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
One thing we should consider is basing High Council representation in part by the economic and military contribution to the Trust.
Doesn't help.
It doesn't matter what specific criteria or mechanisms are used to determine who has votes. What matters is keeping the number of decision makers low enough that they can actually do their job. More voters mean slower decision making (and more work for Durin).
 
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?

I think this would be adequate. I'd also like to propose that acquiring a vote in the High Council has less to do with how many colonies you might control and more about how many resources those collective colonies can bring to bear. I don't give a damn if you have twenty-five nominally independent colonies that contribute basically nothing and still want a vote on the High Council. But if you can get twenty-five full colonies to go through a process by which they can prove that, organized into a 25/50/whatever member sub-council, they can output enough economic and military clout to qualify as a major player, then I'd be fine with giving them a vote.

Just giving a vote for every 25 worlds is very short-sighted and easily exploitable. Any proposal that adds more voting voices to the High Council needs to have some serious justifications and stipulations to it. If a bloc of (Insert number) colonial worlds can:

1) Output useful production equal to at least 75% of the average among the Nine Worlds/Core Worlds and,

2) Where no single world can have a weighted production capability under a single standard deviation of the average of the worlds in this new economic bloc and,

3) Can prove they're self-sustaining and stable even if cut off from trade in the case of a warp storm or similar crisis and,

4) Have organized themselves into a structure wherein a single vote can properly represent the needs of all those worlds and,

5) Can meaningfully contribute to the Trust's defense forces and can adequately provide for their own self defense in case of attack,

And so on and so forth, then they should have the right to petition to gain a seat on the High Council, subject to a simple majority vote.

We need a better law than what Surt is proposing, is what I'm saying. I'm fine with giving a bloc of colonies who wish to make themselves independent from their parent worlds and can meaningfully provide a benefit to the Trust a vote in the High Council, but unless you meet the necessary criteria, I don't think it's proper to gain that kind of power.
 
Last edited:
I think it is short sighted to agree to Surt's proposal at its current form.

The colonies may be progressive for now but who is to say that they would vote the same in a few hundred years.
It is very likely that in a few centuries they might turn conservative and resistant to new things.

It would be a mistake to vote for expansion of the High Council in the hope that the power of conservatives will be reduced.

That line of thinking is troublesome. It'd lead to planets wasting precious resources on spamming colonies in the hope that they would vote in the favour of their sponsors.

The balance of power would shift to the colonies as we keep adding new members to the Trust.

We already have to pay dearly in influence to get the votes to swing in our favour. The more members we add the harder it becomes in the future to swing votes.

This step has the potential to tie down the High Council in a deadlock. We need the High Council to be able to take painful but necessary actions; actions that may very well be not in the interest of a particular sub sector or colony.

The more members we add, the more allowances we have to make, the more inflexible and rigid the High Council grows.

Also please don't bring twenty first century sensibilities into a world where Chaos is a memetic hazard and entire worlds need to be consigned to exterminatus semi regularly.
 
Last edited:
Uhh, the HIgh Council is the ruling body of the Trust.

From my understanding the High a council is basically a National Security Council for the Trust, though it does enact certain legislative actions mainly in regards to war, diplomacy and Trust wide planning against crises and threats it does not generally concern itself with the day to day administration of the Trust worlds themselves.
 
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.
I'm not even sure what you mean on this one?

We're not paying lip service to anyone, I just fail to see what there stands to be gained for staying silent.

Abstaining from the first just cause is weird and the second I'm also not sure of?

If we completely abstain nothing happens (maybe), but that's still just kicking the can up the road.

[X] Apple pie

On a different note


Compromise is still on the books so I'mma wait for @Durin to get back so we can start making some headway in this mess.

From my understanding the High a council is basically a National Security Council for the Trust, though it does enact certain legislative actions mainly in regards to war, diplomacy and Trust wide planning against crises and threats it does not generally concern itself with the day to day administration of the Trust worlds themselves.
Pretty much, the low council deals with the Trust as a whole and the planetary governors deal with their worlds.

However the high council also gets to deal with things like trade tarrifs ect.
 
Voting for it is shortsighted and foolish

Great counterargument, really addresses the meat of my argument. :rolleyes:

And you clearly forgot we are in 40k.

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

It's a relevant historical example of exactly the problem we're likely to face here, and is in fact something that happened in the 40k universe. And Governors in the Imperium had a massive amount of autonomy so long as they paid their tithes, but many tried for independence anyways because they didn't want to pay taxes to a council of High Lords that they didn't have any say in. The High Council sets the taxes. There's no reason to think our own colonies will never feel that way, so we should head off the problem before it becomes one. Secession in the Trust would actually be worse for us, because every world is a fortress with 80% of the population being trained soldier - any secession effort would have to have popular support to succeed, so it would be an absolute nightmare to retake any rebelling worlds.

We're never likely to have more than four or maybe five High Council members added through Surt's proposal due to limitations on polity size, so it's not like we would lose a massive amount of influence anyways. Currently only one seat would be added, and no more would likely be for some time. So I don't see the point of trying to horde as much power as possible at the likely cost of greater unity in the Trust.
 
but many tried for independence anyways because they didn't want to pay taxes to a council of High Lords that they didn't have any say in.
Not even that in some cases.

One didn't want to his home to be trashed, others went rogue because the Imperium was demanding soldiers for a war far away when a foe was baring down on them at home.

A lot of them also just thought they could get away with it too.

any secession effort would have to have popular support to succeed, so it would be an absolute nightmare to retake any rebelling worlds.
Wiggles hands.

It depends on how willing we are to deploy assets to crush it.

SEOs Execution forces ect. could probably bring many worlds down fairly quickly if properly supported and we don't care about collateral.

Consequences of it... nah bad idea.

For now @Enjou I do have a compromise, though it's far from perfect.
 
Last edited:
Also guys, examples of American colonies and stuff doesn't make sense here.

That example falls apart when you take into account that the Trust has oligarchies, monarchies and hereditary planetary governors.

There is no direct representation in the Trust. The average joe wouldn't care if his planet has a seat in the High Council when he can't even select his own governor.

What people want is a safety and quick elimination of threats. That can't happen if we let the High Council bloat up for no reason.



Great counterargument, really addresses the meat of my argument.

@Enjou how about the reasons given below ?

I think it is short sighted to agree to Surt's proposal at its current form.

The colonies may be progressive for now but who is to say that they would vote the same in a few hundred years.
It is very likely that in a few centuries they might turn conservative and resistant to new things.

It would be a mistake to vote for expansion of the High Council in the hope that the power of conservatives will be reduced.

That line of thinking is troublesome. It'd lead to planets wasting precious resources on spamming colonies in the hope that they would vote in the favour of their sponsors.

The balance of power would shift to the colonies as we keep adding new members to the Trust.

We already have to pay dearly in influence to get the votes to swing in our favour. The more members we add the harder it becomes in the future to swing votes.

This step has the potential to tie down the High Council in a deadlock. We need the High Council to be able to take painful but necessary actions; actions that may very well be not in the interest of a particular sub sector or colony.

The more members we add, the more allowances we have to make, the more inflexible and rigid the High Council grows.

Also please don't bring twenty first century sensibilities into a world where Chaos is a memetic hazard and entire worlds need to be consigned to exterminatus semi regularly.
 
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?
Latency is a delay between the request and response. Consider planet on Danaan sector requesting an urgent loan: it'll take a year of courier flight to strike a deal and a year more to deliver.


On the subject of high council and colonies I'd prefer them to form their own polities whenever possible instead of bloating ours.
 
Also guys, examples of American colonies and stuff doesn't make sense here.

That example falls apart when you take into account that the Trust has oligarchies, monarchies and hereditary planetary governors.

There is no direct representation in the Trust. The average joe wouldn't care if his planet has a seat in the High Council when he can't even select his own governor.

What people want is a safety and quick elimination of threats. That can't happen if we let the High Council bloat up for no reason.
Sigh.

No but the governor might because their the ones getting disenfranchised.

And the governor controls a planet's propaganda and food.

A popular revolt might be harder to do, but if the governor is for it could happen.

I doubt it would seeing as all govenor's are selected by the Trust at the moment and are set for at least 5-600 years of service on Average (barring choppa to the neck)

Latency is a delay between the request and response. Consider planet on Danaan sector requesting an urgent loan: it'll take a year of courier flight to strike a deal and a year more to deliver.
That's the travel time to the Dragon's nest.

We have neo astropaths who should be able to whip up a connection... eventually at least.
 
Last edited:
On the subject of high council and colonies I'd prefer them to form their own polities whenever possible instead of bloating ours.
Or we can keep that as the "worst case scenario" if they do manage to throw off core-world control. Why wouldn't you want a centralized Trust in a dangerous galaxy?
 
Last edited:
Sigh.

No but the governor might because their the ones getting disenfranchised.

And the governor controls a planet's propaganda and food.

A popular revolt might be harder to do, but if the governor is for it could happen.

I doubt it would seeing as all govenor's are selected by the Trust at the moment and are set for at least 5-600 years of service on Average (barring choppa to the neck)


That's the travel time to the Dragon's nest.

We have neo astropaths who should be able to whip up a connection... eventually at least.

That's hardly a sound logic.

By that logic even if we give one of the planets a seat someone else would remain unsatisfied and try to rebel.

Or worse by organising the planets into groups of twenty (an arbitrary move IMO) the entire group might try to rebel if their proposals don't get passed.

I don't buy the argument that planets would rebel just because they don't have a High Council seat. The Low Council makes all the decisions that affect a planet. The HC would never interfere unless there was a pressing need to do so, in which case we have bigger problems than rebellious thoughts of a planetary governor.

If anything, to increase the say of individual planets we should be increasing the powers of the Low Council, not bloating the High Council.
 
That's hardly a sound logic.

By that logic even if we give one of the planets a seat someone else would remain unsatisfied and try to rebel.

Or worse by organising the planets into groups of twenty (an arbitrary move IMO) the entire group might try to rebel if their proposals don't get passed.

I don't buy the argument that planets would rebel just because they don't have a High Council seat. The Low Council makes all the decisions that affect a planet. The HC would never interfere unless there was a pressing need to do so, in which case we have bigger problems than rebellious thoughts of a planetary governor.

If anything, to increase the say of individual planets we should be increasing the powers of the Low Council, not bloating the High Council.
There's no chance of ever getting rid of sedition, but adding someone who's in their area and who can represent their interests is better than giving them nothing, just in case.

The HC does interfere, rarely on the level the people can see, but often on the level that's important to the people that actually matter. Trade levies are important, level of tithes are important, the size of the Imperial guard is important and it impacts worlds.

And those are set by the high council.

At the end of the day I'd rather reduce the possibility as much as possible, so honorary compromise.

Also, it'll be more difficult for Durin, which is a grave concern.
Or is it?

Neither you nor I know.

For all you know having to make two different data sheets for two different banks is more work.

Especially since we have 3 subsectors + the core worlds bank.
 
Me thinks that's a touch excessive.
We can't let rebellion and independence from the trust be a valid thing. The only acceptable option for leaving the trust should be joining the blood dragons, and letting the trust mechanicus/inquisition purge the trust technology from them. Realistically we will exterminate or conquer any rebels, and having exterminatus as the final threat will keep the civilians in line and plausibly produce a pro trust rebellion in any world where the elites take against us. Hopefully we shall never use it.
 
Last edited:
We can't let rebellion and independence from the trust be a valid thing. The only acceptable option for leaving the trust should be joining the blood dragons, and letting the trust mechanicus/inquisition purge the trust technology from them. Realistically we exterminate or conquer any rebels, and having ex
Yeah, but we don't have that many worlds.

Exterminatus was used as a last resort in the Imperium for a good reason you know, it's not something to be used around willy nilly.

We also don't have that many shells.

And again excessive even for a rebellion, chaos maybe otherwise...
 
There's no chance of ever getting rid of sedition, but adding someone who's in their area and who can represent their interests is better than giving them nothing, just in case.

The HC does interfere, rarely on the level the people can see, but often on the level that's important to the people that actually matter. Trade levies are important, level of tithes are important, the size of the Imperial guard is important and it impacts worlds.

And those are set by the high council.

At the end of the day I'd rather reduce the possibility as much as possible, so honorary compromise.

Look, the High Council meets once in several decades. Even if it tried, it wouldn't be able to rule the planets. That's the job of the Low Council.

The Low Council is the standing legislative body.

The Low Council has extensive powers, Even powers to forgive tithes, if and when needed. The High Council would never interact with these rulings of the Low Council unless it was compelled to do so by a greater threat.

It'd be a mistake to add more members to High Council in the hopes that it would somehow better a certain planet or group's situation. The High Council doesn't deal with those things at all. In fact they would be even more frustrated there because it takes multiple decades to even propose a motion in the High Council.

I will repeat that we should be looking to increase the powers of the Low Council if our aim is to increase the say the individual planets have in governance.
 
[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.

Easily swayed lesser planets with a progressive bent? Yes please!
 
I agree that better representation is required, for examples even our new colonies, if combined into one planet, would be 3nd most populous planet and had larger economy than at least 3 of the Core Worlds, and they're rapidly growing.
Also guys, examples of American colonies and stuff doesn't make sense here.

That example falls apart when you take into account that the Trust has oligarchies, monarchies and hereditary planetary governors.

And Britain at the time of American Revolution was Monarchy as well. And New Imperial Truth places heavy emphasis on value of human freedom so at least some shift in thinking is expected, nobody has any problems with current ruling systems of Nine World due to combination of tradition and the fact that pretty much all of the leadeds are both extremely capable and popular. On new worlds with no long-established ruling institution or crazy superhuman leaders there may be much more lean towards if not democracy then at least more permissive leadership systems (Midgardian influence would probably result in some sort militaristic meritocracy).
 
Last edited:
And Britain at the time of American Revolution was Monarchy as well.


You are looking at this wrongly. Would the colonists have rebelled as strongly if the colonies were to be ruled by King George Washington ? I don't think so.

They cared because they were to be a democracy. The Imperial Trust isn't a democracy; or rather it can't afford to be a democracy, not in the face of so many pressing threats.
A colonists In the Imperial Trust wouldn't care much if his planet is in the High Council when he can't even select the Planetary Governor.
 
Also, I think we should put it into the Constitution that any rebellious world will either be retaken at easily affordable loss, or suffer Exterminatus.
I guess the stick is a valid tool as well. But that might be slightly too big a stick. Kinda Abominable.
Easily swayed lesser planets with a progressive bent? Yes please!
Not necessarily. Also, I get the impression that you've skimmed over several other considerations regarding this matter in this thread.
 
Back
Top