After reading everything on this page, all I can really say is:

America, [censored] yeah.

EDIT: Oh, and on-topic. I tend to agree with Security more than Resistance for a few reasons:

1. The Founders were there first, and they brought enough to for the initial population of 5,000 to live comfortably. The refugees should have known what they were getting into as soon as they arrived, and if they weren't okay with it they should looked elsewhere. The refugees are the founders' guests - as I highly doubt the refugees would have been able to reach the Ark without the founders' permission - and I know if I took a guest off of the street with nowhere else to go into my home, he wouldn't be in a position to start making demands of me whether he thought he was being treated fairly or not, especially if it would compromise my own well being to give into them. Sorry to seem cold, but I have to survive myself before I can show you compassion and help you do so.

2. It looks like the Resistance started the fighting, and I find it difficult to agree with the instigators unless the other side just looks dead wrong. Especially when it looks like the Security is only fighting because there's no other way to keep the peace.

3. What's the Resistance's endgame? And whose to say that once the founders are ousted that conditions won't just deteriorate quicker?

1) yes but the Founders let hem in so its their fault. the foundes new what they were getting into and kept lettign them come in.

2) They did

3) The resources wont deteriote because the Resistance is getting 1 while the security is getting 10 so if teh founders cut back andf give ome more resources to teh Resistance theirs a hapy 5

There's very little that is communist about China anymore. They have private ownership of the means of production now. That pretty much precludes them from being called communist. It's actually more capitalist than anything.

1. Seriously? It's the founders' fault for allowing refugees to have a place to stay? And you're saying they knew that by showing compassion and letting people in instead of leaving them to die, a revolt would occur? Hell, I'm sure if they DIDN'T let the refugees in, there would have been a revolt from within. Kind of a lose-lose situation there, don't you think?

2. And that's one of the reasons I don't agree with them - diplomacy is always the better option, especially when you're the guests.

3. I'm not talking about simply resources - I'm talking about system of government, condition of water purification systems and other such maintenance, etc. And about the resources - whose to say the founders have 10 to the Resistance's 1? In Dev Diary 1, Wedgwood says the Security APPEARS to be hoarding far more than they need, not that they are. For all we know, the founders are just getting by themselves. Remember, they brought enough resources to sustain 5,000, not 50,000, so even if there was some excess the founders could offer, I doubt it would be enough to satisfy the Resistance.

1) they new that they were letting in to many refugees. I understand hwo they wanted them to have a place to live but id rather die happy than live in turmoiol. explain the revolt from within thing. are you saying people would revolt to allow more people in?

2) agreed. but guests... questioning that title for the refugees. my definition is workers or slaves. they keep teh Ark floating. Literally. i htink it can move.

3) I can see your point on th matter. a lil more is still more.

4) as it seems: The Ark was built to house 5,000. the world flooded and refugees set out on ovyages to fid the Ark. Alot of them did, and teh founders let the mall in. They put them into Shipping containers and told them to work. the work on teh water pumps and keeping the Ark afloat. The Resistance started because they beieved that rthey were being treated unfairly because the Founders seem to e hoarding more than giving even though the refgees keep the Ark afloat. So tehy started to take up arms and Fight for their rights.

5) agreed if they just sat down and talked...

Again, I ask: why are the Founders so intent on not letting the Guests know what's going on beyond the edges of the Ark? And if the Founders aren't really contributing so much to the running of the Ark--the hard, dirty work that the Guests now do--why should they get more resources and water? It would be more fair for everyone to get equal shares (as the Resistance wants). Why don't the Founders contribute their obvious genius (after all, they built the Ark and all of its apparently awesome technology) to alleviating the problems of the Guests rather than relying on those problems to oppress them? And why aren't the Security forces asking these same questions, instead of merely tolerating the obviously unacceptable status quo?

Until those questions are answered, I must throw my support alongside the Resistance out of moral and ethical obligation.

1) it could be some scheme that they contactd the world but are going to let teh refuges die out first 2) They did have the Ark first though which my only real arguement on that 3) The Resistance also wants to let people onto land (f their is any) so everyon can live happily 4) Now The Founders are scientists who worked on the Ark not necessarily the people who BUILT it. that was the U.S. government. 5) Because they have been tricked. (maybe)

When I see the resistance scum I'll be like : http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrthom430/5474732496/

When I see the corrupt Security, I'll be like http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l1023aHNLD1qbqn37o1_500.jpg.

When you think you will crush the revolution, I'll be like http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PF50cfiUCAg/TV5bdPJxRLI/AAAAAAAAX8I/sgHSjhOPPwU/s1600/rebellion.jpg.

Game over, nubcake.

Typically, when you own something, you get to dictate the terms of its use. The refugees, or "guests" as you refer to them, were uninvited, and are being told that they will have to make themselves useful in order to receive any provision.

If the world ended tomorrow, and my house was the only one left standing, and people wanted in and to have access to my food and water, you bet your butt I would make it worth my while. I wouldn't be just giving my resources away for free, if at all. Of course, I wouldn't blame people for resorting to violence in order to get what they think is "fair," but the other side of that coin is that I'd be fully within my rights to defend my property as well, which is what the security is doing, essentially.

And the other side of that argument is that the Refugees work harder than the founders and get the least amount of resources. Also, Reistance just wants to leave, contact the outside. The founders won't let them. Resources are going, either pro-long it or get out and find more......

That's already been addressed. Like I said, when you own something, you get to dictate the terms of its use.



And that right there is the only step outside of ambiguity that exists in the conflict. You can't really use the "love it or leave it" argument if you're not allowing people to leave.

They are making themselves quite useful. They are, in fact working harder, in more dangerous living conditions, for less "pay" (which is actually the right to barely survive another day) than the people who designed the place (and they are living rather lavishly, in that shiny white tower compared to a rusty, grimy, shipping container).

I'm sure that the immigrants who come to your country looking for a job, a home, and a better life for themselves and their children appreciate your bigoted, arrogant, and selfish opinion. Have some compassion. I get that you can put yourself in the shoes of Security; any person can easily claim "I'm just defending my property". But do you dare to say "just because I was here first, I am of more value than you and therefore deserve to get better treatment and more resources?" A true utopia treats everyone equally and everyone contributes for the common good. The Resistance didn't unbalance that, the founders did when they decided to give themselves more water than the refugees. That forty-odd thousand refugees tolerated this kind of treatment from five thousand founders for twenty years is a miracle, considering America is furious about being in a recession for only three years.

And at no point in any argument you have made, you have not addressed why the founders didn't try to alleviate the problem. They have the brainpower, and I'm sure they could have figured out a way transformed all that junk in Container City into viable resources to help the refugees. They have a moral obligation to try to improve the lives of the less fortunate to at least their own standard of living.

WHY DIDN'T THEY?

Until you can give me an acceptable answer (hint: there isn't one), you can't justify anything the founders and their hired thugs (Security) are doing right now.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm interested in "Utopia" or that it even makes pragmatic sense.

How dare you call me a bigot. You know nothing about me, and I've said nothing that could draw such a conclusion. It seems you are the one who befits the label "childish" a little better.

"But do you dare to say "just because I was here first, I am of more value than you and therefore deserve to get better treatment and more resources?"

If it were my house, yes.

That being said, to answer your big, important, strongly worded question: War costs more resources than peace. If there was a way to avert such bloodshed and senseless loss, I'm sure there would have been some action on alleviating the circumstances.

There probably was, BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. And that's the point. The founders had TWENTY YEARS to make something happen and they DIDN'T. This whole Resistance/"brink of civil war" situation wasn't always happening, so your excuse that "war costs resources than peace" is bull because there was no war up till recently.

You don't know that. It's simply not been said, one way or the other. Technology and know-how doesn't automatically mean infinite food and energy for all. You're just speculating based on your sympathies and biases.

I'll take that apology for being called a "bigot," now.

It's funny, 'cause earlier in that post I said that any simple person could claim his right to property. These are extraordinary circumstance. And you still have no heart.

And if there were "improvements we don't know about", obviously they weren't nearly enough or we wouldn't have the Resistance demanding equal water shares and the like.

And you'll get no apology until you can learn some sympathy of your own.

I can't believe he called a bigot. It's over a game that's meant to not have one side as the "evil people" so it's more fun to debate. But to go that far, I agree with Bandaid. He should apologize. :nod:

They took a place that was made to support 5000 people, and had it support 50000 for 40 or 50 years. I would call that handling the situation quite well. Here, I'll give you enough rations for 5 people a day for as long as you like, but you have to support 50 people with it. The fact that they managed for any time at all is a testament to their attempt to help, let alone lasting a generation or two.

I've been playing Devil's Advocate to both sides of the conflict. If I seem like I'm more pro-security, it's because people typically tend to side with the Resistance on the forums. I understand the issue, and both sides have my sympathy. Thus far I've been able to try to make people think a little deeper without having called anyone a "commie" or a "capitalist pig." If people decide they just can't converse civilly, I'll just not continue with that person.

Really this. Everything was fine before the refugees and the resources on the Ark are limited. Frankly none of us have all the game and some of us need to simmer down now.

I love the term "Devil's Avocate". Anyway, what's your take from Resistance POV?

It's hard to say, because just like the Security's side, we don't really have all the facts yet.

However, it's not like I don't know what it's like to have your labor taken advantage of, and basically help make someone rich while you struggle on your own.

It's seems like the Resistance is being given just enough to survive. And quite frankly, when you've got the men and firepower, why would you let someone sit high on the hog while you're busting your butt and getting half of what they are for it?

However, if they're just getting to the point where they're starving, that's more an instinctual battle than anything. If John smith and I are deserted on an island, and I'm starving and he has a stock of fish, of course I'm going to try to feed myself instead of being ineffectual and dying.

True, very true.......also,having the game would help solve this issue (or make it worse....), that much is fact.

security forces, get a professional unit and do what needs to be done for a paycheck the ark is so pretty i must protect it :bowdown:

but, just like the 'what class/archetype will you play' post....the joy of the game is you can have characters of each faction, so can always murder civvies, then swap over and start some riots. :chaos: :nuke: anarchy baby! :nuke: :chaos: