere to despite giving up national sovereignty? Isn't a Galactic Assembly just an extension of that?

A Galactic Assembly doesn't even have half the problems an FT Map does.

You have a grave misconception about FT Prime. It's really "anything goes" in FT Prime. There are literally no rules, no oversight committee, no OOC restrictions.

What you mention (handful of systems, >2km warships) are generally accepted guidelines; they are recommended to new players as a way to quickly establish themselves as respectable within the community. It's generally seen as the quickest, easiest path to relative "success" in the FT community.

FT Prime, by its very nature, is the complete opposite of exclusive.

I didn't say anything about exclusivity, and I never called them rules... I called them standards, which they are.

At any rate, choosing to adhere to the guidelines is still giving up control over your nation... Just as choosing to adhere to World Assembly guidelines is giving up control over your nation. The only difference is one is OOC and the reason is to "succeed" in RPing, while the other is IC and the reason is for some sense of working for the greater good.

[Ferret Civilization]

But by adhering to FT Prime standards (3 systems to start, ships usually 3-4 kilometers or shorter, etc) aren't nations already giving up control of their nation from an OOC perspective? What is the problem with doing it IC too?

And anyways, what of the alliances, international organizations, and just plain rules (Such as those in the Liu Xiu Economic Zone) that FT nations adhere to despite giving up national sovereignty? Isn't a Galactic Assembly just an extension of that?

A Galactic Assembly doesn't even have half the problems an FT Map does.

You have a grave misconception about FT Prime. It's really "anything goes" in FT Prime. There are literally no rules, no oversight committee, no OOC restrictions.

What you mention (handful of systems, >2km warships) are generally accepted guidelines; they are recommended to new players as a way to quickly establish themselves as respectable within the community. It's generally seen as the quickest, easiest path to relative "success" in the FT community.

FT Prime, by its very nature, is the complete opposite of exclusive.

Well, that's what I've been trying to figure out. Though what was that Galactic Assembly and FT map thing?

[Feazanthia]

While I think this is mostly an issue of semantics, I still disagree with your statement that adhering to commonly accepted guidelines is "giving up" control of your nation in an OOC respect. At least, no more so than not covering yourself in peanut butter and running through Times Square in tighty whities while singing "Yankee Doodle Dandee" at the top of your lungs. Sure, there's nothing stopping you, but you're likely to find that locating individuals willing to associate with you will be far more difficult.

Well, that's what I've been trying to figure out. Though what was that Galactic Assembly and FT map thing?

The GA (in its original incarnation) and, to a greater extent, the original MWG map, are nowadays seen as an attempt by a handful of players to impose their rules of roleplay upon the community - a set of rules, it so happened, that made these players out to be among the strongest in existence. The sad thing is - it worked for a time.

There have been several attempts to revive both the Map and the GA in a more neutral setting since the downfall of these players, but none have really met with much success. ICly, there's too much bad blood against the idea of ceding sovereignty to others when much of the galaxy is already "eat or be eaten". OOCly, it's generally seen as way too much work to pull off.

[Ferret Civilization]

The GA (in its original incarnation) and, to a greater extent, the original MWG map, are nowadays seen as an attempt by a handful of players to impose their rules of roleplay upon the community - a set of rules, it so happened, that made these players out to be among the strongest in existence. The sad thing is - it worked for a time.

There have been several attempts to revive both the Map and the GA in a more neutral setting since the downfall of these players, but none have really met with much success. ICly, there's too much bad blood against the idea of ceding sovereignty to others when much of the galaxy is already "eat or be eaten". OOCly, it's generally seen as way too much work to pull off.

Oh wow, is that still available to see? Probably won't get the context around it but I'm always interesting in reading up on the past stuff that has happened.

[Feazanthia]

IIRC, this mostly happened back in the days of the Jolt forums. So few if any actual records exist.

[Ferret Civilization]

Oh... Well, are there any records of any FT stuff still around. I've read over all the guidelines and advice threads, but there (I also kind of suck at looking) seems to be no other things on FT, like any records or history, list of groups, roleplays, etc...

[Lubyak]

You have a grave misconception about FT Prime. It's really "anything goes" in FT Prime. There are literally no rules, no oversight committee, no OOC restrictions.

What you mention (handful of systems, >2km warships) are generally accepted guidelines; they are recommended to new players as a way to quickly establish themselves as respectable within the community. It's generally seen as the quickest, easiest path to relative "success" in the FT community.

FT Prime, by its very nature, is the complete opposite of exclusive.

I didn't say anything about exclusivity, and I never called them rules... I called them standards, which they are.

At any rate, choosing to adhere to the guidelines is still giving up control over your nation... Just as choosing to adhere to World Assembly guidelines is giving up control over your nation. The only difference is one is OOC and the reason is to "succeed" in RPing, while the other is IC and the reason is for some sense of working for the greater good.

You are, of course, free to RP as though you are bound by resolution of the WA. Of course, the basic principle of international law is the sovereignty of the state, and that the state can only be bound if it agrees to be bound. As such, any player is free to RP as though they are bound by international obligations, covenants, etc. However, many players do not recognise the World Assembly as an IC thing, and this is true in both MT and FT. If you want to do international law in FT, feel free. Make an Intergalactic Covenant on Sentient Rights that players can sign on to. Players can choose whether they will be bound by such obligations.

[Lubyak]

Oh... Well, are there any records of any FT stuff still around. I've read over all the guidelines and advice threads, but there (I also kind of suck at looking) seems to be no other things on FT, like any records or history, list of groups, roleplays, etc...

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Do you mean like agreed upon canonical history and what not? I know alot of FT players have extensive factbooks which can be for good reading if you're so inclined.

[Ferret Civilization]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Do you mean like agreed upon canonical history and what not? I know alot of FT players have extensive factbooks which can be for good reading if you're so inclined.

Yeah it could be something like that, though I suppose I was asking more along the lines of OOC history of stuff on IC FT stuff. Like how when someone reads through the past of this thread they can learn what other people thought of FT things compared to now. Is there anything like this out there. Or that IC history thing sounds nice, I know a lot of people have Factbook things, and that's also helpful in my continuing effort to figure things out. Any more threads or helpful Factbooks would also be nice to know about.

And is there anything out there that tried to keep track of all the groups and such out there, or FT RPs... Like kind of what is done with the Galactic news thing only keeping track of FT groups and such?

[Feazanthia]

Creating such a thing would be a Herculean task, as the game has been going on for longer than a RL decade, with at least two forum changes thrown in.

Best I can do do is link you to the previous version of the Argument Thread.

Of course there's always the State of the Galaxy, but that's more of an IC knowledgebase.

[Lubyak]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Do you mean like agreed upon canonical history and what not? I know alot of FT players have extensive factbooks which can be for good reading if you're so inclined.

Yeah it could be something like that, though I suppose I was asking more along the lines of OOC history of stuff on IC FT stuff. Like how when someone reads through the past of this thread they can learn what other people thought of FT things compared to now. Is there anything like this out there. Or that IC history thing sounds nice, I know a lot of people have Factbook things, and that's also helpful in my continuing effort to figure things out. Any more threads or helpful Factbooks would also be nice to know about.

And is there anything out there that tried to keep track of all the groups and such out there, or FT RPs... Like kind of what is done with the Galactic news thing only keeping track of FT groups and such?

So, unfortunately there's no OOC database of stuff. There's the Voluntary Star State Index which lists some players, and links to their factbooks. Nor is there an IC history, since everyone's canons are in flux. For OOC thread, you can see this thread, as well as the way old FT Argument Thread, but bear in mind many of things there are way out of date. There's also the State of the Galaxy thread which is a bit of a newspaper, along with The Compendium which has stand alone stories.

That kind of what you're looking for?

[Ferret Civilization]

Yeah, if that is all there is that is good enough for me, you all saved me a lot of searching... Guess it's good enough, I'll go back to digging through all the odd threads.

[SquareDisc City]

There's already a group of players who enjoy working out the nuances of imaginary international law. Some of them are even FTers. They're called the World Assembly Basically, I'm not sure what would be gained by duplicating and redolng the WA's work in an FT-only grouping.

[Excidium Planetis]

While I think this is mostly an issue of semantics, I still disagree with your statement that adhering to commonly accepted guidelines is "giving up" control of your nation in an OOC respect. At least, no more so than not covering yourself in peanut butter and running through Times Square in tighty whities while singing "Yankee Doodle Dandee" at the top of your lungs. Sure, there's nothing stopping you, but you're likely to find that locating individuals willing to associate with you will be far more difficult.

You are also more likely to find RP partners by being an MT nation. But surely you wouldn't suggest that?

And in my personal experience, I have met far more players who fall outside of the recommended guidelines than who stay inside them... Mostly in the case of empire size, where it seems a large number of FT players claim hundreds to thousands of star systems.

But that's not really the point I was trying to make. People are clearly willing to follow guidelines that limit what their nation can do. So the failure of the Galactic Assembly should not be blamed on national sovereignty.

You are, of course, free to RP as though you are bound by resolution of the WA. Of course, the basic principle of international law is the sovereignty of the state, and that the state can only be bound if it agrees to be bound. As such, any player is free to RP as though they are bound by international obligations, covenants, etc. However, many players do not recognise the World Assembly as an IC thing, and this is true in both MT and FT. If you want to do international law in FT, feel free. Make an Intergalactic Covenant on Sentient Rights that players can sign on to. Players can choose whether they will be bound by such obligations.

I already had a discussion similar to this on the Local Cluster's RMB several months ago, I'd rather not repeat it. This was not what I was discussing.

Players already submit themselves to the rules of alliances, economic organizations, etc.
So why would submitting to rules be the problem with the Galactic Assembly? If players already do it anyway, why would that be the cause?

Surely there is some other reason?

[Lubyak]

You are, of course, free to RP as though you are bound by resolution of the WA. Of course, the basic principle of international law is the sovereignty of the state, and that the state can only be bound if it agrees to be bound. As such, any player is free to RP as though they are bound by international obligations, covenants, etc. However, many players do not recognise the World Assembly as an IC thing, and this is true in both MT and FT. If you want to do international law in FT, feel free. Make an Intergalactic Covenant on Sentient Rights that players can sign on to. Players can choose whether they will be bound by such obligations.

I already had a discussion similar to this on the Local Cluster's RMB several months ago, I'd rather not repeat it. This was not what I was discussing.

Players already submit themselves to the rules of alliances, economic organizations, etc.
So why would submitting to rules be the problem with the Galactic Assembly? If players already do it anyway, why would that be the cause?

Surely there is some other reason?

Because they don't want to. Players want to form alliances, economic organisations, trading groups, etc. but no one wants to deal with the headache of some kind of Galactic Assembly.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here...you reject trying to have treaty based international law, which is all we'd really have in FT--I mean, we don't even has jus cogens norms about slavery or torture--but you want a Galactic Assembly? Why? What's different about writing a Covenant on Sapient Rights that makes it out of range of what you're discussing, but a Charter of a Galactic Assembly relevant?