Remove ads

The Long Night Part One: Embers in the Dusk: A Planetary Governor Quest (43k) Complete Sequel Up

Investigate the Sea?

  • Yes

    Votes: 593 80.4%

  • No

    Votes: 145 19.6%
  • Total voters
    738
Reader mode
One thing we should consider is basing High Council representation in part by the economic and military contribution to the Trust.

I mean, this is about steering the strategic direction of the Trust. Yes, your concerns and opinions should matter even if your planet isn't a major mover or shaker, but we also need to acknowledge that they aren't nearly as important on the strategic scale as that of one of our economic or military powerhouses.

That said, I do support Surt's idea. Twenty five systems with any real degree of build up is a major strategic bloc—even if their direct economic and military size or contribution isn't at the same level as the core worlds, by preventing anyone else from claiming those areas they represent a major strategic resource.

We might want to suggest that we also consider addressing Surt's concerns as a part of Garp's proposal, such as by giving the intermediate level of government direct representation on the High Council.
 
Alex pears said:
Seriously he wouldn't propose a plan if he hadn't thought it through because unlike pretty much everyone else Surt is objectively the most intelligent man in the Room.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


It just so happens that the most intelligent man isn't that well versed with the Trust Constitution. :p

Maybe he is not that infallible after all.

This proposal of his would never float in its current form.


Here's the relevant article of the Trust Constitution -
Durin said:
1. The Imperial Trust acknowledges that it will very likely expand in time, either through colonization of nearby star systems or through the inclusion of already established human worlds. Changes to the governmental structure above may be necessary and will be considered by the High Council at that time. This will require a three quarter majority vote in a full meeting of the High Council.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


There are thirteen votes according to @Durin. Three quarters of it would be 9.75 or rather 10. So unless 10 members vote for this proposal, it won't pass.

Most probably Surt just wants to introduce this idea into everyone's mind as a prelude to the actual proposal at some time in the future.

Am I right @Durin ? It doesn't look like Surt's proposal will pass according to the constitutional rules.
 
[X] Vote for Sigurd's proposal
[X] Abstain on Surt's proposal
[X] Bring up the problem of the Imperial Bank, specifically Article VIII subsection 2, which stipulates that the Nine Worlds must have 70% of the shares of the Trust's bank and that no other organisation can have more than 3% of the remainder noting the potential economic and equality issues this could present. Ask that a vote be held on this within the next 50 years at a minimum similar to Garp.
​
 
Last edited:
[X] Vote for Sigurd's proposal
[X] Abstain on Surt's proposal
[X] Bring up the problem of the Imperial Bank, specifically Article VIII subsection 2, which stipulates that the Nine Worldsmust have 70% of the shares of the Trust's bank and that no other organisation can have more than 3% of the remainder noting the potential economic and equality issues this could present. Ask that a vote be held on this within the next 50 years at a minimum similar to Garp.
 
[X] Vote for Sigurd's proposal
[X] Vote for Surt's proposal
[X] Bring up the problem of the Imperial Bank, specifically Article VIII subsection 2, which stipulates that the Nine Worlds must have 70% of the shares of the Trust's bank and that no other organisation can have more than 3% of the remainder noting the potential economic and equality issues this could present. Ask that a vote be held on this within the next 50 years at a minimum similar to Garp.

Voting against Surt's proposal is shortsighted and foolish. So we'd lose some influence. So what? Our political rivals would too, and the colonies will likely be more progressive leaning than not given they are peopled by Midgardians.

As far as the colonies not being oppressed goes, that doesn't strictly matter. When the American colonies started making noise against Britain and eventually had their revolution, the primary issue was due to them being taxed without them having any representation in Parliament. It didn't matter if they were actually being oppressed that much, it just meant they perceived unfair treatment. Giving the colonies one vote for every 25 of them we end up with is a cheap price to pay now compared to the kind of trouble we could reasonably expect if we don't. Best to pay with a little power now rather than have to give up more when the colonies start demanding more later, like threatening to secede if we don't give every subsector a High Council seat rather than every 25 colonies.
 
[X] Vote for Sigurd's proposal
[X] Vote for Surt's proposal
[X] Bring up the problem of the Imperial Bank, specifically Article VIII subsection 2, which stipulates that the Nine Worlds must have 70% of the shares of the Trust's bank and that no other organisation can have more than 3% of the remainder noting the potential economic and equality issues this could present. Ask that a vote be held on this within the next 50 years at a minimum similar to Garp.
 
[X] Vote for Sigurd's proposal
[X] Vote for Surt's proposal
[X] Bring up the problem of the Imperial Bank, specifically Article VIII subsection 2, which stipulates that the Nine Worlds must have 70% of the shares of the Trust's bank and that no other organisation can have more than 3% of the remainder noting the potential economic and equality issues this could present. Ask that a vote be held on this within the next 50 years at a minimum similar to Garp.
 
I think that the bank issue should be solved by creating a new one rather than reorganizing the first. Unless it's easier for Durin to maintain only one of them?
 
vsh said:
I think that the bank issue should be solved by creating a new one rather than reorganizing the first. Unless it's easier for Durin to maintain only one of them?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think it's probably best somebody explains to me what the problem with the bank is.

All I know is that there is a problem, but I'll be buggered if I know what it is specifically.
 
[X] Vote for Sigurd's proposal
[X] Vote for Surt's proposal
[X] Bring up the problem of the Imperial Bank, specifically ArticleVIII subsection 2, which stipulates that the Nine Worlds must have70% of the shares of the Trust's bank and that no otherorganisation can have more than3% of the remainder noting the potential economic and equalityissues this could present. Ask that a vote be held on this within thenext 50 years at a minimum similarto Garp.
 
vsh said:
I think that the bank issue should be solved by creating a new one rather than reorganizing the first. Unless it's easier for Durin to maintain only one of them?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This. There's a lot of voting for bringing up this problem, so it's important for us to be able to explain the problem's existence.
HanEmpire said:
noting the potential economic and equality issues this could present.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Doesn't sound like a problem to me. Probably won't to a bunch of the governors, either.
 
Last edited:
Alex pears said:
I think it's probably best somebody explains to me what the problem with the bank is.

All I know is that there is a problem, but I'll be buggered if I know what it is specifically.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Let's say that we keep expanding and expanding and expanding. Eventually we have ten times as many worlds as we have core ones. If 70% of the bank must be controlled by the Core Worlds, that leaves 30% divided into 3% maximum increments. To make up for the problem, either the Core Worlds must outproduce and continue to outproduce and out-bank the colonies by an extreme margin and thus maintain shares by legitimate authority by dint of just being that much more powerful, or the colonies may start to find their lack of control over their economic conditions stifling, as that remaining 30% share would be split not only among individuals and corporations but potentially dozens or hundreds of worlds as well.

I'm not sure what kind of solution might exist for this kind of problem, though.
 
Stormgear said:
If 70% of the bank must be controlled by the Core Worlds
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, that really depends on what "controlled" means and how that control is maintained.
Ho boy, central bank economics, here we go.

Essentially it boils down to throwing the Province Worlds a bone in regards to influence in the Trust, right?
I think it's best to maintain Core World control of the Central Bank, as we do in the High Council.
 
Last edited:
[X] Vote for Sigurd's proposal
[X] Vote for Surt's proposal
[X] Bring up the problem of the Imperial Bank, specifically Article VIII subsection 2, which stipulates that the Nine Worlds must have 70% of the shares of the Trust's bank and that no other organisation can have more than 3% of the remainder noting the potential economic and equality issues this could present. Ask that a vote be held on this within the next 50 years at a minimum similar to Garp.
 
Stormgear said:
Let's say that we keep expanding and expanding and expanding. Eventually we have ten times as many worlds as we have core ones. If 70% of the bank must be controlled by the Core Worlds, that leaves 30% divided into 3% maximum increments. To make up for the problem, either the Core Worlds must outproduce and continue to outproduce and out-bank the colonies by an extreme margin and thus maintain shares by legitimate authority by dint of just being that much more powerful, or the colonies may start to find their lack of control over their economic conditions stifling, as that remaining 30% share would be split not only among individuals and corporations but potentially dozens or hundreds of worlds as well.

I'm not sure what kind of solution might exist for this kind of problem, though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No I get that, sorta.

AlsoSprachOdin said:
Essentially it boils down to throwing the Province Worlds a bone in regards to influence in the Trust, right?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In this case no, while considered one of the core worlds as currently set out Byzantium is excluded as it is not one of the nine worlds.
 
AlsoSprachOdin said:
Essentially it boils down to throwing the Province Worlds a bone in regards to influence in the Trust, right?
I think it's best to maintain Core World control of the Central Bank, as we do in the High Council.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Partly that and partly having some local-ish central bank: using one with headquarters half a sector away is unfeasible because of the latency.
 
vsh said:
latency.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm looking this up myself, but I'm not sure if I'm looking at the right "latency" and you want to make life easier for investment traders. Pretty sure that's already a "problem" (?) on the inter-planetary scale.
Can you please explain the issue you have in mind to the whole thread?
 
Last edited:
Ad it stands now I am actually leaning against accepting Surt's proposal. We aren't planning on expanding just yet and in any case we sort of want the council to be smaller so as to make it easier to push through reforms and react to crises.

As a compromise could we allow the Low council to put a single representative on the High Council?
 
Alex pears said:
I don't think there's much that can be done, Surt's vote goes through unless we vote against him and abstaining from a popular vote seems to be a waste of time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's never a wasted action if it makes a statement, yours it that we'll be anyone's lapdog if they pay lip service to the progressive cause.

Look if you want greater representation then just make it so there's a limited number of high council seats and that the planets can vote for a high council among the governors. Just know that Avernus will likely never have a say in interplanetary politics in either of these ever again. High council bloat was going to be a problem eventually but you guys are speeding it up, you never should have allowed this to come about.
 
Last edited:
Enjou said:
Voting against Surt's proposal is shortsighted and foolish
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Voting for it is shortsighted and foolish.
Enjou said:
When the American colonies started making noise against Britain and eventually had their revolution, the primary issue was due to them being taxed without them having any representation in Parliament
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And you clearly forgot we are in 40k.

Low Council gives colonies more power and authonomy than Planetary Governors in the Imperium.

Doesn't matter, needs 10 votes to pass.
 
Undead Martyr said:
Ad it stands now I am actually leaning against accepting Surt's proposal. We aren't planning on expanding just yet and in any case we sort of want the council to be smaller so as to make it easier to push through reforms and react to crises.

As a compromise could we allow the Low council to put a single representative on the High Council?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's exactly what occurringo_O; Surt's proposal is to have one added High Council seat for every twenty five worlds that don't have a seat and there are currently 27/28 to which that that applies to.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top