World Memberships in the Imperium

[Hal]

Hello Folks,
As I work at customizing my own Traveller Universe, I'm making note of some of the apparent definitions of worlds per T5 in the sense that it defines worlds into three sorts of categories...

One is where worlds are population 7+
Another is where worlds are population 4 through 6
and the third is worlds that are populations 1 through 3

In My Traveller Universe, as a consequence of this - I'm looking at the following definitions:

Member World: Any world whose population is 1 million or higher, and has a treaty with the Third Imperium granting it specific rights and protections, as well as outlining specific obligations on the part of the world. These worlds are overseen by the Ministry of State.

Colonies: The term "Colony" seems to be applied to worlds regardless of whether they have the Colony Government type or not. Using T5's list of home worlds, I find that there are more than a few worlds with populations 4 and 5 that are described as mining colonies, etc. IMTU, these worlds are not afforded the same rights as member worlds, but are deemed to be Imperial Territory none the less. They are overseen by the Ministry of Colonization.

Settlements: These are worlds that have populations less than 10,000 people and are relatively transient in nature. These worlds aren't even really seen as colonies, but tend to be deemed transient until such a time as the population of the world increases to that of 10,000 or more. As such, most of the worlds are deemed protectorates of the Third Imperium, and are overseen by the Ministry of Conservation.

The Ministry of Colonization is responsible for not only helping worlds to plan colonies outright, but has the task of maintaining contact (Via the Scout Service) with these low population worlds that are often not on any trade route and are essentially back water worlds.

The Ministry of Resources on the other hand, is tasked with keeping track of worlds that are being "mined" for resources and allocating or authorizing "claims" for land (or asteroids) being processed for resources. This is essentially to cut down on claim jumping, or wasteful practices that destroy resources or despoil worlds that otherwise would not have over-watch of corporations raiding the land for resources. IMTU, MoR also collects fees from these operations so as to handle the demands of administration.

In the end, it boils down simply to the fact that as written, it seems that 10 people can populate a garden world, and somehow manage to keep all potential squatters from descending upon such a garden paradise - despite not having the means to enforce their desires (short of demanding that the world be made into a red zone and having their desires enforced by the Imperial Navy). In this respect, it also begs off the issue of what happens when a world is settled by 5,000 people on one continent, and then settled by 10,000 people on another continent - and the second group claiming that they are the world government, never mind that the original 5,000 were there first.

In short? There are specific criteria to be met before a world can be deemed a "Member World". All other worlds would be treated as territories of the Third Imperium if within Imperial Space. While the Imperium may rule the space between the stars (A lofty slogan at best!), someone has to keep the peace, recognize claims of land, protect resources from plunder, and ultimately, promote a peaceful settlement of worlds instead of watching as two member worlds go to war over who gets to colonize a world in what manner.

 

[Hemdian]

One thing to be careful of is what do the UWP digits actually mean. In the case of the population digit it has been established that this represents permanent inhabitants and not transients. Your garden world with 10 people could have ten thousand semi-permanent visitors. (Pixie, in the Spinward Marches, is a canon example of this.). Those 'visitors' could be there with or without permission from the planet's 10 official inhabitants.

Meanwhile, a world with two seperate colonies on could be classified as balkanised.

 

[rancke]

One thing to be careful of is what do the UWP digits actually mean. In the case of the population digit it has been established that this represents permanent inhabitants and not transients.

Where has that been established? There are plenty of canonical examples of worlds where the population is partly or wholly composed of transients. Apart from those examples, I would argue that almost all low-population worlds (there would be some exceptions) are outposts and thus composed mostly or entirely of transients (and not sovereign at all).

Your garden world with 10 people could have ten thousand semi-permanent visitors. (Pixie, in the Spinward Marches, is a canon example of this.). Those 'visitors' could be there with or without permission from the planet's 10 official inhabitants.

This "explanation" has the problem of having to explain why the Imperium or the neighbors would accept 10 people as the sovereign population of a garden world. Again, some explanations that work are possible, but not enough to cover the vast number of low-population worlds that the world generation system provides.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

... Again, some explanations that work are possible, but not enough to cover the vast number of low-population worlds that the world generation system provides. ...

The world-generation system sucks moss-covered muddy rocks when it comes to population dynamics.

 

[Hemdian]

One thing to be careful of is what do the UWP digits actually mean. In the case of the population digit it has been established that this represents permanent inhabitants and not transients.

Where has that been established? There are plenty of canonical examples of worlds where the population is partly or wholly composed of transients. Apart from those examples, I would argue that almost all low-population worlds (there would be some exceptions) are outposts and thus composed mostly or entirely of transients (and not sovereign aty all).

I was basing that, in part, on Pixie ... population 90 (mainly subsistence-level miners), class A starport, naval base, and (before the 5FW) a significant ship building facility (according to TNS news stories) ... but it's entirely possible I overstated the claim. Can you give a couple of counter-examples?

 

[Hal]

I wanted to hold off responding to the comment about "Transients" because I wanted to mull it over before engaging mouth as it were...

My problem with the "transients" comment in general, is that if they are Transient enough that they don't really count for local activity, no "vested stake in the local government", no roots, etc - then there is going to have to be a way to account for their not being there, but needing services provided for them. For example, if they are transient, they need to be transported from where they were to begin with, to where they are now, and then be transported away shortly.

My next question is: what is the difference between a mining colony of 3,000 people, whose contracts keep them employed there, but have no real long term interest in staying there? Do those 3,000 people count as "Zero population"?

What of an "outpost" where the people number only 2,000 or so - and are there as religious refugees who want to start life over in some small forgotten corner of the universe, free from outside intervention? These people probably don't have sufficient resources to turn their outpost into a permanent settlement, unless of course they are actively "Settlers" with a goal towards growing their world's population from the initial 2,000 to something larger some 200 years from the present of their founding.

In all - the Transients theory, while perhaps useful for some GM's - kinda falls flat on its face for me. For example? If you have a world with Transients, 10 permanent population, and 50,000 transients - where did those Transients come from? How long do they get to stay? More importantly, who enforces the "transient" status upon them such that they have to LEAVE?

 

[rancke]

I was basing that, in part, on Pixie ... population 90 (mainly subsistence-level miners), class A starport, naval base, and (before the 5FW) a significant ship building facility (according to TNS news stories) ...

Pixie has long been the poster boy for problem worlds. It would make sense if the Imperium allowed General Shipyards to claim it. Or the Imperium could claim it for itself. Or it might even be balkanized, with the shipyard and the naval base both being Type 6 governments. But I'm totally at a loss to understand why the Imperium would accept 90 anarchic subsistence-level miners as a sovereign population.

Do a search for 'Pixie' and you will find several threads trying and failing to make sense of that much-discussed world.

...but it's entirely possible I overstated the claim. Can you give a couple of counter-examples?

Here you go:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=30291


Hans

 

[Hemdian]

Obviously the whole issue of counting transients is more complex than I’d realised. And it appears that it hasn’t been handled consistently over time with different authors taking different tacks.

My take is that published UWPs are meant for travellers and small merchants. It has a number of shortcomings when you try to use it for a deeper analysis. How many transients are there? Do they stay in their camps and facilities or interact with the local economy? And on the flipside, how many offworld workers does a planet have? Are they sending money home to their families? What about Imperial military (IN, et al) dependents ... when someone gets an offworld non-ship posting do families follow?

----

As to the sovereignty of Pixie ... It is a rock in the middle of nowhere. It has a few local miners who claim it for their own.

Then, because of the proximity of the Zhodani (or whatever), the IN decided to put a base there. The Imperium can do that without ‘claiming’ the world. So why would they?

GS decide to locate a major shipbuilding facility there (for reasons that are not clear). But with all the staff on various long term contracts and returning to their respective homes afterwards why would GS want to claim Pixie? As long as the miners don’t get uppity it would be easier and cheaper to come to an amicable arrangement with them ... say “free use of the starport facilities that GS built.”

Yes, the IN or GS could claim the world and the miners could do little about it. But if neither can be bothered to, then on paper at least, Pixie remains the uncontested world of the miners.

----

So, going back to the original post ... not counting transients is one explanation that a Referee can use to explain an unusually low population on an otherwise desirable world. But it’s up the Referee. YMMV.

 

[rancke]

My take is that published UWPs are meant for travellers and small merchants.

The trouble with that view is that the number of people living on the world is what travellers (i.e. PCs ) and small merchants needs to know, not how many of them have passports issued by the local government. A free trader needs to know how many people there are on a world to know how many passengers and how much freight he can hope to scrape up when he next visits. Travellers need to know how many law enforcement individuals a world has, 1 part-time out of 10 or a dozen full-time out of thousand?

And note that every single trade rule assumes that the actual population level is the one indicated by the UWP (most of the time they even ignore the population multiplier).

As to the sovereignty of Pixie ... It is a rock in the middle of nowhere. It has a few local miners who claim it for their own.

It's a world in a system claimed by the Imperium.

Then, because of the proximity of the Zhodani (or whatever), the IN decided to put a base there. The Imperium can do that without ‘claiming’ the world. So why would they?

Because the Imperium already claimed it. They claimed it when they put the border to the Vargr Extent rimwards of Pixie.

GS decide to locate a major shipbuilding facility there (for reasons that are not clear). But with all the staff on various long term contracts and returning to their respective homes afterwards why would GS want to claim Pixie?

At the very least GS would want a perimeter inside which company regulations applied.

Yes, the IN or GS could claim the world and the miners could do little about it. But if neither can be bothered to, then on paper at least, Pixie remains the uncontested world of the miners.

I think Pixie would remain an Imperial possession until the population of Pixie got a membership treaty. And it's precisely that, a membership treaty, that I can't see the Imperium giving to 90 transient belters.

Oh, yes, transients. I see no reason why the belters would count as locals. They presumably weren't born there and they presumably do not plan to settle down and raise families there.


Hans

 

[Hemdian]

The trouble with that view is that the number of people living on the world is what travellers (i.e. PCs ) and small merchants needs to know, not how many of them have passports issued by the local government. A free trader needs to know how many people there are on a world to know how many passengers and how much freight he can hope to scrape up when he next visits. Travellers need to know how many law enforcement individuals a world has, 1 part-time out of 10 or a dozen full-time out of thousand?

No. A visitor needs to know enough to have some idea what to expect in terms of bureaucracy, local laws, and customs. A small merchant needs to have an approximation of the size and nature of the local market for buying and selling goods the 'big boys' haven't bothered with, how much paperwork, how intrusive law enforcement is, and any trade restrictions that might be relevant. Neither need an accurate census.

(However, both would benefit from an ethnic breakdown of the population ... something else traditionally lacking in older UWPs but increasingly featuring in newer stats.)

On many worlds the number of transients are insignificant compared to the permanent population and can thus be safely ignored. Worlds like Pixie are an exception. Perhaps the 'fix' would be to add two more population digits: one for transients, one for offworld workers (not present yet still economically tied, their relatives would enjoy greater spending power).

At the very least GS would want a perimeter inside which company regulations applied.

Agreed. Definitely. No argument there.

I think Pixie would remain an Imperial possession until the population of Pixie got a membership treaty. And it's precisely that, a membership treaty, that I can't see the Imperium giving to 90 transient belters.

Oh, yes, transients. I see no reason why the belters would count as locals. They presumably weren't born there and they presumably do not plan to settle down and raise families there.

These miners (not belters) are by definition not transient. Beyond that we know nothing about them. Perhaps they are an extended family and associates, awarded this world generations before in payment for some undisclosed service to the Imperium. Who knows? It could be anything.

You are right that this world could so easily by a 'captive government' of the Imperium ... and yet the one thing we do know is that this is not the case. These 90 people are, for whatever reason, recognised by the Imperium as the rightful inhabitants. And presumably some sort of Imperial member world agreement/treaty/whatever must also exist, be it formal or informal.

(Or ... the given UWP is a lie. Perhaps dis-information put out by IN counterintelligence?)



In any case I only raised the example of Pixie as a possible explanation for some apparent population anomalies. I doubt it's the solution to all such anomalies.

 

[rancke]

No. A visitor needs to know enough to have some idea what to expect in terms of bureaucracy, local laws, and customs.

Which depends (among other things too, of course) on the size of the community.

A small merchant needs to have an approximation of the size and nature of the local market for buying and selling goods the 'big boys' haven't bothered with, how much paperwork, how intrusive law enforcement is, and any trade restrictions that might be relevant. Neither need an accurate census.

But they need a ballpark figure. Which requires including transients.

On many worlds the number of transients are insignificant compared to the permanent population and can thus be safely ignored. Worlds like Pixie are an exception.

But it's the exceptions that we're discussing. The ones where transients would make a big difference to the number. If you don't count transients, many resource extraction operations ought to have a permanent population of 0. But I've yet to find a world writeup with a mining colony with a population figure of 0.

Perhaps the 'fix' would be to add two more population digits: one for transients, one for offworld workers (not present yet still economically tied, their relatives would enjoy greater spending power).

We actually have two missing figures: The permanent/transient split and population living elsewhere than on the mainworld. An expanded system profile would definitely be useful. As long as we're restricted to the 80-character expanded UWP, I think we're stuck with only one population figure, and I believe that the most useful figure would be total system population. Of course, adopting that would require vetting all the expanded UWPs and changing a lot of the population figures.

These miners (not belters)...

"The world itself has a tiny population of belters who have as yet made only small finds." [BtC: 80]​

...are by definition not transient.

I think that they are very much transients as that term is defined. They come from elsewhere and they presumably intend to go away again once they strike it rich. 90 people are not a viable long-term population.

Beyond that we know nothing about them. Perhaps they are an extended family and associates, awarded this world generations before in payment for some undisclosed service to the Imperium. Who knows? It could be anything.

They could be a lot of thing, but a viable population is not one of them.

You are right that this world could so easily by a 'captive government' of the Imperium ... and yet the one thing we do know is that this is not the case.

The consequence of publishing unvetted randomly generated data.

These 90 people are, for whatever reason, recognised by the Imperium as the rightful inhabitants.

Which brings us right back to my original objection. To me, "for whatever reason" doesn't cut it as an explanation. If I can't come up with an explanation that works and no one else can either, I feel justified in declaring a flaw in the setting.

Mind you, if someone one day does come up with an explanation that works I'd be pleased as Punch. But I'm not holding my breath waiting.

And presumably some sort of Imperial member world agreement/treaty/whatever must also exist, be it formal or informal.

That's a presumption I can't convince myself to believe.

Incidentally, I have come up with an explanation for Pixie that just manages to crawl across my belief threshold. But it requires changing the UWP to have several thousand inhabitants and a type 6 government.

In any case I only raised the example of Pixie as a possible explanation for some apparent population anomalies. I doubt it's the solution to all such anomalies.

I don't think it's the solution to even one.


Hans

 

[Hemdian]

"The world itself has a tiny population of belters who have as yet made only small finds." [BtC: 80]

(sigh) Although I have a copy of BtC lying around somewhere I've not read a lot of it. But it looks like the author of BtC made some changes ... which doesn't help. 'Belters' does sound less permanent than 'miners'.

 

[rancke]

(sigh) Although I have a copy of BtC lying around somewhere I've not read a lot of it. But it looks like the author of BtC made some changes ... which doesn't help. 'Belters' does sound less permanent than 'miners'.

As far as I know there is no prior canon other than the UWP itself about just who and what the inhabitants of Pixie are. If I've forgotten some information of that sort, I'd very much like a quote.


Hans

 

[Hemdian]

As far as I know there is no prior canon other than the UWP itself about just who and what the inhabitants of Pixie are. If I've forgotten some information of that sort, I'd very much like a quote.

I've been working double time in my day job for the past few weeks which is frying my brain somewhat but I seem the remember there being a couple ... but I can't recall just now. One I do remember is the adventure in the last issue of Digest (21?). (Some people are confused as to whether or not DGP was de-canonised: it was not, but since SJGames weren't allowed to use DGP material they started to overwrite it.). If/when I find the other references I'll let you know.

 

[rancke]

I've been working double time in my day job for the past few weeks which is frying my brain somewhat but I seem the remember there being a couple ... but I can't recall just now. One I do remember is the adventure in the last issue of Digest (21?). (Some people are confused as to whether or not DGP was de-canonised: it was not, but since SJGames weren't allowed to use DGP material they started to overwrite it.). If/when I find the other references I'll let you know.

Digest #21. Yes, you're probably right about Pixie's inhabitants-that-counts being mentioned there. I'll check it out myself.

It's a digression, anyway, because 90 miners are no more a viable community than 90 belters would be.


Hans

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Question.

Digest #21. Yes, you're probably right about Pixie's inhabitants-that-counts being mentioned there. I'll check it out myself.

It's a digression, anyway, because 90 miners are no more a viable community than 90 belters would be.


Hans

Exactly why are 90 sophonts an unviable community?

 

[aramis]

Exactly why are 90 sophonts an unviable community?

As a lone community, they're unable to maintain genetic diversity.

As part of a larger group of communities, they're perfectly viable.

But 90 guys having a class A port? Must be highly automated.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Well, duh.

As a lone community, they're unable to maintain genetic diversity.

As part of a larger group of communities, they're perfectly viable.

But 90 guys having a class A port? Must be highly automated.

So, in a system that sees a lot of military traffic some how is it that no one is mating (being polite here)? I think it would work just fine using the same system as CJ Cherryh's Merchanters which is the crew gets its genetic diversity by making babies with Stationers. Don't see why that wouldn't work fine and that doesn't even start with the Medtech available at TL-D.

And that TL-D seems good enough to keep a Starport open, but then I am cool with tons of robots.

 

[Hemdian]

A thought has just occured: How many prisoners are there on the Gash? According to CT Adventure 1 there are 20 guards and admin staff but from a quick scan I didn't see anything about prisoner numbers. If Pixie's population includes transients then a ratio of just 3.5 prisoners to each prison staff member would account for everyone in the system. No miners (or belters), no staff running the class A starport, no IN personnel in the naval base, no workers in the GS shipyards...

 

[savage]

A thought has just occured: How many prisoners are there on the Gash? According to CT Adventure 1 there are 20 guards and admin staff but from a quick scan I didn't see anything about prisoner numbers. If Pixie's population includes transients then a ratio of just 3.5 prisoners to each prison staff member would account for everyone in the system. No miners (or belters), no staff running the class A starport, no IN personnel in the naval base, no workers in the GS shipyards...

I agree Hemdian.
However, the numbers could be enormous with warbots and a reasonable transient group. Just because it says the garden world does not mean people want to live with the indigenous species. Again we have miners they may not be on that great of a world. Sure, its garden but pre-historic or let's remember Star Trek: Mudd's Women in which a handful of miners held the Enterprise at bay. It's all about the money, well ok and women and ok drugs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudd's_Women

Why would you name a world Pixie? That is too easy! I'd rather not live there either.