There's two concerns that I want to take a closer look at, because they're interesting and maybe a bit unintuitive. First is the issue of numbers, of which options are efficient in the trade-offs they make from a numerical perspective. The second is the matter of high realms and the tensions inherent to there being more of them in close proximity to each other. Both of these are valid areas of concern that naturally influence how a given poster votes. For the sake of reference, here's the vote options.
[ ] Agree to push for a greater allowance of security forces for the White Sky (+1 White Sky Favorability.)
[ ] Use your momentum to push for a greater allowance for security forces and their support as well as more of their security infrastructure in the valley (+2 White Sky Favorability, -1 Ministry Favorability)
[ ] Fully support White Sky desires including the emplacement of their sovereigns full court on a permanent basis (+2 White Sky Favorabilty, +1 Polar Theocracy favorability, -1 Ministry and -2 White Plume favorability.)
Starting off with numbers, we see that option 1 has a net positive of +1 favorability, option 2 has a net positive of +1 favorability, and option 3 has a net neutral of +0 favorability. Pretty clear cut that option 3 is the least favourable, right? Well, I'd argue not quite. These numbers don't tell the full story, because there is a broader context to each of them that isn't conveyed when we just look at the net movement in this one decision.
Both the White Sky and White Plume are sitting at 5 favorability currently, while the MoI is at 3, and Polar Theocracy is sitting at 1. The broader context then is that not all net movements of equal increment represent the same proportional movement, or the same safety margin from 0(or worse, negative).
But on top of that, there's also which factions we expect to have a stake in the remaining negotiations, involving the summit town. For the White Plume, there's a very high chance this is the last thing we decide that they care about, which means dropping them down to 3 is probably their final favorability for the summit, which is... fine? Better than we expected, really. Safe. In that context, the favorability drop isn't much of a concern. The White Sky can also more or less be put aside, because they're going to be 6 or 7 after this choice, which should be good to ride out the remainder of the summit with.
It's the MoI and Polar Theocracy where we know they'll both have stake in the remaining matters surrounding the summit town, so they're the only scores that really "matter". If we crunch the numbers with that in mind, then option 1 is neutral at +0, option 2 is negative at -1, and option 3 is neutral at +0. Again, there's also marginal value to consider; having a margin of 2 for the Polar Theocracy could have greater value gain than the value loss in MoI dropping from 3 to 2. Though that depends on the particular choices we face in the future, which we don't have perfect knowledge of. However, it's a fact that option 2 drops our MoI margin in that way without giving us more breathing room with the Polar Theocracy number.
In purely numerical terms, for dealing with the choices and trade-offs we can anticipate facing during the rest of our talks, option 2 is fairly unambiguously the riskiest, while option 3 provides the most even keel for future compromises.
Moving on, there's been concerns raised about the risks and tensions involved in greater higher realm presence in the summit town. The disposition of high realm cultivators is definitely a valid concern, for reasons understandably very fresh in our minds. To examine this issue properly, I think the following quote from the update is useful.
The thing that leaps out to me, and I'll admit that I only caught it on a re-read, is that this ask is coming from Weeping Sentinel herself. The White Sky Sovereign who is going to be stationed on the site regardless of our choice here, we've already agreed on that point previously, is laying out an ask to feel confident in the venture. If we're concerned about the attitudes and interactions of high realm cultivators stationed in the summit town, then it seems clear we do need to take into account the emotional security and comfort of the permanently based Violet cultivator sitting in it.
The Weeping Sentinel feeling antsy due to lack of support is not ideal from a security perspective, and it's also likely to cause ongoing tensions and ill-ease among their priesthood, which has to put in extra efforts to keep her satisfied in conditions she's less happy with. Is introducing imperial Indigos a risk factor? Yeah, inarguably so. But I don't think we can ignore the stated preferences of a Violet here, not one who is going to be on site full time. Giving her the support network she needs to feel secure is at least as important for mitigating the potential for flare-ups as minimizing the number of high-realms to the degree we can.
Option 3 isn't a trade-off without risks, and the argument that it buys us future troubles is honestly a sound one, but I don't think it's a choice we can pass on if we want the buy-in, and more importantly the confidence, of the White Sky's institutions in our project. And at the end of the day, yeah, that is what we want.
[X] Fully support White Sky desires including the emplacement of their sovereigns full court on a permanent basis (+2 White Sky Favorabilty, +1 Polar Theocracy favorability, -1 Ministry and -2 White Plume favorability.)
[ ] Agree to push for a greater allowance of security forces for the White Sky (+1 White Sky Favorability.)
[ ] Use your momentum to push for a greater allowance for security forces and their support as well as more of their security infrastructure in the valley (+2 White Sky Favorability, -1 Ministry Favorability)
[ ] Fully support White Sky desires including the emplacement of their sovereigns full court on a permanent basis (+2 White Sky Favorabilty, +1 Polar Theocracy favorability, -1 Ministry and -2 White Plume favorability.)
Starting off with numbers, we see that option 1 has a net positive of +1 favorability, option 2 has a net positive of +1 favorability, and option 3 has a net neutral of +0 favorability. Pretty clear cut that option 3 is the least favourable, right? Well, I'd argue not quite. These numbers don't tell the full story, because there is a broader context to each of them that isn't conveyed when we just look at the net movement in this one decision.
Both the White Sky and White Plume are sitting at 5 favorability currently, while the MoI is at 3, and Polar Theocracy is sitting at 1. The broader context then is that not all net movements of equal increment represent the same proportional movement, or the same safety margin from 0(or worse, negative).
But on top of that, there's also which factions we expect to have a stake in the remaining negotiations, involving the summit town. For the White Plume, there's a very high chance this is the last thing we decide that they care about, which means dropping them down to 3 is probably their final favorability for the summit, which is... fine? Better than we expected, really. Safe. In that context, the favorability drop isn't much of a concern. The White Sky can also more or less be put aside, because they're going to be 6 or 7 after this choice, which should be good to ride out the remainder of the summit with.
It's the MoI and Polar Theocracy where we know they'll both have stake in the remaining matters surrounding the summit town, so they're the only scores that really "matter". If we crunch the numbers with that in mind, then option 1 is neutral at +0, option 2 is negative at -1, and option 3 is neutral at +0. Again, there's also marginal value to consider; having a margin of 2 for the Polar Theocracy could have greater value gain than the value loss in MoI dropping from 3 to 2. Though that depends on the particular choices we face in the future, which we don't have perfect knowledge of. However, it's a fact that option 2 drops our MoI margin in that way without giving us more breathing room with the Polar Theocracy number.
In purely numerical terms, for dealing with the choices and trade-offs we can anticipate facing during the rest of our talks, option 2 is fairly unambiguously the riskiest, while option 3 provides the most even keel for future compromises.
Moving on, there's been concerns raised about the risks and tensions involved in greater higher realm presence in the summit town. The disposition of high realm cultivators is definitely a valid concern, for reasons understandably very fresh in our minds. To examine this issue properly, I think the following quote from the update is useful.
The thing that leaps out to me, and I'll admit that I only caught it on a re-read, is that this ask is coming from Weeping Sentinel herself. The White Sky Sovereign who is going to be stationed on the site regardless of our choice here, we've already agreed on that point previously, is laying out an ask to feel confident in the venture. If we're concerned about the attitudes and interactions of high realm cultivators stationed in the summit town, then it seems clear we do need to take into account the emotional security and comfort of the permanently based Violet cultivator sitting in it.
The Weeping Sentinel feeling antsy due to lack of support is not ideal from a security perspective, and it's also likely to cause ongoing tensions and ill-ease among their priesthood, which has to put in extra efforts to keep her satisfied in conditions she's less happy with. Is introducing imperial Indigos a risk factor? Yeah, inarguably so. But I don't think we can ignore the stated preferences of a Violet here, not one who is going to be on site full time. Giving her the support network she needs to feel secure is at least as important for mitigating the potential for flare-ups as minimizing the number of high-realms to the degree we can.
Option 3 isn't a trade-off without risks, and the argument that it buys us future troubles is honestly a sound one, but I don't think it's a choice we can pass on if we want the buy-in, and more importantly the confidence, of the White Sky's institutions in our project. And at the end of the day, yeah, that is what we want.
[X] Fully support White Sky desires including the emplacement of their sovereigns full court on a permanent basis (+2 White Sky Favorabilty, +1 Polar Theocracy favorability, -1 Ministry and -2 White Plume favorability.)
Last edited:
