Wilds Government Codes

[Cryton]

No, that's no world government AND no national governments. Family and/or tribal bonds only.

Hans

And actually the definition in the book for Gov 0 reads "DESCRIPTION no government structure. in many cases, family bonds predominate EXAMPLES Family, Clan, Anarchy"

So I was wrong. But, Clans ARE a form of government, if one cares to argue. I don't. Just pointing out the most RECENT CANONICAL DEFINITION.

 

[rancke]

And actually the definition in the book for Gov 0 reads "DESCRIPTION no government structure. in many cases, family bonds predominate EXAMPLES Family, Clan, Anarchy"

So I was wrong. But, Clans ARE a form of government, if one cares to argue. I don't. Just pointing out the most RECENT CANONICAL DEFINITION.

Evidently, rightly or wrongly, the most recent canonical definition does not recognize clans as a valid form of government -- at least not in the case of Code 0 worlds.


Hans

 

[Cryton]

Heres the full context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aramis
In American English, World Governments refers to those governments generally recognized (essentially by the UN). Note the plural. Dominant World Government would thus be (depending upon timeframe) US, UK, or Rome... with China being a viable alternative, as it has the largest plurality of population.

Non-dominant world government would thus be all 130-some of the other ones...

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: World government: No entry.
Wikipedia: "World government is the notion of a single common political authority for all of humanity."

Oh, and WBH allows multiple governments only for Gov code 7 worlds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryton
By definition a goverment code that is listed as Balkanized means the world is divided into small warring states.

Yes, yes, but assuming for purposes of argument that you wanted a word that meant that the world was divided into multiple nations, regardless of the state of internastional tension. Is there any word that does that better than 'balkanized'?

I repeat, there is no code for worlds that are divided into small non-warring states.


Hans

Look Hans. As I pointed out. By the rules of the game, TRAVELLER, there is a code both for warring rival governments, and for peaceful multiple governments. Its code 7. Its the same code.

If you don't agree, then your running your game the way you wish, and more power to you. Enjoy.

 

[rancke]

Here's the full context.

[One of a number of posts in a long discussion.]

Look Hans. As I pointed out. By the rules of the game, TRAVELLER, there is a code both for warring rival governments, and for peaceful multiple governments. Its code 7. Its the same code.

If you don't agree, then your running your game the way you wish, and more power to you. Enjoy.

Look, Cryton, I DID agree. The context I'm talking about is the discussion that led up to the post you qoute. Following on from the discussion to understand, I inadvertently phrased myself clumsily to say something I didn't mean. you called me on it. I explained that I meant there were no alternate code for such worlds and that hence Code 7 covered all types of worlds with multiple nations. Is that clear now? Now can we leave it behind?


Hans

 

[aramis]

That's taken out of context. I was refuting the claim that Code 7 only applied to competing nations. If that had been the case, there would have been a code that covered worlds with no central authority and peacefully co-existing nations.


Hans

1) there is such a code: Code 0. No central world government.

2) Balkanized includes merely hostile, as well as warring.

3) it's explicit in the most recent editions that balkanized is hostile.

 

[rancke]

1) there is such a code: Code 0. No central world government.

And no other kind of recognized governments either. "No government structure". Look it up.


Hans

 

[LeperColony]

Well, interestingly, there's also no code for a dictator who doesn't enjoy the confidence of the public and who didn't acquire the job through "normal channels" from a charismatic despot. To a certain extent, it seems like government codes just have to be fudged.

 

[aramis]

Let's look at the definitions of the government code space...

CT: "Government: Government types are intended to convey the general type of
authority on the world; each listed type should be a clue to the referee in administering
details of encounters on the world."

MT and TNE says the exact same.

General type doesn't axiomatically mean sole and only.


MGT goes into more details, even calling the factions governments.

The Government characteristic indicates a range of possible ruling
systems, and is determined by rolling 2d6–7 and adding the planet’s
Population. Compare the result with the Government table on the
following page.
The ‘common contraband’ column determines goods such a
government is likely to restrict, but should not be taken as a
universal rule.
Rivals, Factions, Connections and Colonies
The government code determines the dominant government
type on that planet, but there are usually other factions such rival
political parties, cultural groups, religions, rebels and so forth who
oppose the government. Confl icts on a planet often involve the
player characters; they might be hired to smuggle weapons to a
rebel group, or be asked to investigate a political scandal involving
a government leader.
Roll 1d3 to determine how many factions there are on the planet,
with a DM of +1 if the government type is 0 or 7, and a DM of
–1 if the government type is 10 or more. Determine what ‘minigovernment’
each faction uses on the government table. In cases
where the faction type is the same as the current government type
(or similar, such as two democracies or two dictatorships), then it
is a splinter faction within the ruling government. In cases where
it is radically different (anarchists against a bureaucracy), then the
faction is a rebel group or movement.​

Note the word "minigovernment"...

 

[Cryton]

Well, interestingly, there's also no code for a dictator who doesn't enjoy the confidence of the public and who didn't acquire the job through "normal channels" from a charismatic despot. To a certain extent, it seems like government codes just have to be fudged.

Pretty much fudge city. Though you could use type F or type A depending on his support. (Prolly others as well)

 

[rancke]

Let's look at the definitions of the government code space...

CT: "Government: Government types are intended to convey the general type of authority on the world; each listed type should be a clue to the referee in administering details of encounters on the world."

MT and TNE says the exact same.

General type doesn't axiomatically mean sole and only.

Certainly not. It also includes worlds with no governments and worlds with multiple governments. That would the types indicated by code 0 and 7 respectively. A participating democracy is one type of government. Civil service bureaucracy is another type of government, etc. etc.. Some governments could fit more than one type; the code describes the general type that applies closest.

(It could be argued that strictly speaking 'No government' and 'Multiple governments' are not really government types, but it's close enough for the purpose of the rule.)

MGT goes into more details, even calling the factions governments.

No, MGT introduces a different kind of subdivision and label them 'factions'. Which shows that they're not governments. If they had been governments, WBH would have provided a mechanism for rolling up multiple governments for all government codes, not just for balkanized worlds. Also, MGT would have called them 'governments' rather than 'factions' (factions are non-government type groups such as "rival political parties, cultural groups, religions, rebels and so forth".)

Note the word "minigovernment"...

I do. I note that it is in quotes and that it includes the qualifier 'mini'.


Hans

 

[LeperColony]

I do. I note that it is in quotes and that it includes the qualifier 'mini'.

I don't really have a horse in this race, and I'm not familiar with WBH, but couldn't mini mean sub-world, when you're dealing with a system ordinarily concerned with world governments?

 

[aramis]

Certainly not. It also includes worlds with no governments and worlds with multiple governments. That would the types indicated by code 0 and 7 respectively. A participating democracy is one type of government. Civil service bureaucracy is another type of government, etc. etc.. Some governments could fit more than one type; the code describes the general type that applies closest.

(It could be argued that strictly speaking 'No government' and 'Multiple governments' are not really government types, but it's close enough for the purpose of the rule.)


No, MGT introduces a different kind of subdivision and label them 'factions'. Which shows that they're not governments. If they had been governments, WBH would have provided a mechanism for rolling up multiple governments for all government codes, not just for balkanized worlds. Also, MGT would have called them 'governments' rather than 'factions' (factions are non-government type groups such as "rival political parties, cultural groups, religions, rebels and so forth".)


I do. I note that it is in quotes and that it includes the qualifier 'mini'.


Hans

MGT has altered the paradigm to more conform to the examples in CT of mainworld governments that are not universal in authority. In looking at those minigovernments, there are a chunk of government types that are neither the same nor diametrically opposed, and those, therefore, are neither the axiomatic rebels, nor the axiomatic movements within the main government, and can themselves potentially wind up "Balkanized"....

These subunits are left undefined as to scope, but are defined as to size/importance; defined by die-roll, and potentially bigger than the main gov't! They can be seen as factions as you narrowly (and IMO, poorly) construe it to mean, or can be (not must be) as wide as separate governments not contesting for dominance. (Contesting for world dominance would force the main government to be type 7. Contesting for control of the extant would force them to rebels or classic factions.) An offworld colony, like the Red Banders in CT's Tarsus (thanks, Cryton, for the cite), not answerable to the main government doesn't force in CT a Type 7 nor Type 0; in MGT, there is a process to generate same.

It's perhaps not as clear as YOU want, but it is clear enough to be a springboard for non-uniform on-world governments other than types 0 and 7. It shows a move away form the monolithic worlds trope so common in TV sci-fi, and one that was given only lip-service within CT... various Corp enclaves, and of course, the fact that every world with a starport of classes A/B/C in the 3I has a non-competing second government: the extrality zone of the starport is part of an offworld government, the 3I.

There's also the long standing rule that the Gov't code isn't "what the government claims to be" but "what the scouts on the ground observe it to be"... (Adv 0 and S3 make this explicit; CT Bk3, TTB, MT, TNE, and T4 merely imply this strongly. MGT is less clear on this issue.)

 

[rancke]

MGT has altered the paradigm to more conform to the examples in CT of mainworld governments that are not universal in authority.

As far as I know, there are no examples of world governments that aren't recognized as the sole legitimate government of their world. I'm pretty sure that any examples that MIGHT be interpreted that way are ambiguous at best. Nor are MGTs new factions confined to rebels and other challengers of government authority. There are also "rival political parties, cultural groups, religions and so forth".

In looking at those minigovernments, there are a chunk of government types that are neither the same nor diametrically opposed, and those, therefore, are neither the axiomatic rebels, nor the axiomatic movements within the main government, and can themselves potentially wind up "Balkanized"....

They are not national governments. They are factions. A faction is not a national government. Look it up.

These subunits are left undefined as to scope, but are defined as to size/importance; defined by die-roll, and potentially bigger than the main gov't!

Actually, they're potentially bigger than THE government. Singular. One government, up to four factions. (FOUR!?! :rofl

They can be seen as factions as you narrowly (and IMO, poorly) construe it to mean...

You mean as the text actually says? If it's narrow of me to think that words should, as a default, be assumed to mean what they say, then I guess I am narrow.

...or can be (not must be) as wide as separate governments not contesting for dominance. (Contesting for world dominance would force the main government to be type 7. Contesting for control of the extant would force them to rebels or classic factions.)

So you don't think rebels agaist the government are contesting for control? Rebels, you remember, are one of the possible types of factions mentioned as examples. I find it very hard to find any rhyme or reason to your arguments.

An offworld colony, like the Red Banders in CT's Tarsus (thanks, Cryton, for the cite), not answerable to the main government doesn't force in CT a Type 7 nor Type 0; in MGT, there is a process to generate same.

What makes you think the Red Banders (and the Regiment, in case that's who you're actually thinking of) aren't answerable to the Tarsan government? There's nothing in the writeup that indicates that. It's true that there's no explicit statement that the Red Banders are not autonomous, but then, there's no explicit statement that the people of the capital are not autonomous either.

It's perhaps not as clear as YOU want, but it is clear enough to be a springboard for non-uniform on-world governments other than types 0 and 7.

If you twist the words past what I consider the breaking point and deliberately contradict WBH, then I guess it can be used as such a springboard.

However, you still haven't addressed that part. Why do you think it's acceptable to interpret MGT's text to contradict WBH when it's equally easy (personally I think much easier) to interpret it in such a way that it doesn't contradict anything?

There's also the long standing rule that the Gov't code isn't "what the government claims to be" but "what the scouts on the ground observe it to be"... (Adv 0 and S3 make this explicit; CT Bk3, TTB, MT, TNE, and T4 merely imply this strongly. MGT is less clear on this issue.)

That's true. So what? If the Imperium decides that a government is the legitimate world government and those guys over on that continent are merely rebels, the Scouts percieve them to be mere rebels and call it a unified world. If the Imperium recognizes the rebels as a legitimate government, the Scouts will call it a world with multiple governments. Or it can be the other way around, that what the Scouts think influences Imperial recognition. Either way doesn't affect our argument one little bit.


Hars

 

[aramis]

MGT is the current edition. It trumps prior editions.

As for "recognized" vs actual governments, recognition is only important to the interstellar government. And perhaps the one recognized. It's usually immaterial to the local people if their government is recognized or nor; what matters is if it works.

 

[LeperColony]

I'm not necessarily sure I'd say "trumps." It seems to me more fair to say that it reflects their most recent interpretation. The older editions are still valuable as sources to show the evolution of the current position, as well as how they executed their systems at the time.

Thus, TNE gov codes make sense for TNE, MT for MT, and so on. Now all editions can be useful to supply information, but each version presumably has some discreet value to its own timeline, since it was written for that situation.

 

[rancke]

MGT is the current edition. It trumps prior editions.

That's debatable, but in any case relevant only if the current edition is irreconcilable with previously published editions. That's why I framed my question as I did. Why interpret the current edition to contradict previous canon when it's possible to interpret it in such a way that it doesn't contradict previous canon?

As for "recognized" vs actual governments, recognition is only important to the interstellar government. And perhaps the one recognized. It's usually immaterial to the local people if their government is recognized or nor; what matters is if it works.

Interstellar governments like the Imperium and the RECS? Be that as it may, since distinguishing between proper governments and factions allows an interpretation of the current rules that avoids contradicting previously published material, it is highly material to us.


Hans

 

[aramis]

I'm not necessarily sure I'd say "trumps." It seems to me more fair to say that it reflects their most recent interpretation. The older editions are still valuable as sources to show the evolution of the current position, as well as how they executed their systems at the time.

Thus, TNE gov codes make sense for TNE, MT for MT, and so on. Now all editions can be useful to supply information, but each version presumably has some discreet value to its own timeline, since it was written for that situation.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the development of the game.

Marc, Loren, and Frank recycled text as much as possible. So did DGP (who did MegaTraveller for GDW). It's clear that they had changing views over time from their other works, but also direct textual comparisons show even T5 to have been largely cut-n-pasted from CT.

Only 3 editions show true redevelopment of the text: GT, T20, and MGT. Even then, GT and T20 include plenty of cut-n-paste.

MGT was developed by Gareth from CT1E rules, ignoring almost all the supplements.

In the case of governments, CT and MT often show the "recognized" governments to be fairly limited in reach. They both show balkanized worlds in active conflict on-world. There is a strong disconnect between the rules text as interpreted by Hans and the examples in CT and MT sourcebooks... a disconnect Hans is apparently intentionally blind to... but by the interpretation of Government as the most dominant rather than as the sole government, the CT examples (several cited above) cease to be abberations and become simply examples.

By interpreting MGT factions as potentially regional governments, in addition to potentially being movements within a given monolithic government, examples like the Red Banders, the various examples of megacorporate enclaves, noble fiefs, and autonomous-by-neglect regions are beautifully in line with MGT rules.

 

[rancke]

In the case of governments, CT and MT often show the "recognized" governments to be fairly limited in reach.

Which doesn't contradict my interpretation of government codes. Perhaps you should try to read what I write rather than (apparently) what you THINK I write. A world government doesn't have to control every inch of its world in order to be the only legitimate government on that world. Juast because there's a district of the city where the Mob rules and government agents are virtually impotent doesn't mean the Mob is a legitimate government.

They both show balkanized worlds in active conflict on-world.

Which doesn't contradict my claim to the effect that Government code 7 is the only code that covers worlds with multiple legitimate governments. I don't mind stipulating that worlds with their multiple nations in active conflict (including conflict short of war) are the most common kind. The existence of such worlds does not prove that the other kind doesn't exist. The absence of a code that covers them, OTOH, proves that either they don't exist at all or they're included in Code 7.

There is a strong disconnect between the rules text as interpreted by Hans and the examples in CT and MT sourcebooks... a disconnect Hans is apparently intentionally blind to...

Say rather a disconnect you've been unable to provide credible examples of.

... but by the interpretation of Government as the most dominant rather than as the sole government, the CT examples (several cited above) cease to be abberations and become simply examples.

And by interpreting government as the only legitimate governments, those examples are explained AND previously published rules kept viable.

By interpreting MGT factions as potentially regional governments, in addition to potentially being movements within a given monolithic government, examples like the Red Banders, the various examples of megacorporate enclaves, noble fiefs, and autonomous-by-neglect regions are beautifully in line with MGT rules.

This is so full of already-refuted fallacies that it's getting too tedious to repeat the refutations piecemeal. If such are desired, look above.

Worst of all, such an interpretation is not necessary, contradicts previously published material for no reasonable gain, and, oh, let me repeat, is not necessary!

EDIT: Oh well, I'll repeat one refutation because I just came up with a good analogy: There's no indication that the Red Banders are any more autonomous than the Pennsylvania Amish.


Hans

 

[LeperColony]

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the development of the game.

Marc, Loren, and Frank recycled text as much as possible. So did DGP (who did MegaTraveller for GDW). It's clear that they had changing views over time from their other works, but also direct textual comparisons show even T5 to have been largely cut-n-pasted from CT.

Only 3 editions show true redevelopment of the text: GT, T20, and MGT. Even then, GT and T20 include plenty of cut-n-paste.

MGT was developed by Gareth from CT1E rules, ignoring almost all the supplements.

I don't really have any position on the current faction/minigovernment debate, but what you don't seem to understand is that whether or not text was recycled for later editions, each edition could only have worked with what they had at the time.

Thus, when they are writing, say, TNE, and assigning things like government codes, they are doing so within a specific environment that exists at that moment in time. Presumably, the way TNE describes the TNE universe best represents both Traveller (as defined by GDW canon) but also the specific current Traveller version at the time they wrote it.

According to your flawed argument, there would never be a TED government code for the simple reason that MgT "trumps" TNE and it doesn't have one in its system.

You may be correct in your argument with Hans (to be honest, even though I've been following the thread, I've lost track of what you and he disagree about now), but your premise that the latest version automatically "trumps" any other would only apply where the later version offers a departure, clarification, substitution, or other change or expansion that directly relates to a previously described game concept or detail.

In a game with a common default setting, it is not surprising to learn that much of the information is cut and pasted, and I fail to see that as a determinative factor.

 

[LeperColony]

Which doesn't contradict my claim to the effect that Government code 7 is the only code that covers worlds with multiple legitimate governments. I don't mind stipulating that worlds with their multiple nations in active conflict (including conflict short of war) are the most common kind. The existence of such worlds does not prove that the other kind doesn't exist. The absence of a code that covers them, OTOH, proves that either they don't exist at all or they're included in Code 7.

The irony here being that this is very similar to one of my positions that we spent two to three pages disagreeing about.