[Space/Thaumatology] Stargate: Fantasy - Worldbuilding thread

[Kesendeja]

I'm going to stick with 2, and I would use my addition, but if it comes down to it, I'll cast my vote for vanilla 2

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Kesendeja

I'm going to stick with 2, and I would use my addition, but if it comes down to it, I'll cast my vote for vanilla 2

Then I will stick with 2 also and we shall form an unequable majority! :)

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

Probably. The problem is that I couldn't think of a fair way to do it other than this.

Maybe figure a way to composite all the answers together and run polls to decide on contradictions? Turn-out seems rather depressed right now.

[ericthered]

I think we'll get the best results if we refrain from voting for our own.

I like 2, especially with the suggestion, but I don't like the way that it assumes that the precursors are necessarily the ascended without voting. Just having them be "precursors" is fine though.

After that, my preference is #3.

Originally Posted by TGLS

Maybe figure a way to composite all the answers together and run polls to decide on contradictions? Turn-out seems rather depressed right now.

What are the big contradictions?

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I think we'll get the best results if we refrain from voting for our own.

I like 2, especially with the suggestion, but I don't like the way that it assumes that the precursors are necessarily the ascended without voting. Just having them be "precursors" is fine though.

?

<shrug> I asked if we had both Ancients and Ascended beings and in a generic setting we wouldn't have to. However for an SG variant it would constitute a major break if we didn't.

Maybe nailing down that is a leading contender for a forthcoming question.

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I think we'll get the best results if we refrain from voting for our own.

I think we'd get the best results if we did ranked pair voting, as that way the second and third picks could decide things even if everyone voted for the choice they wrote first. Then again with your vote I think we may have a Condorcet winner anyway.

Originally Posted by ericthered

What are the big contradictions?

Well looking at 1, 2 and 4:

AQ) Why have the System Lords not conquered Astarte?
A1) Gouald are allergic to Astarte
A2) Conquering it would destroy anything of value
A3) Diplomacy and Tribute
A4) (I feel this one is fairly necessary) No more reason than why the Elves and Dwarves remain unconquered

BQ) What's the primary economic activity in Astarte?
B1) Commerce
B2) Industry

CQ) Are there precursor installations in Astarte?
C1) No, there's none
C2) Yes, there's one, but it's out of use
C3) Yes, there are many, but none are in use
C4) Yes, there are, and at least one's in use

DQ) Has Astarte been inhabited for a long time?
D1) Yes, Astarte history goes back centuries or longer
D2) No, it's been occupied relatively recently

3 is written at right angles to answers 1, 2 and 4, and mostly doesn't fit in at all. I don't really care for how most of the other answers seem to tend away from "Decentralized Corporate State" towards "Decentralized Industrial/Plutocratic Oligarchy" but it seems I've been outmanoeuvred.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by TGLS

3 is written at right angles to answers 1, 2 and 4, and mostly doesn't fit in at all. I don't really care for how most of the other answers seem to tend away from "Decentralized Corporate State" towards "Decentralized Industrial/Plutocratic Oligarchy" but it seems I've been outmanoeuvred.

I'm not sure how many of us see a difference between "Decentralized Corporate State" and "Decentralized Industrial/Plutocratic Oligarchy," which might be part of the issue.

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

I'm not sure how many of us see a difference between "Decentralized Corporate State" and "Decentralized Industrial/Plutocratic Oligarchy," which might be part of the issue.

A decentralized corporate state is still organized like a corporation, while a decentralized oligarchy isn't. You can advance up a corporate ladder. A corporate state is still a corporation, and exists to turn a profit for their shareholders. Shareholders control top-level leadership.

Oligarchies are rule by the few. How they control their leadership is varied, perhaps through property/wealth requirements, or perhaps by self-selection. There may very well be no relation between the employees of an oligarchy and their leadership. Oligarchies exist for their rulers benefit. A plutocratic oligarchy that turns a small loss but allows the Oligarchs to personally profit is doing OK, a corporate state run like that is on course for failure.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by TGLS

A decentralized corporate state is still organized like a corporation, .

Well, theoretically it is but hypothetical corporate states have few if any real world models while oligarchies of various sorts are common.

Also, many real world corporations are (private) oligarchies themselves and are not effectively controlled by their stockholders. This of course confuses a number of issues.

[adm]

2.
I think I will go with Fred Bracken's Idea,with the add on, ala StarGate Atlantis.