To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

[Briefvoice]

I consider the crewing situation more serious and applicable to the upcoming Cardassian conflicts. We need every possible edge to out-compete them industrially.

Click to shrink...

If Seruk wasn't retiring I might agree with you, but we're already getting a Personnel Office Rear Admiral bonus.

Stepping back from mere bonuses, I consider Personnel to be something of a lesser position and would rather have our future Admirals coming through a Vice Admiralty in Intelligence than I would a Vice Admiralty in the purely administrative function of Personnel. Intelligence Admirals have to be making difficult decisions and term plans that Personnel Admirals simply don't.

See for why I think it's not at all similar to Bajor.
As for probable outcomes, there are many scenarios and I don't assign a greater than 50% probability to any of them.

• The Sydraxians notice we are trying to improve relations and attack immediately, without giving the Gretarians any chance to consider what they want their future status to be. (5%) Preparations wouldn't help.
• The Sydraxians notice right away, but don't respond immediately, giving the Gretarians time to think. (40%)
  • The Gretarians decide to keep the status quo (25%)
  • The Gretarians tend towards becoming affiliates (15%)
    • The Sydraxians don't do anything, the Gretarians are affiliates (8%)
    • The Sydraxians try to intervene (7%)
      • They subjugate the Gretarians before any treaty is signed (3%)
      • The Gretarians manage to sign the affiliation treaty (4%)
        • The Sydraxians end up backing down (3%)
        • War, with the Sydraxians violating the treaty (1%)
• The Sydraxians don't notice (45%)
  • The Gretarians decide to keep the status quo (15%)
  • The Gretarians tend towards becoming affiliates (30%)
    • The Sydraxians don't do anything, the Gretarians are affiliates (20%)
    • The Sydraxians try to intervene (10%)
      • They subjugate the Gretarians before any treaty is signed (1%)
      • The Gretarians manage to sign the affiliation treaty (9%)
        • The Sydraxians end up backing down (7%)
        • War, with the Sydraxians violating the treaty (1%)

• Something unexpected (10%)

Factors that were important for making the Cardassians react like they did (and that led me to predict that pushing the Bajorans would end up badly back then):

• Bajor was in a strategically important location, and would have been a good forward base for the Federation to attack Cardassian core territories from. Gretaria is strategically unimportant, if we wanted to attack the Sydraxians we could do so better from Apiata territory.
• Bajor was much closer to Cardassian territory than to Federation territory, making the Cardassians think that they were due having it in their own sphere of influence. Gretatia is actually much closer to Federation territory than Sydraxian territory.
• The Cardassians already had an effectively constant military presence in Bajoran space, the Sydraxians don't seem to have one in Gretarian space.
• The Cardassians were convinced that they were overall on the course to winning the client race with their current strategy, (or at least found it opportune to profess such a conviction), losing Bajor would have been both a loss of face and have raised severe doubts about the prospects of that strategy, so the specter of such a loss would obviously cause some panic. We don't have any reason to believe the Sydraxians see the Gretarians as anything beyond a moderately convenient source of resources, or that losing that would shake any of their convictions.

Click to shrink...

Nix I do appreciate the more detailed explanation of your thought processes. Suffice it to say, I think you are overestimating the odds of scenarios where Sydraxians don't notice or notice and do nothing. As far as we know, the Gretarians are the only species they have under their thumb in this matter. I'd say they likely pay a great deal of attention to what's up with the Gretarians, simply because they have few distractions and that the loss of the Gretarians is likely to mean a lot to them. Remember the Sydraxians are at 90% economic war footing. They are spending every resource as it comes in, and I'm sure they are paying keen attention to their supply lines, of which the Gretarians are a major part.

 

[Nervos Belli]

No, you misunderstood me. My point was that there is no plausible scenario where having ships ready to rush in matters much.


See for why I think it's not at all similar to Bajor.
As for probable outcomes, there are many scenarios and I don't assign a greater than 50% probability to any of them.

• The Sydraxians notice we are trying to improve relations and attack immediately, without giving the Gretarians any chance to consider what they want their future status to be. (5%) Preparations wouldn't help.
• The Sydraxians notice right away, but don't respond immediately, giving the Gretarians time to think. (40%)
  • The Gretarians decide to keep the status quo (25%)
  • The Gretarians tend towards becoming affiliates (15%)
    • The Sydraxians don't do anything, the Gretarians are affiliates (8%)
    • The Sydraxians try to intervene (7%)
      • They subjugate the Gretarians before any treaty is signed (3%)
      • The Gretarians manage to sign the affiliation treaty (4%)
        • The Sydraxians end up backing down (3%)
        • War, with the Sydraxians violating the treaty (1%)
• The Sydraxians don't notice (45%)
  • The Gretarians decide to keep the status quo (15%)
  • The Gretarians tend towards becoming affiliates (30%)
    • The Sydraxians don't do anything, the Gretarians are affiliates (20%)
    • The Sydraxians try to intervene (10%)
      • They subjugate the Gretarians before any treaty is signed (1%)
      • The Gretarians manage to sign the affiliation treaty (9%)
        • The Sydraxians end up backing down (7%)
        • War, with the Sydraxians violating the treaty (1%)

• Something unexpected (10%)

Factors that were important for making the Cardassians react like they did (and that led me to predict that pushing the Bajorans would end up badly back then):

• Bajor was in a strategically important location, and would have been a good forward base for the Federation to attack Cardassian core territories from. Gretaria is strategically unimportant, if we wanted to attack the Sydraxians we could do so better from Apiata territory.
• Bajor was much closer to Cardassian territory than to Federation territory, making the Cardassians think that they were due having it in their own sphere of influence. Gretatia is actually much closer to Federation territory than Sydraxian territory.
• The Cardassians already had an effectively constant military presence in Bajoran space, the Sydraxians don't seem to have one in Gretarian space.
• The Cardassians were convinced that they were overall on the course to winning the client race with their current strategy, (or at least found it opportune to profess such a conviction), losing Bajor would have been both a loss of face and have raised severe doubts about the prospects of that strategy, so the specter of such a loss would obviously cause some panic. We don't have any reason to believe the Sydraxians see the Gretarians as anything beyond a moderately convenient source of resources, or that losing that would shake any of their convictions.

Click to shrink...

First off, making up probabilities isn't an argument, it's vacillating. You've got nothing to base them off of but your own opinion, so there's no reason for us to agree they are right.

As to your bullet points:

1 and 2 are true, but, you're wrong on the other two. We know that Sydraxian ships are a common sight in Gretarian orbit, that's one of the reasons we had difficulties trying to talk with them a few years ago.

The Sydraxians are at total mobilization, and they are producing ships as quickly as possible. A disruption to their existing mineral income throws their whole economy in jeoprady. We have every reason to think the Sydraxians would view the loss of the Gretarian tribute as a major blow, and no reassurances that we can protect the Gretarians.

 

[Simon_Jester]

@Nix, do you have any formal basis for any of the probabilities you just gave in that big breakdown in your recent post?

If so I would like to see it.

If not, then I think you are at a grave risk of lulling yourself into a false sense of security by making unwarranted assumptions like "there's a 45% chance the Sydraxians aren't paying attention and won't even notice our diplomatic approaches." As Nervos Belli noted, the last time we tried to send envoys to the Gretarians, we had to sneak them in rather than simply visiting the planet ourselves in a Starfleet ship. That was precisely because the Sydraxians keep a close eye on Gretarian space.

Their tributary setup with the Gretarians is a protection racket, remember? You can't run a protection racket in a neighborhood, unless you have thugs on the ground in or near the neighborhood to at least keep up the pretense that you're protecting anyone.

 

[SynchronizedWritersBlock]

Nonsense probabilities don't mean anything.

The scenarios themselves exist but don't really acknowledge the facts, which include:
- to even talk to the Gretarians we had to sneak in. There is no reason to believe this has changed.
- the Treaty of Celos prevents us from acting if the Sydraxians get/force the Gretarians to sign on to the Cardassian system, or even if they make their control of the Gretarians official
- the Council is likely to respect the Treaty
- the Sydraxians are less likely to respect the Treaty
- the relationship between the Gretarians and Sydraxians is an active one, given its basis in resources and in active ships for protection

 

[Iron Wolf]

Commander Wolfe: "Can you give me a probability on the Sydraxians attacking the Gretarians?"

Lt. Pouren: "Uhhh.. yeah, gimme a sec… I'm coming up with thirty-two point three three uh, repeating of course, percentage, of attack."

FDS Diplomat Jenkins: "Alright just got dropped off by the Sappho LETS DO THIS! DIPLOPUUUUUUUSH JENKIIIIIIIIIIIIINS"

Wolfe: "this is why i cried when seruk retired"

 

[Nix]

Nix I do appreciate the more detailed explanation of your thought processes. Suffice it to say, I think you are overestimating the odds of scenarios where Sydraxians don't notice or notice and do nothing. As far as we know, the Gretarians are the only species they have under their thumb in this matter. I'd say they likely pay a great deal of attention to what's up with the Gretarians, simply because they have few distractions and that the loss of the Gretarians is likely to mean a lot to them. Remember the Sydraxians are at 90% economic war footing. They are spending every resource as it comes in, and I'm sure they are paying keen attention to their supply lines, of which the Gretarians are a major part.

Click to shrink...

The fact that we actually managed to talk with the Gretarians in their home system without the Sydraxians noticing in 2312 shows that it's quite possible. The fact that the Sydraxians didn't bother formalizing their relation in a way that would have it covered under the treaty of Celos shows that it can't be as important to them as you make it out to be. We have no information on how much tribute the Gretarians are actually paying, but I'd expect membership level contributions to amount to about as much as a single good mining colony and it's probably less than that, maybe 10br 5sr, about what I'd expect at 300 level from them. It's almost certainly far less than what they could expect from the GBZ, which is why I consider it very unlikely that they'd divert significant forces they could use there.

First off, making up probabilities isn't an argument, it's vacillating. You've got nothing to base them off of but your own opinion, so there's no reason for us to agree they are right.

Click to shrink...

I used probabilities as a means to clarify what my opinions actually are and which scenarios I consider likely, in direct response to being completely misunderstood on that score. Pretending that percentage points were in any way meant to be an argument by themselves is extremely disingenuous.

1 and 2 are true, but, you're wrong on the other two. We know that Sydraxian ships are a common site in Gretarian orbit, that's one of the reasons we had difficulties trying to talk with them a few years ago.

Click to shrink...

We actually managed to meet them in their home system, which apparently didn't have any Sydraxian ships present at the time and only had to avoid one raider (so presence unrelated to the Gretarians) on the way there. It was still necessary to travel to the homeworld itself indirectly to avoid being found out, which could indicate either Sydraxian observers or fear that they would later learn about the visit from the general public, but no Sydraxian ships were noted. With Bajor we needed to meet at a colony world because there were constantly ships present in the Bajor system itself.

The Sydraxians are at total mobilization, and they are producing ships as quickly as possible. A disruption to their existing mineral income throws their whole economy in jeoprady. We have every reason to think the Sydraxians would view the loss of the Gretarian tribute as a major blow, and no reassurances that we can protect the Gretarians.

Click to shrink...

See above. In any case you don't even dispute that we have no reason to suspect them to assign ideological importance, which was the main point of that bullet point.

 

[Kaizuki]

The fact that the Sydraxians didn't bother formalizing their relation in a way that would have it covered under the treaty of Celos shows that it can't be as important to them as you make it out to be.

Click to shrink...

Or they consider it too obvious to bother.

 

[tryrar]

Nix, this is at the end of a day, all just your opinion. And MY opinion is that you're wrong, which is why I voted the way I did.

 

[Nervos Belli]

The fact that we actually managed to talk with the Gretarians in their home system without the Sydraxians noticing in 2312 shows that it's quite possible. The fact that the Sydraxians didn't bother formalizing their relation in a way that would have it covered under the treaty of Celos shows that it can't be as important to them as you make it out to be. We have no information on how much tribute the Gretarians are actually paying, but I'd expect membership level contributions to amount to about as much as a single good mining colony and it's probably less than that, maybe 10br 5sr, about what I'd expect at 300 level from them. It's almost certainly far less than what they could expect from the GBZ, which is why I consider it very unlikely that they'd divert significant forces they could use there.


I used probabilities as a means to clarify what my opinions actually are and which scenarios I consider likely, in direct response to being completely misunderstood on that score. Pretending that percentage points were in any way meant to be an argument by themselves is extremely disingenuous.

We actually managed to meet them in their home system, which apparently didn't have any Sydraxian ships present at the time and only had to avoid one raider (so presence unrelated to the Gretarians) on the way there. It was still necessary to travel to the homeworld itself indirectly to avoid being found out, which could indicate either Sydraxian observers or fear that they would later learn about the visit from the general public, but no Sydraxian ships were noted. With Bajor we needed to meet at a colony world because there were constantly ships present in the Bajor system itself.
See above. In any case you don't even dispute that we have no reason to suspect them to assign ideological importance, which was the main point of that bullet point.

Click to shrink...

If you acknowledge the percentages are garbage, then stop using them. They don't add anything to your argument and they are distracting and irritating. Making up probabilities and slanting them arbitrarily to suit your point lowers the intelligence of any argument you're trying to make.

I didn't say anything about ideology because I don't think it is relevant. Just economics tells us that the Sydraxians will feel the loss keenly, and that the Gretarians can't do anything unless we intervene. The Sydraxians don't need ideological reasons to protect their source of income. I think your confidence that we can woo the Gretarians from under their noses and that they will passively allow that is highly misplaced.

 

[AKuz]

I'd vote to push the Gretarians if we had 15/20 c of Starfleet backed up by a Member fleet or two sitting in the SBZ just in case. Instead of the "lol I sure hope nothing goes wrong ever" levels of C that we have right now.

 

[Nix]

If you acknowledge the percentages are garbage, then stop using them. They don't add anything to your argument and they are distracting and irritating. Making up probabilities and slanting them arbitrarily to suit your point lowers the intelligence of any argument you're trying to make.

Click to shrink...

I already explicitly stated that I was using percentages only as clarification after a misunderstanding (Briefvoice arguing against a scenario he thought I considered likely, but I actually didn't), not as part of any argument. The percentages are made up, but that's exactly the point: To convey my personal opinions on what's likely and what not in a way that's much less likely to be misunderstood, to clear up the misunderstanding and avoid a loop where we repeatedly slightly misunderstand each other until we finally arrive at an accurate estimate on what each others opinions actually are after a dozen posts.

Please state which of the following is your position:

• Everything posted during a discussion needs to be part of or in support of an argument.
• Everything posted during a discussion should be evaluated as though it was part of an argument, even things meant as clarification.
• You were stating your point extremely badly, repeated references to percentages in the context of an argument were actually beside the point, and you actually meant percentages were bad as part of a clarification, somehow?
• You initially misunderstood the purpose of listing percentages like apparently others also did, and then were confrontative for no good reason in your second post?

 

[Kaizuki]

I already explicitly stated that I was using percentages only as clarification after a misunderstanding (Briefvoice arguing against a scenario he thought I considered likely, but I actually didn't), not as part of any argument. The percentages are made up, but that's exactly the point: To convey my personal opinions on what's likely and what not in a way that's much less likely to be misunderstood, to clear up the misunderstanding and avoid a loop where we repeatedly slightly misunderstand each other until we finally arrive at an accurate estimate on what each others opinions actually are after a dozen posts.

Please state which of the following is your position:

• Everything posted during a discussion needs to be part of or in support of an argument.
• Everything posted during a discussion should be evaluated as though it was part of an argument, even things meant as clarification.
• You were stating your point extremely badly, repeated references to percentages in the context of an argument were actually beside the point, and you actually meant percentages were bad as part of a clarification, somehow?
• You initially misunderstood the purpose of listing percentages like apparently others also did, and then were rude for no good reason in your second post?

Click to shrink...

You could just as well have posted that list of percentages with all the percentages replaced with {very unlikely, unlikely, maybe, likely, very likely} and you would have been fine. I'm just saying. But once you start posting numbers you need hard evidence.

 

[Void Stalker]

So looking forward to research since I believe all plans have the Med team, we need 7 RP during Q2 to activate all of our teams. And for the following year we need 49 RP after income (not including the 2 or 3 the Seyek should provide for hitting 300). My suggestion for research is if we earn 20 RP or less in Q2 do no boosts. Otherwise everything over that can be used for boosts. That will make it extremely likely we hit the RP totals we need the following year with extra for boosts.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Nix, the percentages did an excellent job of portraying what you think the odds are. However, they also strongly imply that you have reason to actually believe the things you are saying- that these are not just the numbers that fell out of your Magic 8-ball. In short, they don't just represent you saying "I intuitively believe X." They strongly imply that you are saying "the objective facts are X." There is a significant difference, which is one source of friction here.

Furthermore, many people strongly disagree with your assessment of the odds, on its own merits, and purely on Bayesian terms. This disagreement is coming from a variety of reasons, which you will note makes up most of the arguments directed your way.

For example:

You believe that, assuming the Sydraxians notice but do not respond to our diplomatic push immediately, there is a 62.5% chance of the Gretarians deciding to stick with the status quo. You believe that, assuming the Sydraxians don't notice, there is only a 33.3% chance of the Gretarians deciding to stick with the status quo. Why is that? You never went into detail.

You believe that there is only about a 50% chance of the Sydraxians becoming aware of our diplomatic push unless the Gretarians do something major in response to it. Why is that? You never went into detail.

You believe that even if the Sydraxians notice the diplomatic push after a brief delay, and even if they see the Gretarians about to become Federation affiliates, there is a greater than 50% chance that the Sydraxians will do literally nothing and we win, nolo contendere. Why is that? You never went into detail.

I'd vote to push the Gretarians if we had 15/20 c of Starfleet backed up by a Member fleet or two sitting in the SBZ just in case. Instead of the "lol I sure hope nothing goes wrong ever" levels of C that we have right now.

Click to shrink...

This is a very graceful and compact way of expressing my concerns. Thank you, AKuz.

 

[Void Stalker]

My ideas for the upcoming research quarter (mainly because I anticipate I will be at work when it starts)

Free tech teams:

Generic Team 3 : 2310 Escort- Combat main thing here is the new Nacelles (New Orleans variant) can be unlocked in 3 years, the 2320 Escort- Science would not be done before we wanted to start the Kepler with the Generic Team
Utopia Planitia Design Group: Ambassador Project- continue onto the next slide of the Ambassador Project
Andorian Academy: 2320 Deflector Shields - next level of deflectors is unlocked plus it gives us some nice bonuses to rolls
Tellar Prime Academy of Mineral Science : 2320 Special Refining- this increases the SR production of our colonies and makes it more likely for us to find SR colonies, and SR is the resource we tend to have the least of, also given that we finish colony cores this new colonies will provide RP and PP
40 Eridani A Shipyards: 2310 Warp Propulsion-finish up the tier 2 warp tech, it also unlocks T2 warp nacelles. Should finish in 4 years
Taves Nar Orbital Engineering: 2310 Starbase Design-Control +1 to response rolls in sectors that have starbases, right now only the KBZ and GBZ do not have a starbase. This will synergize well with Mutual Support from Forward Defense, 4 years to research and will level up the team to skill 4 at which point we can then do the 2310-Combat.
Admiral Lathriss : Border World Focus-My preference is go border world to shift our ships to the border zones like we already have and then follow up with Mutual Support that lets our ships in the Border Zones respond to events in the Home Sectors. For Forward Defense the first two techs we research will take 3 years each, afterwards they will take 2 years a tech except for Forward Logistics which is 4 to 5 years.
New Medical team: 2310s Trauma Medicine there is actual no choice for the new team as this is the only slide unlocked that is not being worked on, assuming skill 3, 2 years to finish

 

[Nervos Belli]

I already explicitly stated that I was using percentages only as clarification after a misunderstanding (Briefvoice arguing against a scenario he thought I considered likely, but I actually didn't), not as part of any argument. The percentages are made up, but that's exactly the point: To convey my personal opinions on what's likely and what not in a way that's much less likely to be misunderstood, to clear up the misunderstanding and avoid a loop where we repeatedly slightly misunderstand each other until we finally arrive at an accurate estimate on what each others opinions actually are after a dozen posts.

Please state which of the following is your position:

• Everything posted during a discussion needs to be part of or in support of an argument.
• Everything posted during a discussion should be evaluated as though it was part of an argument, even things meant as clarification.
• You were stating your point extremely badly, repeated references to percentages in the context of an argument were actually beside the point, and you actually meant percentages were bad as part of a clarification, somehow?
• You initially misunderstood the purpose of listing percentages like apparently others also did, and then were confrontative for no good reason in your second post?

Click to shrink...

Nix if everyone is misunderstanding you, then the problem is probably with you rather than everyone else. And I wouldn't be so combatitve if I hadn't seen you do this before multiple times. Making up random numbers does not clarify your point, nor does it improve your point. It looks like bad faith debating and confuses the people reading it. I can't make it any more clear.

Edit: Having read your latest post, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'll just skip your posts that start with probabilities from now on.

 

[Nix]

You could just as well have posted that list of percentages with all the percentages replaced with {very unlikely, unlikely, maybe, likely, very likely} and you would have been fine. I'm just saying. But once you start posting numbers you need hard evidence.

Click to shrink...

What, so that "unlikely" could be understood as 5% chance when I meant 20% chance or the other way round (which is easily enough to make the difference between "agree", "agree to disagree" or "unreasonable enough to argue against")? Not only wouldn't that solve the actual problem, it would be much more work for no good reason.

The opinion that opinions expressed in numbers need special evidence is one I vigorously disagree with. Probability theory was originally invented for betting, and to be able to bet on an opinion you need to be able to express it in numbers so that you can calculate expected return on the bet. Similar logic applies for estimating the expected return for any decision under uncertainty. Not being allowed to think about uncertainties in numbers is equivalent to not being able to make decisions fully informed by those opinions.
To the contrary, expressing opinions in numbers allows others to evaluate how good you are as a predictor after the fact, while you can usually weasel your way out of qualitative statements, so there is a case to be made why expressing them in numbers when you can should be preferable.

 

[tryrar]

Basically, when you start pulling numbers out of a hat, you cross over from "this is my opinion" to "this is an objective fact" even if that wasn't your intention. You need to be really, really wary about using numbers and statistics without anything more to back them up than your opinion.

 

[SynchronizedWritersBlock]

What, so that "unlikely" could be understood as 5% chance when I meant 20% chance or the other way round

Click to shrink...

You don't mean either percentage chance, because you can't know either percentage chance. So yes, unlikely is vague enough to fit your meaning, and your percents are more misleading than it is.

Numbers need to be backed by hard math. In this many years we run out of crew. We need X academy intakes to make up Y deficit in Z years. This percentage likelihood based on dice.

We deal in percentages with the research vote and the random +5, for example. We do not deal in known percentages when we are predicting reactions of foreign powers. So assigning percentages appears as a disingenuous tactic for argument to most people, including me.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Thinking about it...

I'm actually going to stick up for @Nix here. I think his only mistake was NOT putting an all caps line above his list saying:

"THESE PERCENTAGES ARE NUMBERS I MADE UP TO REPRESENT WHAT I THINK THE ODDS ARE. THEY ARE MEANT TO REPRESENT MY OPINIONS, NOT AS DECLARATIONS OF FACT"

I honestly think there's nothing wrong with him laying out a list like that. It's a reasonable way to discuss a complex, interlocking problem, IF one is clear that one hasn't done a pile of calculations behind the scene. The missing disclaimer is the only reason I perceive a problem. And while that may have been a mistake, everyone now knows it was an honest mistake, so there's no reason for us to get hung up on the lack of disclaimers and forget to actually pay attention to what Nix was trying to say.

I'm perfectly prepared to engage with his list of percentages on its own merits (specifically, I think he's getting the odds wrong). I think the rest of us should be, too. Him not putting a big honking disclaimer on it was just a faux pas.

I'd certainly much rather discuss with him why I disagree with him about the odds, and would much rather see others explain why they disagree with him about the odds, than read another page of people berating him for trying to use estimated numbers as a tool to represent his opinions in an argument.

 

[Nix]

Nix if everyone is misunderstanding you, then the problem is probably with you rather than everyone else.

Click to shrink...

It's perfectly possible for everyone else to be wrong. The prior probability for that is low, but when everyone else simply states a conventional understanding without ever mentioning any practical reasons at all that is only good evidence for such a conventional understanding existing, not for this conventional understanding being universal, let alone at all reasonable. I did bring up several practical considerations as well as some theoretical considerations for why that conventional understanding is in fact unreasonable. As for my opinion, I'm 98% certain that this is the most wrong-headed opinion I heard all year. To avoid future misunderstandings I added a signature.

You don't mean either percentage chance, because you can't know either percentage chance. So yes, unlikely is vague enough to fit your meaning, and your percents are more misleading than it is.

Numbers need to be backed by hard math. In this many years we run out of crew. We need X academy intakes to make up Y deficit in Z years. This percentage likelihood based on dice.

We deal in percentages with the research vote and the random +5, for example. We do not deal in known percentages when we are predicting reactions of foreign powers. So assigning percentages appears as a disingenuous tactic for argument to most people, including me.

Click to shrink...

Subjective uncertainty follows all axioms of Cox' Theorem and is therefore perfectly reasonable to model as probability, mathematically speaking.

 

[Forgothrax]

Diplomancing the Yrillians to quit the protection racket while agitating for the Gretarians and pulling a Dawiar by arming them sounds like a good way to create a Sydraxian Afghanistan...

 

[Nervos Belli]

Diplomancing the Yrillians to quit the protection racket while agitating for the Gretarians and pulling a Dawiar by arming them sounds like a good way to create a Sydraxian Afghanistan...

Click to shrink...

Arming the Gretarians is like giving an AK-47 to a puppy. We'd be lucky if they knew the front end of the phaser from the back.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Forgothrax, we're a long way from being able to convince the Yrillians to drop their role as the intimidating heavies in the Sydraxian protection racket. Even given that we have friends among the Yrillians, the friends in question aren't the same people as the ones harassing the Gretarians. Furthermore, I doubt we can funnel armaments to the Gretarians on a sufficient scale to enable them to defend themselves, and even if we did, the Gretarians as a whole have no stomach for protracted, up-close-and-personal violence. They'd make some of the worst guerillas in the galaxy.

No seriously, an army occupying Gretaria would probably have even less trouble than an army occupying Risa. At least on Risa, they'd be running into trouble from the AWOL rates and VD outbreaks.

And Nix, I think you might be better off sticking the disclaimers up when you do that kind of breakdown a la Bayes, specifically. That way it's more likely to be noticed. Purely a tactical suggestion, in hopes of avoiding needless attacks by rampaging drama.

 

[Forgothrax]

Arming the Gretarians is like giving an AK-47 to a puppy. We'd be lucky if they knew the front end of the phaser from the back.

Click to shrink...

Alas for them, they've had to learn.

Captain's Log, USS Enterprise, Stardate 24833.4

It seems that several years of association with the neighbouring Sydraxians have cured the Gretarians of at least some of their bewilderment at the idea of large weapons. They still abhor them, of course, but it's now more of a sullen principle.

Click to shrink...