Remove ads

There is no emotion... (A Jedi Order Quest)

Reader mode
[X] Plan: Passion, Yet Serenity v3
[X] Plan: Glorious Jewel In Action
 
Last edited:
Looks like auto-tally only includes votes after the automatic post, sticking this in again so it's counted.

[X] Plan Sustainable Commitment
-[X] Destroy Hutt Affiliated Physical Infrastructure, such as warehouses, freighters, etc. (Requires investment of Combat)
-[X] Heavy (You will hit very hardened targets, such as mercenary barracks (AT LEAST 45 Combat))
-[X] 16 Jedi Guardians (80 Combat)
-[X] Strike Hutt Illicit Operations and Operators (Requires investment of Skill)
-[X] Heavy (Moguls, Kajidii, Overbosses (AT LEAST 45 Skill))
-[X] Mira, 1 Watchman, 15 Jedi Sentinels, 17 Padawans) (71 Skill)
-[X] Try and funnel support to the Rebels (Requires Investment of Diplomacy)
-[X] Medium (The Mid-Rim, far, though not far enough, from the Hutts, though considerably wealthier than the nearby (AT LEAST 30 Diplomacy))
-[X] Grandmaster Bao-Dur, 7 Consulars, 8 Padawans (48 Diplomacy)
 
Thinking I might let this run an extra long amount of time, as in like a week, though the good news is if I do the update would go up near immediately.
 
I refuse to vote for Plan Sustainable Commitment purely on the basis that I don't want to recalculate the patrol allocations again, goddamnit.

[X] Plan: A Wider Net
-[X] Destroy Hutt Affiliated Physical Infrastructure, such as warehouses, freighters, etc. - Medium (You will hit somewhat hardened targets, like freighters) - 3 Sentinels, 6 Guardians (36 Combat)
-[X] Try and funnel support to the Rebels - Medium (The Mid-Rim, far, though not far enough, from the Hutts, though considerably wealthier than the nearby) - 1 Sentinel, 4 Guardians, 2 Consulars, 3 Padawans (35 Diplomacy)
-[X] Physically Aid Rebel Forces - Medium (You will position Jedi in Rebel Bases) - Brianna, 2 Sentinels, 5 Guardians (36 Combat)
-[X] Offer Technical Support to Rebel Ships - Medium (You will help refit the Rebel Fleet with heavier weaponry) - Visas Marr, 9 Sentinels, 2 Padawans (35 Skill)
-[X] Facilitate Hutt Defections - Heavy (You will attempt to convince higher ranking Hutts, such as Vogga who has business interests in selling his fuel, to defect to the Rebels) - Bao-Dur, Atton Rand, 4 Sentinels, 5 Guardians, 1 Consular, 2 Padawans (51 Diplomacy)
-[X] Develop Force Abilities within Syncretic Cults - Heavy (You will establish a Praxeum proper on a Rebel held world) - Mical, 2 Sentinels, 7 Consulars, 2 Padawans (51 Wisdom)

[X] Plan: Passion, Yet Serenity v3
[X] Plan: Glorious Jewel In Action
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan: Passion, Yet Serenity v3
[X] Plan: A Wider Net

Glad Voik extended the vote since irl ate a lot of my time this week.

I say again, Jedi who sit aloof from the downtrodden cannot serve them. You can only back uprisings so far over visits and zoom conferences. If we are not with them, then we are not with them. Leave the tacticool cynical approach to non-Jedi - it's not what The Exile taught us.
 
The Englanderish said:
I say again, Jedi who sit aloof from the downtrodden cannot serve them. You can only back uprisings so far over visits and zoom conferences. If we are not with them, then we are not with them. Leave the tacticool cynical approach to non-Jedi - it's not what The Exile taught us.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This feels like an extremely uncharitable and disingenuous characterisation of your opposition, and I object to it on principle. Sitting aloof would be if we refused to get involved. The plan you aren't voting for, and thus which you're calling out, is a reasonable investment with a healthy margin of error based on what we can sustain as a still-rebuilding organisation. Consider that the ultra-heavy investment plans only barely scrape by over the minimums. To me, that signals that they're going to be much dicier and we'll fail more often. It's a great aid on paper, but in practice we'll likely drop the ball on a fair number of missions/opportunities/whatever and pick up a similar level of attrition. That's my fear, at least, and it's why I'm voting for what I am. Just because somebody is less enthusiastic than you, that doesn't make them aloof or only participating via 'zoom conferences'.

[X] Plan Sustainable Commitment
 
@Voikirium Would It be incorrect of me to abstractly consider the Jedi allocations towards the Hutt War to function similarly to the galactic patrol, i.e. just by being here-or-there the Force causes hidden problems to become visible just because a force sensitive is around to stir things up viq acausal means or receive localized visions of where things are in need?
 
Last edited:
Fezzes said:
This feels like an extremely uncharitable and disingenuous characterisation of your opposition, and I object to it on principle. Sitting aloof would be if we refused to get involved. The plan you aren't voting for, and thus which you're calling out, is a reasonable investment with a healthy margin of error based on what we can sustain as a still-rebuilding organisation. Consider that the ultra-heavy investment plans only barely scrape by over the minimums. To me, that signals that they're going to be much dicier and we'll fail more often. It's a great aid on paper, but in practice we'll likely drop the ball on a fair number of missions/opportunities/whatever and pick up a similar level of attrition. That's my fear, at least, and it's why I'm voting for what I am. Just because somebody is less enthusiastic than you, that doesn't make them aloof or only participating via 'zoom conferences'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's just not substantial commitment though, it's the bare minimum from an explicit distance from a proponent who objected to even having a local consistent presence that wasn't striking out from Republic territory on the grounds that Jedi might be at risk like personal safety has ever been a higher priority for Jedi than defending the innocent.
I would be down for a less heavy plan, if we actually had an alternative that wasn't fundamentally dragging its fingernails against the decision to get involved.

If it's go all in or do everything remote, then I pick all in because it doesn't treat the conflict like 3rd party chess pieces like the other option.

'Sustainable commitment' is great if we just want the Hutts out of the Republic and fuck everyone else, but it won't solve the problem - it'll just mean we don't have to look at it and can forget about it. The speech to get involved that actually won the last vote was very much not about that, and if nothing else is a concern to you, limpwristedly swatting flies from our impregnable safe zone without being there with the people we claim to help is not great optics off the back of our chosen speech.

If you want a better middle point, put a compromise forward please, but at the moment I just see an alternative to remove the fangs completely from what the last vote was about.
 
The Englanderish said:
It's just not substantial commitment though, it's the bare minimum from an explicit distance from a proponent who objected to even having a local consistent presence that wasn't striking out from Republic territory on the grounds that Jedi might be at risk like personal safety has ever been a higher priority for Jedi than defending the innocent.
I would be down for a less heavy plan, if we actually had an alternative that wasn't fundamentally dragging its fingernails against the decision to get involved.

If it's go all in or do everything remote, then I pick all in because it doesn't treat the conflict like 3rd party chess pieces like the other option.

'Sustainable commitment' is great if we just want the Hutts out of the Republic and fuck everyone else, but it won't solve the problem - it'll just mean we don't have to look at it and can forget about it. The speech to get involved that actually won the last vote was very much not about that, and if nothing else is a concern to you, limpwristedly swatting flies from our impregnable safe zone without being there with the people we claim to help is not great optics off the back of our chosen speech.

If you want a better middle point, put a compromise forward please, but at the moment I just see an alternative to remove the fangs completely from what the last vote was about.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Again, I think you're being very uncharitable. The bare minimum is a couple of light investments or something. We're not being remote by getting hands-on with the Hutts, we just aren't extending into their territory when we're still vulnerable. It's not just "personal safety", it's the fact that we're still a weak organisation and throwing ourselves heavily into the fray against the Hutts is a significant threat to our ability to project power in our current state.

If we take a significant setback in such a vulnerable state, we could lose a lot of the gains we've reclaimed, and thereby be less able to save others in the longer run. Plus what I was saying before about spreading ourselves thin being a recipe for courting failure. Being sustainable isn't purely good for throwing the Hutts out and ignoring the problem, that and the 'limpwristedly swatting flies' comment are distinctly unfair takes.

I'm not going to exhaustively respond to every point you make that I disagree with beyond the above, but here's a general statement on it: I think you're undervaluing the other plan because you aren't getting out of your own head, so something moderate looks toothlessly conservative. The fact that Sustainable Commitment is a nontrivial investment of manpower targeted at withering the Hutts' reach, and thus their ability to contest the Republic's measures against them along with their external revenue streams, isn't something you seem to be acknowledging. In my view, the same goes for a lot of the arguments being made, though I'll say that that's purely from my perspective and I'm aware that you almost certainly feel as though you are addressing them sufficiently.

I feel like if numbered more than about 150 people not counting Initiates, and about 100 not counting Padawans as well, there would be more support for what you're saying. Because you're absolutely right that ideally we'd strike deep into the Hutts' infrastructure, since that's going after them where it hurts most. I disagree that attacking their reaches into the Republic is treating symptoms, since we're still launching attacks on them, but the broad point is correct. That isn't the contest, however. The contest is around the fact that a lot of people see us as too vulnerable to directly go after the Hutts. Nothing you've said has directly addressed in a particularly convincing way to the people you're trying to persuade, and I think that's the root issue in this disagreement, though it doesn't just extend to you.

In effect, the two 'sides' have different estimates of our strength. Your 'side' sees our strength as great enough to challenge the Hutts on their turf, and thus doing so is the responsible and virtuous path that should be taken to head off Clone War-era Jedi ivory tower intellectualism and detachment from the people. The other 'side' thinks that we don't have the power to go on the Hutts' turf and fuck their shit up, and thus doing so is reckless and exposing ourself to too much risk for such a vulnerable organisation. I think that's where the disconnect lies. People are just talking past each other. There's not a clean solution to it, either. The only way to find out how we match up to the Hutts is, well, "fuck around and find out".


In the spirit of compromise, but also in the spirit of my dispassionate hatred of balancing numbers, I'm going to make a plan that incorporates a venture into Hutt territory by modifying Sustainable Commitment to flip over from sniping their illicit operations in Republic space to helping retrofit the Republic fleet. Given that the assumption is operations inside Hutt space are more impactful than the equivalent operations outside Hutt space, that will be more impactful. Further, it will directly involve coordination with the rebels, as you desire. Finally, it's the one that most directly focuses on building up the rebels' combat strength, which means that if/when we get options to rejigger our priorities, we can swap from attacking their moneymaking tendrils and modes of applying force on the Republic in response to its sanctions to directly supporting the rebels in battle by fighting side by side with them when the time is ripe to press battle. I will also retain my vote for Sustainable Commitment, however, as I feel this may be too late for another option to make a splash, and if it comes down to it I still prefer Sustainable Commitment to the alternatives.

In defence of diplomacy externally instead of internally, I don't think the time is ripe to fish for defections yet; I also don't think we have the ability to exert the pressure to make it viable, which is reflected in this plan. Furthermore, securing support for the rebels in Republic space is achieving a secondary goal of raising the Republic's enthusiasm for backing the rebels and fucking off the Hutts, which may enable more bold moves from both us and the Republic in due course.

[X] Plan Eyes Forward
-[X] Destroy Hutt Affiliated Physical Infrastructure, such as warehouses, freighters, etc. (Requires investment of Combat)
-[X] Heavy (You will hit very hardened targets, such as mercenary barracks (AT LEAST 45 Combat))
-[X] 16 Jedi Guardians (80 Combat)
-[X] Offer Technical Support to Rebel Ships (Requires investment of Skill)
-[X] Heavy (You will help redesign the Rebel Fleet from its Hutt Origin (AT LEAST 45 Skill))
-[X] Mira, 1 Watchman, 15 Jedi Sentinels, 17 Padawans) (71 Skill)
-[X] Try and funnel support to the Rebels (Requires Investment of Diplomacy)
-[X] Medium (The Mid-Rim, far, though not far enough, from the Hutts, though considerably wealthier than the nearby (AT LEAST 30 Diplomacy))
-[X] Grandmaster Bao-Dur, 7 Consulars, 8 Padawans (48 Diplomacy)

In all, it shapes out as a plan looking towards bulding long-term advantages against the Hutts, playing on the advantage of plucky rebels over heavy-hitters: avoidance, time, and support. The core ideas are:
1) Bolstering the Republic's will to fight, or at least throw further support behind the rebels.
2) Curtailing the Hutts' ability to do anything about 1.
3) Building the rebels' strength for the future, when we can shift towards more directly supporting them in conjunction with them being more able to stand up to the Hutts in battle.

[X] Plan Sustainable Commitment
 
Menthewarp said:
@Voikirium Would It be incorrect of me to abstractly consider the Jedi allocations towards the Hutt War to function similarly to the galactic patrol, i.e. just by being here-or-there the Force causes hidden problems to become visible just because a force sensitive is around to stir things up viq acausal means or receive localized visions of where things are in need?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, that and you have maps. The Hutt Cartels have strengths as an organization, but hiding their glittering palaces is not one of them.

(But yes, there will be stuff for them to do)
 
[X] Plan: Passion, Yet Serenity v3
-[X] Physically Aid Rebel Forces - Heavy (Councilor Brianna, 8 Guardians (47 Combat))
-[X] Offer Technical Support to Rebel Ships - Heavy (Councilor Atton Rand, 12 Sentinels, 3 Guardians (46 Skill))
-[X] Facilitate Hutt Defections - Heavy (Grandmaster Bao-Dur, 2 Consulars, 5 Guardians, 4 Sentinels (48 Diplomacy))
-[X] Develop Force Abilities within Syncretic Cults - Heavy (Councilor Mical, 3 Sentinels, 3 Guardians, 5 Consulars(49 Wisdom))

[X] Plan: A Wider Net
-[X] Destroy Hutt Affiliated Physical Infrastructure, such as warehouses, freighters, etc. - Medium (You will hit somewhat hardened targets, like freighters) - 3 Sentinels, 6 Guardians (36 Combat)
-[X] Try and funnel support to the Rebels - Medium (The Mid-Rim, far, though not far enough, from the Hutts, though considerably wealthier than the nearby) - 1 Sentinel, 4 Guardians, 2 Consulars, 3 Padawans (35 Diplomacy)
-[X] Physically Aid Rebel Forces - Medium (You will position Jedi in Rebel Bases) - Brianna, 2 Sentinels, 5 Guardians (36 Combat)
-[X] Offer Technical Support to Rebel Ships - Medium (You will help refit the Rebel Fleet with heavier weaponry) - Visas Marr, 9 Sentinels, 2 Padawans (35 Skill)
-[X] Facilitate Hutt Defections - Heavy (You will attempt to convince higher ranking Hutts, such as Vogga who has business interests in selling his fuel, to defect to the Rebels) - Bao-Dur, Atton Rand, 4 Sentinels, 5 Guardians, 1 Consular, 2 Padawans (51 Diplomacy)
-[X] Develop Force Abilities within Syncretic Cults - Heavy (You will establish a Praxeum proper on a Rebel held world) - Mical, 2 Sentinels, 7 Consulars, 2 Padawans (51 Wisdom)

Let's go with one of the plans that doesn't make the Jedi look like politicians, shall we?
 
Last edited:
Fezzes said:
Again, I think you're being very uncharitable. The bare minimum is a couple of light investments or something. We're not being remote by getting hands-on with the Hutts, we just aren't extending into their territory when we're still vulnerable. It's not just "personal safety", it's the fact that we're still a weak organisation and throwing ourselves heavily into the fray against the Hutts is a significant threat to our ability to project power in our current state.

If we take a significant setback in such a vulnerable state, we could lose a lot of the gains we've reclaimed, and thereby be less able to save others in the longer run. Plus what I was saying before about spreading ourselves thin being a recipe for courting failure. Being sustainable isn't purely good for throwing the Hutts out and ignoring the problem, that and the 'limpwristedly swatting flies' comment are distinctly unfair takes.

I'm not going to exhaustively respond to every point you make that I disagree with beyond the above, but here's a general statement on it: I think you're undervaluing the other plan because you aren't getting out of your own head, so something moderate looks toothlessly conservative. The fact that Sustainable Commitment is a nontrivial investment of manpower targeted at withering the Hutts' reach, and thus their ability to contest the Republic's measures against them along with their external revenue streams, isn't something you seem to be acknowledging. In my view, the same goes for a lot of the arguments being made, though I'll say that that's purely from my perspective and I'm aware that you almost certainly feel as though you are addressing them sufficiently.

I feel like if numbered more than about 150 people not counting Initiates, and about 100 not counting Padawans as well, there would be more support for what you're saying. Because you're absolutely right that ideally we'd strike deep into the Hutts' infrastructure, since that's going after them where it hurts most. I disagree that attacking their reaches into the Republic is treating symptoms, since we're still launching attacks on them, but the broad point is correct. That isn't the contest, however. The contest is around the fact that a lot of people see us as too vulnerable to directly go after the Hutts. Nothing you've said has directly addressed in a particularly convincing way to the people you're trying to persuade, and I think that's the root issue in this disagreement, though it doesn't just extend to you.

In effect, the two 'sides' have different estimates of our strength. Your 'side' sees our strength as great enough to challenge the Hutts on their turf, and thus doing so is the responsible and virtuous path that should be taken to head off Clone War-era Jedi ivory tower intellectualism and detachment from the people. The other 'side' thinks that we don't have the power to go on the Hutts' turf and fuck their shit up, and thus doing so is reckless and exposing ourself to too much risk for such a vulnerable organisation. I think that's where the disconnect lies. People are just talking past each other. There's not a clean solution to it, either. The only way to find out how we match up to the Hutts is, well, "fuck around and find out".


In the spirit of compromise, but also in the spirit of my dispassionate hatred of balancing numbers, I'm going to make a plan that incorporates a venture into Hutt territory by modifying Sustainable Commitment to flip over from sniping their illicit operations in Republic space to helping retrofit the Republic fleet. Given that the assumption is operations inside Hutt space are more impactful than the equivalent operations outside Hutt space, that will be more impactful. Further, it will directly involve coordination with the rebels, as you desire. Finally, it's the one that most directly focuses on building up the rebels' combat strength, which means that if/when we get options to rejigger our priorities, we can swap from attacking their moneymaking tendrils and modes of applying force on the Republic in response to its sanctions to directly supporting the rebels in battle by fighting side by side with them when the time is ripe to press battle. I will also retain my vote for Sustainable Commitment, however, as I feel this may be too late for another option to make a splash, and if it comes down to it I still prefer Sustainable Commitment to the alternatives.

In defence of diplomacy externally instead of internally, I don't think the time is ripe to fish for defections yet; I also don't think we have the ability to exert the pressure to make it viable, which is reflected in this plan. Furthermore, securing support for the rebels in Republic space is achieving a secondary goal of raising the Republic's enthusiasm for backing the rebels and fucking off the Hutts, which may enable more bold moves from both us and the Republic in due course.

[X] Plan Eyes Forward
-[X] Destroy Hutt Affiliated Physical Infrastructure, such as warehouses, freighters, etc. (Requires investment of Combat)
-[X] Heavy (You will hit very hardened targets, such as mercenary barracks (AT LEAST 45 Combat))
-[X] 16 Jedi Guardians (80 Combat)
-[X] Offer Technical Support to Rebel Ships (Requires investment of Skill)
-[X] Heavy (You will help redesign the Rebel Fleet from its Hutt Origin (AT LEAST 45 Skill))
-[X] Mira, 1 Watchman, 15 Jedi Sentinels, 17 Padawans) (71 Skill)
-[X] Try and funnel support to the Rebels (Requires Investment of Diplomacy)
-[X] Medium (The Mid-Rim, far, though not far enough, from the Hutts, though considerably wealthier than the nearby (AT LEAST 30 Diplomacy))
-[X] Grandmaster Bao-Dur, 7 Consulars, 8 Padawans (48 Diplomacy)

In all, it shapes out as a plan looking towards bulding long-term advantages against the Hutts, playing on the advantage of plucky rebels over heavy-hitters: avoidance, time, and support. The core ideas are:
1) Bolstering the Republic's will to fight, or at least throw further support behind the rebels.
2) Curtailing the Hutts' ability to do anything about 1.
3) Building the rebels' strength for the future, when we can shift towards more directly supporting them in conjunction with them being more able to stand up to the Hutts in battle.

[X] Plan Sustainable Commitment
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'll think on it. Was hoping for something for the cults, but I'll think on it.


Ternasta said:
the Jedi look like gutless cowards, shall we?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If we could maybe not be so antagonistic please? My issue mainly stems from what was said in the winning speech last vote round not really meshing with the alternative currently winning vote. If I'd lost that last vote I'd probably be more comfortable with backing the alternative. Either way though, I don't think Malak.txt is the best way to engage the debate.
 
The Englanderish said:
If we could maybe not be so antagonistic please? My issue mainly stems from what was said in the winning speech last vote round not really meshing with the alternative currently winning vote. If I'd lost that last vote I'd probably be more comfortable with backing the alternative. Either way though, I don't think Malak.txt is the best way to engage the debate.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fair enough. I'll amend it.
 
The Englanderish said:
I'll think on it. Was hoping for something for the cults, but I'll think on it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's a way better response than I was expecting. I clicked that "The Englanderish quoted your post" notification already cringing, expecting to get shouted down or locked in a big argument. So uh, thanks for being calm about it. I honestly appreciate it. Did my stress levels some good.

Ternasta said:
Fair enough. I'll amend it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
'Vacillating idiots' is no less inflammatory than 'gutless cowards', as far as I'm aware. Is it so difficult to not get nasty about people who disagree with you?
 
Aside what Englanderish already said, my main issue with Plan Sustainable Commitment is it's not doing much to give the actual rebels a stronger foothold, which IMO is the most important metric. It's only offering direct support by trying to get the (explicitly war-weary) Republic worlds to send support, and while it's playing whack-a-mole with the Hutt infrastructure and agents in Republic space that probably doesn't affect the Hutts' available force to hit the rebels with. Anything in Republic space has to be a disposable asset by definition given the Republic's prevailing attitude in regards to the Hutts; by limiting operations wholly or primarily to Republic space, we're then only hitting auxiliary resources, things that they've bought to supplement their existing capacity.

Whereas if we work in Hutt space, we can hit their supply lines in the middle and at the source. They're a business, not an ideologically-united organization (at least not below the topmost echelon) - if we disrupt their organizational chain closer to the source, the lower elements (mercs, etc) aren't going to be motivated to keep fighting. If we can keep the mercs and such from being paid for example, they're just going to scatter and find other work, which means that they cease to be a problem for the time being.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top