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
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.

giving the colonies a vote in the high council is going to be necessary to keep them loyal long term. If they don't have a vote at all it becomes a major political fracture point. Today the core worlds are not going to exploit the non core worlds, but that might not be true in 400 years, and exploitation without legal recourse is as sure a recipe for rebellion as any. The trust gets a bit less nimble but a lot more stable long term, and in the long term stability is vitally important.
 
[X] Vote for Sigurd's proposal
[X] Vote against Surt's proposal
-[X] Suggest that additional time is required to negotiate and develop plans and regulations to bring in additional full voters into the High Council from colonial domains. Further suggest that, in the interim, members of the High Council should begin to draft plans for debate. At least one plan should be developed and put forward by the Low Council to be debated alongside all other proposals in time for the next High Council meeting, at which point it will be decided whether to move forward on the vote should a compromise be met or a plan be chosen. Special advisors should also be appointed from the colonial domains and Low Council to assist in the debate.
[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.

@Durin how would the other members of the trust respond to the compromise on the High Council voting issue I suggested here?
 
Last edited:
godofsmallthings said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What?

Look is this an American thing (it say's you're in Asia, but I dunno), the idea that the founding fathers reallllly wanted a democracy?

It's not they didn't want to be taxed without representation they chose a democracy because it was the only way to get the thirteen states to stop bitching at each other.

@Durin
1. What does Surt think on this compromise
[X] Propose a compromise on Surt's proposal, where for every Subsector sized space of the Trust there is a single honorary council member. They will have the same rights as outlined in the proposal of Marshal Sigurd.

Still say what you will this really has gotten the thread going :).
 
Last edited:
Stormgear said:
suggest that an interim single High Council vote be given to the Low Council
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I get what you're going for, but the low council already has it's own distinct functions and responsibilities separate from the High Council. Plus, it includes the Core Worlds which already have votes in the high council, and there's no reason to give them part of another vote intended for the Provinces. Might as well propose to give all the provinces one interim vote, but even that I'm against, as it would kinda commit of to let them have at least that vote, restricting our options down the line.

Just for order's sake:
[] Do NOT suggest that additional time is required to negotiate and develop plans and regulations to bring in additional full voters into the High Council from colonial domains, etc etc...
I get that it's just a suggestion for now, Al, but you're still giving it a vote, and for now I'm against it.
[] Do NOT propose a compromise on Surt's proposal, where for every Subsector sized space of the Trust there is a single honorary council member, etc...
(Edit: removed counter-votes, thanks Durin)

Is there a better, less cluttering way of voting against all these one-off proposals?
 
Last edited:
AlsoSprachOdin said:
I get what you're going for, but the low council already has it's own distinct functions and responsibilities separate from the High Council. Plus, it includes the Core Worlds which already have votes in the high council, and there's no reason to give them part of another vote intended for the Provinces. Might as well propose to give all the provinces one interim vote, but even that I'm against, as it would kinda commit of to let them have at least that vote, restricting our options down the line.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fair point. I'll drop that bit for now then.

Edited. I replaced the language with something that's a little more conservative. I want to go slow with this. It'll take some time for the colonies to develop anyway, so we have some time. This is a measure I think we really need to think about carefully before we make any sweeping decisions.

AlsoSprachOdin said:
Is there a better, less cluttering way of voting against all these one-off proposals?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

By just not voting for them? :D
 
Last edited:
Stormgear said:
By just not voting for them? :D
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Then there will only be votes for these proposals, and I don't know that there needs to be a minimum number of votes required for a proposal to go through. Which makes it pretty easy for overlooked proposals to get through if I understand this system correctly.
As it stands, Rotbart is about to vote for apple pie, for Emperor's sake...
 
Last edited:
AlsoSprachOdin said:
Then there will only be votes for these proposals, and I don't know that there needs to be a minimum number of votes required for a proposal to go through. Which makes it pretty easy for overlooked proposals to get through if I understand this system correctly.
As it stands, Rotbart is about to vote for apple pie, for Emperor's sake...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well I mean, apple pie is tasty, and I don't see you voting against it!
 
[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.
 
[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.
 
@Durin - to at least help deal with some of these arguments, could you please give Surt's rationale for the proposal?

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...

We are rather likely to expand again at some point in the future, and setting a policy now means we don't have to debate it again later. Our next likely expansion will be taking worlds from Valinor.

As far as allowing only one representative, it's not really enough. If anything, it would incentivize the colonies to be against expansion because it would lessen their individual influence over the High Council. While we don't want to expand too much, we should still expand further to some degree.

godofsmallthings said:
If anything, to increase the say of individual planets we should be increasing the powers of the Low Council, not bloating the High Council.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Doing that would be significantly worse than adding a handful of members to the High Council in the long run, because you'd just end up weakening the High Council and handing power to an even larger, more bloated body. If the High Council gets up to something like twenty members, that's still a reasonably small group of people that can discuss and vote on issues without it being cumbersome.

Piren'e Colass said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Piren'e Colass said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Exterminatus is not an acceptable response, unfortunately. Every single habitable world that is within a reasonable range to be colonized is an irreplaceable treasure. We should only Exterminatus such a world if we have no other choice. And frankly, I think that use of Exterminatus would likely just end up turning more of our people against us than less, because frequent use of it was part of what birthed the Abomination.

The Trust Navy and Guard should be able to handle anything aside from a truly mass secession, but doing so will still be costly and the survivors will likely have negative feelings towards the Trust for a few generations. As such it's a good idea to try to avoid major causes of sedition in the first place, where we reasonably can.
 
AlsoSprachOdin said:
I get what you're going for, but the low council already has it's own distinct functions and responsibilities separate from the High Council. Plus, it includes the Core Worlds which already have votes in the high council, and there's no reason to give them part of another vote intended for the Provinces. Might as well propose to give all the provinces one interim vote, but even that I'm against, as it would kinda commit of to let them have at least that vote, restricting our options down the line.

Just for order's sake:
[X] Do NOT suggest that additional time is required to negotiate and develop plans and regulations to bring in additional full voters into the High Council from colonial domains, etc etc...
I get that it's just a suggestion for now, Al, but you're still giving it a vote, and for now I'm against it.
[X] Do NOT propose a compromise on Surt's proposal, where for every Subsector sized space of the Trust there is a single honorary council member, etc...

Is there a better, less cluttering way of voting against all these one-off proposals?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I only pass proposals with at least half of all votes for them
 
Inserted tally
Adhoc vote count started by HanEmpire on Sep 14, 2017 at 6:39 PM, finished with 145 posts and 25 votes.
Click to expand...
 
[X] Vote for Sigurd's proposal
[X] Vote against Surt's proposal
-[X] Convince Svartalfheim to vote against this 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 organization 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.

Hope i'm not late.

Guys we are the ruling council for the reason that 9 worlds in the same sub-sector can get things done easier than 30 some people. Plus I hate the idea of introducing so many new Governors/people.

If the Low Council wants our attention then they can literally lobby the Governors OR the honorary members to bring it up. Moreover, I do not think we should expand any more than needed and just become a very tough nut to crack with lots of friends and allies in the area. I mean hell there MUST be more united Imperial Sub-Sectors right?

Plus I believe Lin himself disliked the idea of spreading the Truth to far like the Old Imperium and I think the best way to cut down on the bureaucracy is to simply not have such a mega sized league of united planets. An again I really think we've expanded quite well with maybe the idea of taking some of Sub-Sector Valinor (next door to us) but not going any farther than the sub-sector over. If a threat is on the borders we burn the fething demonic thing down with exterminatus need be.
 
Last edited:
[X] Vote for Sigurd's proposal
[X] Vote against Surt's proposal
-[X] Convince Svartalfheim to vote against this 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 organization 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.

Hope im not to late.
 
Enjou said:
Doing that would be significantly worse than adding a handful of members to the High Council in the long run, because you'd just end up weakening the High Council and handing power to an even larger, more bloated body. If the High Council gets up to something like twenty members, that's still a reasonably small group of people that can discuss and vote on issues without it being cumbersome.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We wouldn't be weakening the High Council because it already has the power to veto or overrule the Low Council if needed.

And High Council meets once in several decades. With the twenty members you are proposing, every other matter would keep getting postponed forever.
We'd end with a deadlocked High Council.

Just look at the amount of influence we had to spend in the past to get certain proposals passed. Now imagine how much more we would have to spend with twenty members. It's almost impossible !

Some of the proposal we managed to get passed would have been dead on arrival if we had that many High Council members.
 
Last edited:
As long as the trust doesn't get another 173 worlds we won't even go over 20 voting members in the high council which I think is fair for our now sector size (we are one right?) government. Like the colonies need to have some way to vote on major decisions since currently if the high council decides to endanger the colonies to protect the core worlds the colonies have no way of countering that decision besides rebelling. Whereas if they have a representative to vote on the issue they'll at least be able to argue their point and feel that rest of the high council actually thought this through beyond self interest.
 
Last edited:
Echo 101 said:
If the Low Council wants our attention then they can literally lobby the Governors OR the honorary members to bring it up. Moreover, I do not think we should expand any more than needed and just become a very tough nut to crack with lots of friends and allies in the area. I mean hell there MUST be more united Imperial Sub-Sectors right?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This isn't about attention, it's about having an actual say in policy. If the colonies don't have any actual voting power, even if its a small amount, then the amount of influence they could actually have on policy amounts to none at all short of using extreme measures like threatening secession. Even if they've got only a fraction of the voting power that the founding worlds do, having a few High Council seats would give them enough that they can't say they have none.

As far as expansion goes, we know for a fact that as a polity we couldn't really expand beyond the size of a sector and possibly govern anyways. It's unlikely we'll ever have more than around a hundred or so full member worlds in the Trust, and even then expansion would generally be fairly gradual - the rapid expansion we did just now was due to extenuating circumstances what with the Ork Gods awakening, and should be considered unusual.


NotteBoy97 said:
I think is fair for our now sector size (we are one right?) government.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Alex pears said:
Not quite.

Bout half --> 3/4s I'd say.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Maybe closer to 1/3 to 1/2, actually. IIRC there were either eight or twelve sub-sectors in the Valinor Sector, with a few worlds not being part of any sub-sectors.


godofsmallthings said:
We wouldn't be weakening the High Council because it already has the power to veto or overrule the Low Council if needed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If you keep the High Council's ability to veto or overrule the Low Council in all things, then you're not really increasing the Low Council's actual power, you're just delegating things to it and having the High Council interfere whenever they damn well feel like it. That's not the same thing as giving the colonies real power in setting policy, because the real power would still sit with the High Council.

And High Council meets once in several decades. With the twenty members you are proposing, every other matter would keep getting postponed forever.
We'd end with a deadlocked High Council.

Just look at the amount of influence we had to spend in the past to get certain proposals passed. Now imagine how much more we would have to spend with twenty members. It's almost impossible !

Some of the proposal we managed to get passed would have been dead on arrival if we had that many High Council members.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't really buy this. Most proposals have either had a very high degree of support, or a middling amount that sometimes required us to spend influence. I don't see that changing just because a small number of additional votes are added.

(also, the High Council actually meets every decade at minimum, Durin just does it every 50 years or when there's an important issue as a game mechanic because we'd never progress otherwise)
 
Last edited:
[X] Vote for Sigurd's proposal
[X] Vote against Surt's proposal
-[X] Convince Svartalfheim to vote against this 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 organization 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.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top