To some of my fellow imperial Commanders, what's wrong with you??

[Commander Starcloak]

Trick question as you present those options as a disjunction

I think we can agree that the "rightful" blood heir is not ALWAYS going to be the best possible leader for the Empire. Sometimes they are. But sometimes they aren't. I see a lot of commanders saying they will support Arissa or Aisling and they give no other reason than the fact that they have a blood claim.

In actual fact when it comes right down to it, bloodline inheritance is possibly the worst way of choosing a new leader. You never know what you're going to get, and chances are extremely high that there will always be someone who could be a better leader. Meritocratic succession seems to me to be a far more preferrable method of selecting the Imperial succession. The best person for the job should always be the one selected.

So I suppose my question comes down to this: do you believe a bloodline inheritance or meritocracy is a better way of finding a leader for the Empire?

 

[Vasious]

I think we can agree that the "rightful" blood heir is not ALWAYS going to be the best possible leader for the Empire. Sometimes they are. But sometimes they aren't. I see a lot of commanders saying they will support Arissa or Aisling and they give no other reason than the fact that they have a blood claim.

In actual fact when it comes right down to it, bloodline inheritance is possibly the worst way of choosing a new leader. You never know what you're going to get, and chances are extremely high that there will always be someone who could be a better leader. Meritocratic succession seems to me to be a far more preferrable method of selecting the Imperial succession. The best person for the job should always be the one selected.

So I suppose my question comes down to this: do you believe a bloodline inheritance or meritocracy is a better way of finding a leader for the Empire?

Bloodline, A clear succession law removes the debate, their will be one legal heir.
A meritocracy encourages the debate on who should be Emperor, and creates factionalism within the Empire.
We can already see the divisions the succession crisis is causing already, it will only get worse if anyone with money and a military backing can be Emperor.
If one can be put in power by such things, the next person can do the same

That we have a Chancellor and a Senate to manage and advise the Emperor, shows the emperor is not necessarily involved in the day to day running of the Empire, but likely gives Imperial assent to what the Senate suggest to be law.

This where you want the meritocracy to exist, with the Chancellor, and what ever other posts that exist, and in the Senate.

They can squabble about make friends and enemies and debate what the Emperor should decree into Law.

Popular decisions are then credited to the Emperor, and unpopular ones are blamed on the senate.

Thus people can support or deride the Chancellor or and Senate, but still be loyal to the Emperor regardless of their ideological view point as the Emperor is kept above such things.

It allows the Governance of the Empire to be brought under scrutiny and criticized by a loyal opposition without falling foul of Lèse-majesté.

 

[Commander Starcloak]

Bloodline, A clear succession law removes the debate, their will be one legal heir.
A meritocracy encourages the debate on who should be Emperor, and creates factionalism within the Empire.
We can already see the divisions the succession crisis is causing already, it will only get worse if anyone with money and a military backing can be Emperor.
If one can be put in power by such things, the next person can do the same

That we have a Chancellor and a Senate to manage and advise the Emperor, shows the emperor is not necessarily involved in the day to day running of the Empire, but likely gives Imperial assent to what the Senate suggest to be law.

This where you want the meritocracy to exist, with the Chancellor, and what ever other posts that exist, and in the Senate.

They can squabble about make friends and enemies and debate what the Emperor should decree into Law.

Popular decisions are then credited to the Emperor, and unpopular ones are blamed on the senate.

Thus people can support or deride the Chancellor or and Senate, but still be loyal to the Emperor regardless of their ideological view point as the Emperor is kept above such things.

It allows the Governance of the Empire to be brought under scrutiny and criticized by a loyal opposition without falling foul of Lèse-majesté.

And what if the bloodline produces a homicidal maniac as Empress/Emperor or a drooling idiot? This must never be allowed to happen. The succession must always pass to an Empress or Emperor whose intelligence, wisdom, and strategic superiority are never in doubt, whose humanity, progressiveness, and integrity inspire devotion amongst the populace to their dream for the future. Let every citizen be eligible, and whoever is the most worthy, ascend the marble steps.

At the same time, what is the point of a sole ruler who never rules at all? The great advantage of autocracy is the effectiveness it can bring to bear compared to the squabbling of democracy - the beast that consumes itself from within and where no one is sastisfied. If there is an autocracy then one alone can rule.

 

[Vasious]

And what if the bloodline produces a homicidal maniac as Empress/Emperor or a drooling idiot? This must never be allowed to happen. The succession must always pass to an Empress or Emperor whose intelligence, wisdom, and strategic superiority are never in doubt, whose humanity, progressiveness, and integrity inspire devotion amongst the populace to their dream for the future. Let every citizen be eligible, and whoever is the most worthy, ascend the marble steps.

At the same time, what is the point of a sole ruler who never rules at all? The great advantage of autocracy is the effectiveness it can bring to bear compared to the squabbling of democracy - the beast that consumes itself from within and where no one is sastisfied. If there is an autocracy then one alone can rule.

His Imperial Majesty Hengist removing High Imperial Highness Harald from the line of succession is the answer to you concern of someone deemed truly unsuitable for the throne being the heir. It doesn't change the succession laws, just makes someone"dead" as far as they are concerned, the traditions and stability is upheld.
There are systems in place, you seek to use possibilities already prepared against as an argument to change the very laws of succession.
"Let every citizen be eligible, and whoever is the most worthy, ascend the marble steps."
Remember Alexander the Great's supposed words on who would succeed him
"To the strongest", and the Diadochi split the empire and waged bloody war upon in other and none was successful in subduing all others, and in the end Alexanders Empire was no more, conquered by outsiders


The Emperor is the Head of State, the Empire isn't a Absolute Depositism, remember even the Emperor was bound by law to announce his wedding 30 days in advance, nor did I say that the Emperor does not rule at all.
You need to stop thinking of things in binary outcomes.
The Emperor is the font of all, the source of the laws, but the debate and investigate and research into what laws best serve the Empire be delegated to the Senate.
You say you want a leader that is intelligent and wise etc etc, so I ask you, would a good leader not have many capable advisers with many different areas of expertise to provide advise on the subjects of concern.
It would still be the Emperor that makes the pronouncement but it is a foolish leader that does not listen and hear the advise of their subordinates.
They are no way bound to follow the advise of the Senate about ought to recognize it.
And is not better the Emperors attention best left to the Big picture? Let the Senate debate the minutae.
Don't mistake allowing subordinates to operate with degrees of delegated authority in matter to get them resolved as allowing an Ochlocracy

As I said above

Let the Senate worry about how to make the Empire greater tomorrow than it is today, let the Emperor be a reminder of what we did yesterday that makes us great today.

The Best Senator can be wasted as Emperor, just as the greatest of Emperors sullied by doing the work of the Legislator

 

[Commander Starcloak]

"Progressive" is the watchword of those who would abandon tradition for personal gain

“Tradition” is the watchword of those who would hold on to personal gain over the good of all. See how long the Empire lasts on “tradition”. When a more progressive and technologically superior state comes along, see what happens to those who abhor progress. To disdain progress is to condemn the Empire to stagnation.

Bloodline, A clear succession law removes the debate, their will be one legal heir.
A meritocracy encourages the debate on who should be Emperor, and creates factionalism within the Empire.
We can already see the divisions the succession crisis is causing already, it will only get worse if anyone with money and a military backing can be Emperor.
If one can be put in power by such things, the next person can do the same.

The Empire seems to be in a rather large debate about succession right now, and succession currently passes on bloodline. Bloodline succession has created the current crisis the Empire is now facing. How did the Duvals originally become Emperor? By a bloody coup, murdering Marlin Duval and her family.

That we have a Chancellor and a Senate to manage and advise the Emperor, shows the emperor is not necessarily involved in the day to day running of the Empire, but likely gives Imperial assent to what the Senate suggest to be law. This where you want the meritocracy to exist, with the Chancellor, and what ever other posts that exist, and in the Senate. They can squabble about make friends and enemies and debate what the Emperor should decree into Law. Popular decisions are then credited to the Emperor, and unpopular ones are blamed on the senate. Thus people can support or deride the Chancellor or and Senate, but still be loyal to the Emperor regardless of their ideological view point as the Emperor is kept above such things. It allows the Governance of the Empire to be brought under scrutiny and criticized by a loyal opposition without falling foul of Lèse-majesté.

You appear to support a rubber-stamp figurehead, is this so, or would the Emperor have discretionary veto? Where no veto exists, I see no problem with a lunatic on the throne as long as legislation is passed without seeking Imperial approval.

His Imperial Majesty Hengist removing High Imperial Highness Harald from the line of succession is the answer to you concern of someone deemed truly unsuitable for the throne being the heir. It doesn't change the succession laws, just makes someone"dead" as far as they are concerned, the traditions and stability is upheld.
There are systems in place, you seek to use possibilities already prepared against as an argument to change the very laws of succession.

Unfortunately it is not the answer. The present instability and debate is being caused precisely by the current system. There is no guarantee that any future Emperor/Empress would have more than one offspring, or indeed any offspring, and who could guarantee that a future Emperor/Empress would disavow their own offspring? Even if an heir were to be disowned, they would likely have their own power base leading to factionalism of the Empire – as indeed is exactly what is occurring now.

Remember Alexander the Great's supposed words on who would succeed him "To the strongest", and the Diadochi split the empire and waged bloody war upon in other and none was successful in subduing all others, and in the end Alexanders Empire was no more, conquered by outsiders

Let’s scrub out the supposed words for starters, since they were exactly that – supposed. There is no proof that Megas o Alexandros ever said such a thing. Alexandros ruled a bloodline dynasty. His family ruled Makedon based on succession of bloodline. His successors were of his bloodline. And much good it did him. The Persian Empire Alexandros conquered had an obvious, sole, bloodline successor at the time he conquered it. Most empires had a bloodline succession. Those empires fell. The last of the Hellenistic kingdoms that had once been part of Alexandros’ empire fell a little under three hundred years after his death. I would hardly say that meritocracy caused the downfall of that empire. What caused the downfall of Alexander's empire was specifically the fact that succession worked on a system of bloodline and the bloodline successors were witless or weak. Besides which, Ptolemaios in 321 BCE defeated his rivals but refused to take the regency, despite being offered it by popular support. He was a wise leader who knew the limits of his abilities and knew that he was no Alexandros.

All empires fall eventually. This Empire is no different. It is the way of things. A bloodline succession has protected no empire in the past from such a fate, there is no evidence to suggest it will do so in the future.

The Emperor is the Head of State, the Empire isn't a Absolute Depositism, remember even the Emperor was bound by law to announce his wedding 30 days in advance, nor did I say that the Emperor does not rule at all.
You need to stop thinking of things in binary outcomes.
The Emperor is the font of all, the source of the laws, but the debate and investigate and research into what laws best serve the Empire be delegated to the Senate.
You say you want a leader that is intelligent and wise etc etc, so I ask you, would a good leader not have many capable advisers with many different areas of expertise to provide advise on the subjects of concern.

You assume I’ve said an Emperor/Empress should be without wise advisors, when in fact I said in an autocracy and autocrat should rule – not the Senate – else there is little point in an autocracy since the advantage of effectiveness that it has over democratic states is negated. A wise meritocratic ruler, knowing their own fallibility, would turn to advisors and delegate where needed.

It would still be the Emperor that makes the pronouncement but it is a foolish leader that does not listen and hear the advise of their subordinates. They are no way bound to follow the advise of the Senate about ought to recognize it. And is not better the Emperors attention best left to the Big picture? Let the Senate debate the minutae. Don't mistake allowing subordinates to operate with degrees of delegated authority in matter to get them resolved as allowing an Ochlocracy As I said above Let the Senate worry about how to make the Empire greater tomorrow than it is today, let the Emperor be a reminder of what we did yesterday that makes us great today. The Best Senator can be wasted as Emperor, just as the greatest of Emperors sullied by doing the work of the Legislator

Well, there are no guarantees about not having a foolish leader, are there? Especially when the future leader of the Empire is chosen by DNA instead of actual skill for the job. It is a foolish leader who takes his eye off vital details. What happens if an Emperor/Empress simply flat out refuses to sign any of the laws presented to them by the Senate? The case of a figurehead with no power to legislate they might be seen by many as supporting stability however there aren’t any guarantees about the quality of that personality. You seem to argue in places that you want a powerful ruler to decide with the advice from wise advisors, and then you seem to say that an Emperor should remind you of past greatness, playing no part in current affairs – which is it? In the case that the Emperor/Empress does have a veto, we don’t want some random DNA making the decisions, we want the best possible decision-maker. In ancient Rome, Cincinnatus was considered the pinnacle of civic virtue – called upon to lead, he led, having done his duty, he gave up his power. This is what a great meritocratic leader must do; serve to the utmost of his or her abilities, asking no one to do what he or she would not do him or herself, and, having served, knowing that power must not remain with themselves or their bloodline, have the wisdom and humanity to select another who equally will give the best part of themselves, seeking no permanent rewards. Those who desire a stake, for themselves or for their genetic bloodline, their decisions are dictated by personal gain, not by real wisdom of governance. The leader who can never have permanent personal or genetic hold on power is less likely to have their judgment affected by desire for personal gain, and more likely to select a successor based on competence and wisdom.

 

[Jason Pegasi]

Aisling collect slaves and "frees" them and out of "gratitude" they devote their lives so her, so they stay indentured servants, just indentured for a different reason, c.f freedmen owing labour to Romans who freed them from the bondage of slavery, so her anti slavery platform isnt such a radical reformist stance as once would think, the whole rivalry with Torval might just be for show, Torvals factions in the descriptions are hedonistic decedents, so likely happen to just keep doing what they do undisturbed, leaving the way for Aisling and Patreus to be the new Power couple and rule the Empire, with Patreus maybe even claiming Jure Uxoris and bam he is Emperor.

As I was one of the Angels that freed those people, how dare you imply that was not genuine.

How dare you imply the Princess simply transferred their ownership to herself! Perhaps you are not aware, but only about 70-80% stayed with Aisling for life, and a few more pledged a term of service, but these were out of gratitude. Anybody who wanted to start a new life was allowed to. Aisling even set up a matriculation program for them to become citizens. So why don't you do some research before you attack a Duval's character, hmm?

Although you are correct in one aspect, and that is that Aisling's new supporters are a force to be reckoned with.

- - - Updated - - -

I haven't forgotten her... I just think Aisling lacks the wit to think her way out of a paper bag.

She is not the consummate politician, and it's obvious that many others range ahead of her on that point. She's fighting her bid for the crown using only what she's got and what she knows - her celebrity star power. And kudos to her for that, I grant you. I just don't think it's enough. She does not come across as particularly bright in... well, frankly, anywhere she's been quoted... and aside from using social power to evoke sympathy she does not seem to have any real strategy, or plans for the Empire. Her support of the anti-slavery movement feels false - much like the celebrities of ancient Earth adopting poor orphan babies without any real regard or care - it feels like it's just a cause to make her look good and give her a platform on an issue that distinguishes her from her rivals. I get the impression that she only wants the throne because she loves her privileged lifestyle and she feels that it has always been hers and therefore it SHOULD be hers - not that she has any idea what to do with such power or that she has any cares or plans for the future of the Empire.

The tactics are our job as her court. Perhaps you simply do not understand the Princess's strategy. As far as your theory that she supports matriculation because it is advantageous politically, perhaps you are not aware of the history of Imperial politics regarding slavery. This has historically been a wildly unpopular position. She has made it more popular.

And an Imperial Princess will always live that lifestyle. Look at Harold, he's been flying around sampling drugs for decades and even his own father, the Emperor, has allowed him to live like that. Aisling's lifestyle does not need protecting, she wants to steward the Empire because she wants to free the millions trapped in chains.

Or who knows, maybe I'm wrong and she just wants power, like everyone else. If she uses that power to end the evil and impractical practice of slavery, I'm all for it.

 

[Commander Starcloak]

As I was one of the Angels that freed those people, how dare you imply that was not genuine.

How dare you imply the Princess simply transferred their ownership to herself! Perhaps you are not aware, but only about 70-80% stayed with Aisling for life, and a few more pledged a term of service, but these were out of gratitude. Anybody who wanted to start a new life was allowed to. Aisling even set up a matriculation program for them to become citizens

I have to agree with this. Those people made a choice.

And, Cmdr Pegasi - you are correct that if Aisling has good people around her she could still make it. I would prefer that the ruler be directly themselves a competent tactician - but guided by those around her, Aisling could make it.

I am aware of the Empire's history of slavery. Attitudes are changing though - Aisling's position is not as unpopular as it would have been in the past. I'm still not convinced she really truly cares for those people - though I do support the anti-slavery position. Or, at the very least, stricter regulation of contract terms and working conditions - those slaves who "slip throught he cracks" and work in the mines sorely need to be addressed!

As regards lifestyle and money... If I were advising Aisling? Truly? I'd tell her to publicly and visibly give large chunks of money away to those in need and be seen to get stuck in - HERSELF, not her supporters - to go and listen to people in need and personally labour to aid them. She would absolutely rocket up in popularity - and in my estimation of her ability as potential ruler - if she did that. The fact that Hengist allowed Harold to live like he did to me shows Hengist's unsuitability as much as Harold's. Hengist should've cracked down on that sort of behaviour early on. Hengist has been a disappointingly absent ruler, letting cracks appear and problems slide when he should've been getting involved. In fact, it makes me angry. It was his duty of government, it was his responsibility to his people. As far as I'm concerned, he neglected his responsibilities and his duties as ruler.

 

[Jason Pegasi]

though I do support the anti-slavery position. Or, at the very least, stricter regulation of contract terms and working conditions - those slaves who "slip throught he cracks" and work in the mines sorely need to be addressed!

Then were you an Imperial, I would count you as an ally any day.

Regarding your other statements, Commander Starcloak, we agree on much.

 

[Vasious]

As I was one of the Angels that freed those people, how dare you imply that was not genuine.

How dare you imply the Princess simply transferred their ownership to herself! Perhaps you are not aware, but only about 70-80% stayed with Aisling for life, and a few more pledged a term of service, but these were out of gratitude. Anybody who wanted to start a new life was allowed to. Aisling even set up a matriculation program for them to become citizens. So why don't you do some research before you attack a Duval's character, hmm?

Although you are correct in one aspect, and that is that Aisling's new supporters are a force to be reckoned with.

So was I

& Here is my Research.

From the Faction Descriptions

Her Imperial Highness; Aisling Duval
Empire Party, Patronage (Imperial Courtier), Cemiess
This Faction operates as an extension of the Imperial Princess' will. Their number have been recently begun being bolstered by liberated slaves who have chosen to become the Princess' servants in order to repay her from freeing them from bondage. <-- In order to repay her, wasn't their servitude due to debt anyway, sounds like they have replace on form of servitude with another, only at least when they were imperial slaves they had legal protection.

Patron's Principles. Imperial Humanist (Empire, Patronage) Ngun
Patron's Principles. Imperial Humanist (Empire, Patronage), Eta Horologii
Empire Group. Imperial Humanist (Empire, Patronage), Kuyu

As members of Aisling Duval's de facto court, this group have been openly showing their support for Aisling's movement by buying large numbers of Imperial Slaves and gifting them to the Princess to do with as she sees fit. <----- Why doesn't it say to free, rather than do as she see fit. Suggests they aren't all just freed now doesn't it.

 

[Vasious]

“Tradition” is the watchword of those who would hold on to personal gain over the good of all. See how long the Empire lasts on “tradition”. When a more progressive and technologically superior state comes along, see what happens to those who abhor progress. To disdain progress is to condemn the Empire to stagnation.

Tradition guides us through the evolution of the state. It is the stable foundation upon which the edifice of the Empire and be built and rebuilt upon, ever moving forward.
Here is what happens when traditions are lost

The Empire seems to be in a rather large debate about succession right now, and succession currently passes on bloodline. Bloodline succession has created the current crisis the Empire is now facing. How did the Duvals originally become Emperor? By a bloody coup, murdering Marlin Duval and her family.

From Galnet News

....He has ruled the Empire now for 67 years since his coronation in 3233 following the death of his father, Hesketh Duval.

Emperor Hengist is only 118, born only a week before the death of his grandfather, Hender Saik Duval. Some say Hender's spirit had already transferred to Hengist at that time.

The Duval Imperial line has been unbroken for almost a thousand years. There have been power struggles in the past, but the usurpers have been successfully dealt with behind closed doors....

You appear to support a rubber-stamp figurehead, is this so, or would the Emperor have discretionary veto? Where no veto exists, I see no problem with a lunatic on the throne as long as legislation is passed without seeking Imperial approval.

It is not rubber stamping.
The Senate debates matters then presents them as Senatus consultum to the Emperor
Or the Emperor Summons thee Senate and directs them of what laws he intend to pass and they must debate them.
And so if the law is to be passed it is then given Imperial assent

Unfortunately it is not the answer. The present instability and debate is being caused precisely by the current system. There is no guarantee that any future Emperor/Empress would have more than one offspring, or indeed any offspring, and who could guarantee that a future Emperor/Empress would disavow their own offspring? Even if an heir were to be disowned, they would likely have their own power base leading to factionalism of the Empire – as indeed is exactly what is occurring now.

Instability caused by people who meet neither of our definitions of a Good emperor.
If it was a meritocracy would any of them be suitable and none of them are Cincinnatus are they.

Let’s scrub out the supposed words for starters, since they were exactly that – supposed. There is no proof that Megas o Alexandros ever said such a thing. Alexandros ruled a bloodline dynasty. His family ruled Makedon based on succession of bloodline. His successors were of his bloodline. And much good it did him. The Persian Empire Alexandros conquered had an obvious, sole, bloodline successor at the time he conquered it. Most empires had a bloodline succession. Those empires fell. The last of the Hellenistic kingdoms that had once been part of Alexandros’ empire fell a little under three hundred years after his death. I would hardly say that meritocracy caused the downfall of that empire. What caused the downfall of Alexander's empire was specifically the fact that succession worked on a system of bloodline and the bloodline successors were witless or weak. Besides which, Ptolemaios in 321 BCE defeated his rivals but refused to take the regency, despite being offered it by popular support. He was a wise leader who knew the limits of his abilities and knew that he was no Alexandros.


[FONT=&]All empires fall eventually. This Empire is no different. It is the way of things. A bloodline succession has protected no empire in the past from such a fate, there is no evidence to suggest it will do so in the future.

Democracies and Republics fall too, because eventually no one lives up to the ideas that kept them stable.
I forget which Greek wrote it but the three good and three bad forms of government

A democracy spoiled by demagoguery and degenerates to a Ochlocracy where passion (media?) rules over reason
An aristocracy spoiled by corruption becomes an oligarchy
And a Monarchy that has lost its virtue is just a tyranny

You assume I’ve said an Emperor/Empress should be without wise advisors, when in fact I said in an autocracy and autocrat should rule – not the Senate – else there is little point in an autocracy since the advantage of effectiveness that it has over democratic states is negated. A wise meritocratic ruler, knowing their own fallibility, would turn to advisors and delegate where needed.

There is a difference between ruler ship and governance.
The Emperor rules, the Senate governs.
Anyway where does it say the Empire is an Autocracy ala France in the 18th century

Well, there are no guarantees about not having a foolish leader, are there? Especially when the future leader of the Empire is chosen by DNA instead of actual skill for the job. It is a foolish leader who takes his eye off vital details. What happens if an Emperor/Empress simply flat out refuses to sign any of the laws presented to them by the Senate? The case of a figurehead with no power to legislate they might be seen by many as supporting stability however there aren’t any guarantees about the quality of that personality. You seem to argue in places that you want a powerful ruler to decide with the advice from wise advisors, and then you seem to say that an Emperor should remind you of past greatness, playing no part in current affairs – which is it? In the case that the Emperor/Empress does have a veto, we don’t want some random DNA making the decisions, we want the best possible decision-maker. In ancient Rome, Cincinnatus was considered the pinnacle of civic virtue – called upon to lead, he led, having done his duty, he gave up his power. This is what a great meritocratic leader must do; serve to the utmost of his or her abilities, asking no one to do what he or she would not do him or herself, and, having served, knowing that power must not remain with themselves or their bloodline, have the wisdom and humanity to select another who equally will give the best part of themselves, seeking no permanent rewards. Those who desire a stake, for themselves or for their genetic bloodline, their decisions are dictated by personal gain, not by real wisdom of governance. The leader who can never have permanent personal or genetic hold on power is less likely to have their judgment affected by desire for personal gain, and more likely to select a successor based on competence and wisdom.

As so we should change our Emperor to the most suitable person at the time; Situational leadership?
Say have an election even every so many years perhaps?
Why don't we just join the Federation? Wait you already have, so we will never see I to I as you live in a state where there Head of State is elevated and I live in a State where the head of State is born to the role.

What about the qualities approach to leadership?
Point to me our Cincinnatus, anywhere in Human space, Federation, Alliance or Empire, or any independent world.
Point me to a ruler anywhere in the Galaxy that you can say "their decisions are note dictated by personal gain"
None of the variety political systems seems to consistently enjoy such people.
You are not wrong Cincinnatus should be held up as the ideal leader, so all good leaders should strive to emulate him, whether they be Elected or Born into the role.
Similar ideas to the Gold Class of Platos Republic

And even then a person with all the traits of a good leader, doesn't necessarily make a good leader when put in a position of leadership.
I much prefer the Functional approach to leadership which can be taught and instilled and produce good results even from people who dont fit the text book qualities of what a good leader is.

However I must point out, this isn't just above governance.
The Emperor isn't an analogue of a President.
A President is elected to do a Job, run the state.
The Emperor must be a living embodiment of the state.
"Bask in his glory" isn't egotism but a carefully crafted cult of personality around the Imperial Person
Senators may rise and fall, chancellors come and go, but the Emperor remains.
I think that is why so you see my point of view as an advocation of a rubber stamping figure head, it is far from it but it does have a desire to have a distinct separation between the Emperor and the Government, in terms of the Emperor is above it all but occasionally enters into the political realm from time to time for the good the the citizens.

Just as you advise for HIH Aisling
"If I were advising Aisling? Truly? I'd tell her to publicly and visibly give large chunks of money away to those in need and be seen to get stuck in - HERSELF, not her supporters - to go and listen to people in need and personally labour to aid them."

Might be good advise for a Congress hopeful in the Federation, but in the Empire, might evoke the response
"What is the Empire coming to, a Princess personally engaged in labour, that is just not proper, Where did we go wrong?"

Just the thoughts of a Lieutenant Commander from the other side of the fence.

I think we all need a glass or two of Eranin Pearl Whiskey after this debate

 

[IllusiveLucy]

I suspect Aisling is far more devious and conniving than what she presents on the face of things. Her image is carefully calculated to present her a choice for change; the fairytale-style 'People's Princess' who will deliver us all from the wicked excesses of a decadent Empire. But there is only one subject of the Empire Aisling Duval cares for, and that is Aisling Duval.

I don't think it wasn't Senator Patreus who tried to kill the Emperor. Nor was it Senator Torval. Or Chancellor Blaine. It was was Aisling.

Aisling, who has the most to lose if Florence Lavigny marries the Emperor.

Aisling, who who has been hiding behind the illusion of charity to conceal her true nature.

And it is Aisling who has the access to the Imperial court needed to attempt such a reckless plan, and the access to Senator Patreus to make sure that the trail leads back to him.


Galnet reports that Aisling and Patreus have been seen together. The general assumption is that it Patreus who is playing Aisling; cultivating a relationship that will place him nearer the throne, that will give him an air of legitimacy. But this is a relationship a two-way street. He has resources, manpower, and material of which Aisling can make use.

I don't like Senator Patreus. I don't approve of his methods. I don't approve of his maneuvering. I have no desire to support him. Is he a traitor? Perhaps he is. Did he try and kill the Emperor? No. No he did not.

 

[Jason Pegasi]

So was I

& Here is my Research.

From the Faction Descriptions

Her Imperial Highness; Aisling Duval
Empire Party, Patronage (Imperial Courtier), Cemiess
This Faction operates as an extension of the Imperial Princess' will. Their number have been recently begun being bolstered by liberated slaves who have chosen to become the Princess' servants in order to repay her from freeing them from bondage. <-- In order to repay her, wasn't their servitude due to debt anyway, sounds like they have replace on form of servitude with another, only at least when they were imperial slaves they had legal protection.

Patron's Principles. Imperial Humanist (Empire, Patronage) Ngun
Patron's Principles. Imperial Humanist (Empire, Patronage), Eta Horologii
Empire Group. Imperial Humanist (Empire, Patronage), Kuyu

As members of Aisling Duval's de facto court, this group have been openly showing their support for Aisling's movement by buying large numbers of Imperial Slaves and gifting them to the Princess to do with as she sees fit. <----- Why doesn't it say to free, rather than do as she see fit. Suggests they aren't all just freed now doesn't it.

Repay her from a sense of personal debt. Out of honor. That is also a form of favor that warrants being repaid.

When you can provide some proof she is keeping personal slaves that are donated to her, then you can levy such accusations. Otherwise, it's baseless slander. She's a very public figure. If she was keeping slaves, some muck-raker would've found proof of it by now.

 

[Jason Pegasi]

Tradition guides us through the evolution of the state. It is the stable foundation upon which the edifice of the Empire and be built and rebuilt upon, ever moving forward.
Here is what happens when traditions are lost



From Galnet News

....He has ruled the Empire now for 67 years since his coronation in 3233 following the death of his father, Hesketh Duval.

Emperor Hengist is only 118, born only a week before the death of his grandfather, Hender Saik Duval. Some say Hender's spirit had already transferred to Hengist at that time.

The Duval Imperial line has been unbroken for almost a thousand years. There have been power struggles in the past, but the usurpers have been successfully dealt with behind closed doors....





It is not rubber stamping.
The Senate debates matters then presents them as Senatus consultum to the Emperor
Or the Emperor Summons thee Senate and directs them of what laws he intend to pass and they must debate them.
And so if the law is to be passed it is then given Imperial assent




Instability caused by people who meet neither of our definitions of a Good emperor.
If it was a meritocracy would any of them be suitable and none of them are Cincinnatus are they.



Democracies and Republics fall too, because eventually no one lives up to the ideas that kept them stable.
I forget which Greek wrote it but the three good and three bad forms of government

A democracy spoiled by demagoguery and degenerates to a Ochlocracy where passion (media?) rules over reason
An aristocracy spoiled by corruption becomes an oligarchy
And a Monarchy that has lost its virtue is just a tyranny



There is a difference between ruler ship and governance.
The Emperor rules, the Senate governs.
Anyway where does it say the Empire is an Autocracy ala France in the 18th century



As so we should change our Emperor to the most suitable person at the time; Situational leadership?
Say have an election even every so many years perhaps?
Why don't we just join the Federation? Wait you already have, so we will never see I to I as you live in a state where there Head of State is elevated and I live in a State where the head of State is born to the role.

What about the qualities approach to leadership?
Point to me our Cincinnatus, anywhere in Human space, Federation, Alliance or Empire, or any independent world.
Point me to a ruler anywhere in the Galaxy that you can say "their decisions are note dictated by personal gain"
None of the variety political systems seems to consistently enjoy such people.
You are not wrong Cincinnatus should be held up as the ideal leader, so all good leaders should strive to emulate him, whether they be Elected or Born into the role.
Similar ideas to the Gold Class of Platos Republic

And even then a person with all the traits of a good leader, doesn't necessarily make a good leader when put in a position of leadership.
I much prefer the Functional approach to leadership which can be taught and instilled and produce good results even from people who dont fit the text book qualities of what a good leader is.

However I must point out, this isn't just above governance.
The Emperor isn't an analogue of a President.
A President is elected to do a Job, run the state.
The Emperor must be a living embodiment of the state.
"Bask in his glory" isn't egotism but a carefully crafted cult of personality around the Imperial Person
Senators may rise and fall, chancellors come and go, but the Emperor remains.
I think that is why so you see my point of view as an advocation of a rubber stamping figure head, it is far from it but it does have a desire to have a distinct separation between the Emperor and the Government, in terms of the Emperor is above it all but occasionally enters into the political realm from time to time for the good the the citizens.

Just as you advise for HIH Aisling
"If I were advising Aisling? Truly? I'd tell her to publicly and visibly give large chunks of money away to those in need and be seen to get stuck in - HERSELF, not her supporters - to go and listen to people in need and personally labour to aid them."

Might be good advise for a Congress hopeful in the Federation, but in the Empire, might evoke the response
"What is the Empire coming to, a Princess personally engaged in labour, that is just not proper, Where did we go wrong?"




I think we all need a glass or two of Eranin Pearl Whiskey after this debate

One of a dying breed - well-read pilots.

- - - Updated - - -

But there is only one subject of the Empire Aisling Duval cares for, and that is Aisling Duval.

I can see you're one of Arissa's underlings. What makes you think Arissa cares about anyone but herself? Has Arissa freed 1,200,000 people in one week? What does she even stand for? All she has done is kill criminals and fight for the throne. Anyone can do that, nobody likes criminal syndicates.

I don't think it wasn't Senator Patreus who tried to kill the Emperor. Nor was it Senator Torval. Or Chancellor Blaine. It was was Aisling.

Now you're just being funny. If Aisling was going to conspire to kill the Emperor, she would have done it when her father was still legitimate.

And then she would've gotten her father killed too, due to his incompetence. Yawn. But I guess I shouldn't expect much sense from conspiracy theories.

 

[IllusiveLucy]

I can see you're one of Arissa's underlings. What makes you think Arissa cares about anyone but herself? Has Arissa freed 1,200,000 people in one week? What does she even stand for? All she has done is kill criminals and fight for the throne. Anyone can do that, nobody likes criminal syndicates.

Now you're just being funny. If Aisling was going to conspire to kill the Emperor, she would have done it when her father was still legitimate.

And then she would've gotten her father killed too, due to his incompetence. Yawn. But I guess I shouldn't expect much sense from conspiracy theories.

Yes, no one likes criminal syndicates, but who else was prepared to spend the resources to take them on? A reduction in crime, the break up of large-scale criminal enterprise across several systems, and added safety for traders and travellers, made real and lasting impact across countless lives. Not as flashy as Aisling’s grand gestures, certainly.

Aisling had no motive to try and kill the Emperor when her father was still heir. There was no rush; the Emperor's health was failing, and soon her father would ascend to the throne. But then Aisling's perfect world began to crumble. Her Father declared unfit, the Emperor planning to marry Florence Lavigny. Faced with her own tenuous grasp on the throne slipping a little more each day, Aisling got desperate.

It's clear from your response Aisling apparently already has her cult of personality already firmly in place. It's lovely to see her followers have loyalty, it's a shame she doesn't possess it herself.

 

[Vasious]

Aisling had no motive to try and kill the Emperor when her father was still heir. There was no rush; the Emperor's health was failing, and soon her father would ascend to the throne. But then Aisling's perfect world began to crumble. Her Father declared unfit, the Emperor planning to marry Florence Lavigny. Faced with her own tenuous grasp on the throne slipping a little more each day, Aisling got desperate.

That doesn't sound like HIH Lavigny official statements, no longer towing the party line Citizen?

---

Commander Starcloak
See where people being allowed to debate who is most worthy gets us.
Petty squabbling between the followers of two princesses
If they just accepted the legal line of succession and it wasn't open for debate everyone could get back to serving the Empire.

---

It is concerning, citizens, how many flock to be cliens and couriers and retainers if these Great people whilst at the same time seeming to forget to whom they made their oath of fealty to, so consider, as you polish your livery collars, the petty machinations what you involve yourself in wonder it is really in service of the Emperor, and to his lawful heir as symbols of the Empire and her citizens as a whole.

 

[IllusiveLucy]

That doesn't sound like HIH Lavigny official statements, no longer towing the party line Citizen?

Princess Arissa presented her findings on the activities of the HR 706 Chapter of Emperor’s Grace to the Imperial Senate, which was of course the correct and prudent course of action. As someone who has spend their life being rarely correct and almost never prudent, I don't want to imply that my views and the conclusions i've drawn represent those of the Princess. I am convinced that the conspiracy behind the attempted assassination the Emperor runs deeper, and I can only hope that further investigation is not blocked by those parties in our Empire who have have an interest in making sure the details of this plot never come to light.

 

[Jason Pegasi]

Yes, no one likes criminal syndicates, but who else was prepared to spend the resources to take them on? A reduction in crime, the break up of large-scale criminal enterprise across several systems, and added safety for traders and travellers, made real and lasting impact across countless lives. Not as flashy as Aisling’s grand gestures, certainly.

Aisling had no motive to try and kill the Emperor when her father was still heir. There was no rush; the Emperor's health was failing, and soon her father would ascend to the throne. But then Aisling's perfect world began to crumble. Her Father declared unfit, the Emperor planning to marry Florence Lavigny. Faced with her own tenuous grasp on the throne slipping a little more each day, Aisling got desperate.

It's clear from your response Aisling apparently already has her cult of personality already firmly in place. It's lovely to see her followers have loyalty, it's a shame she doesn't possess it herself.

True, her actions in breaking up the syndicates are commendable, but let's be clear here, that was a crusade. There were resources waiting to be poured from all directions to whomever took the mantle, everyone looking to prove they had nothing to do with the assassination attempt. Thousands of pilots helped her, too. So her personal burden in this undertaking was probably small. And breaking up a syndicate cannot compare to freeing millions of people, in my view.

Arissa has still yet to impress me, from a humanist point of view. And I count myself as an Imperial Humanist.

As far as your accusation that my logical capabilities are yielding to my loyalty, as is the case with all personality cults, I do not agree with Aisling on the drug issue. Personality cults obsess over the person, not the issues.

- - - Updated - - -

---

Commander Starcloak
See where people being allowed to debate who is most worthy gets us.
Petty squabbling between the followers of two princesses
If they just accepted the legal line of succession and it wasn't open for debate everyone could get back to serving the Empire.

---

It is concerning, citizens, how many flock to be cliens and couriers and retainers if these Great people whilst at the same time seeming to forget to whom they made their oath of fealty to, so consider, as you polish your livery collars, the petty machinations what you involve yourself in wonder it is really in service of the Emperor, and to his lawful heir as symbols of the Empire and her citizens as a whole.

I can assure you, any Imperial worth their salt still supports the empire first and worries about politics second. Having said this, there is no harm in debate, this always being the case.

And the succession crisis is here, and it is real, whether you want to try to shove it under the rug or not.

 

[Commander Starcloak]

Tradition guides us through the evolution of the state. It is the stable foundation upon which the edifice of the Empire and be built and rebuilt upon, ever moving forward.
Here is what happens when traditions are lost

Unfortunately you make false cause here, presuming that fact of slaves being sold at Jameson Memorial is caused by traditions being lost.

From Galnet News

....He has ruled the Empire now for 67 years since his coronation in 3233 following the death of his father, Hesketh Duval.

Emperor Hengist is only 118, born only a week before the death of his grandfather, Hender Saik Duval. Some say Hender's spirit had already transferred to Hengist at that time.

The Duval Imperial line has been unbroken for almost a thousand years. There have been power struggles in the past, but the usurpers have been successfully dealt with behind closed doors....

Success thus far is no guarantee of success in the future, and we do not have enough historical background about those one thousand years to say just how successful or unsuccessful they were. What is presented before us today is a choice, here and now, by which we may shape the Empire's future. For me, if the Empire is to be the best it can be, it needs leaders who are the best they can be. "Good enough" isn't something I'm willing to settle for. If the Empire is to be at the forefront of humanity's future, we must continue pushing our boundaries of excellence and testing ourselves. We live in a changing galaxy. Humanity must be leading that change if we are to survive and prosper. Who knows what will become of us? Let us not cling on to tradition if it is the cause of our stagnation.

Instability caused by people who meet neither of our definitions of a Good emperor. If it was a meritocracy would any of them be suitable and none of them are Cincinnatus are they.

Neither of us can say anything in that regards. We don't know these people well enough - and goodness knows everyone in this crisis has been holding their cards pretty close. Personally I need Arissa, Aisling, Torval, Patreus (and any other Powers) to show me a little more of themselves. To show me what they've got. I need more than a manifesto of carefully chosen words to go on when making my decision about who I want to fight for, whose cause I want to pledge to. What I have decided is that I am willing that the next leader of the Empire does not have to be a Duval. For me, leadership quality is the most important virtue I am looking for in a leader I am willing to fight for. I am watching and waiting. Even if and when I choose, I will not know for sure if they have concealed something from me and that they were a bad leader. But, in the words of a certain figure I spoke to last week, that is what tyrant killers for.

Democracies and Republics fall too, because eventually no one lives up to the ideas that kept them stable.
I forget which Greek wrote it but the three good and three bad forms of government

A democracy spoiled by demagoguery and degenerates to a Ochlocracy where passion (media?) rules over reason
An aristocracy spoiled by corruption becomes an oligarchy
And a Monarchy that has lost its virtue is just a tyranny

It was Plato who conceived of five regimes in his Republic;

Aristocracy, with people rising to position through meritocracy and not by birth - Plato speaks of those born into the lowest rank of such a society are, in his ideal vision, not to be held back, but according to their natural aptitudes may rise even to the highest status - that of philosopher-king.

Timocracy, which is what Plato's ideal aristocracy descends into when, by miscalculation, those with merit are held back and those lacking merit are promoted, resulting in an inferior government and a society concerned more with promotion of wealth and power than on merit and virtue. Such leaders of a society, Plato says, are often "simple-minded". The timocracy, Plato proposes, has a mix of good and bad features, though it falls short of his ideal.

Oligarchy, in which rank and status has become even more concerned with wealth, and those in government not worthy of their position whilst those of a noble spirit languish impoverished and talent unrecognised.

Democracy, in which the poor have overthrown the unworthy rich, but with each person out for personal gain and none able to agree significantly, with resulting chaos and lack of effectiveness.

Tyranny, finally, in which an individual exploiting democracy's turmoil seizes power and it suits him to keep society in a state of chaos so he may retain power. Having taken control and power, at least for himself, he does not want to give it up.

Some might say that Henson Duval fits the description of the tyrant who overthrew Marlin Duval's democracy.

There is a difference between ruler ship and governance.
The Emperor rules, the Senate governs.

From the Dictionary:

"Rule" - to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over; govern.

As so we should change our Emperor to the most suitable person at the time; Situational leadership?
Say have an election even every so many years perhaps?

Straw man fallacy - misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack. I made no mention of elections, let alone frequent ones.

Why don't we just join the Federation? Wait you already have, so we will never see I to I as you live in a state where there Head of State is elevated and I live in a State where the head of State is born to the role.

Genetic fallacy - judging an argument as good or bad based on whom it comes from.

e.g. John's argument obviously has no merit because he's from the Federation and we all know how bad those Federation types are.
e.g. Jane was born into a state where the head of state was born to rule, so, as heir to the throne, Jane must be the best person to rule.

I have never felt bound to the Federation and have said I will give all Imperial Powers a fair hearing when it comes to choosing who to pledge to.

What about the qualities approach to leadership?
Point to me our Cincinnatus, anywhere in Human space, Federation, Alliance or Empire, or any independent world.
Point me to a ruler anywhere in the Galaxy that you can say "their decisions are note dictated by personal gain"
None of the variety political systems seems to consistently enjoy such people.
You are not wrong Cincinnatus should be held up as the ideal leader, so all good leaders should strive to emulate him, whether they be Elected or Born into the role.
Similar ideas to the Gold Class of Platos Republic

Perhaps you're Cincinnatus. But, more realistically, that's a loaded question since nowhere does there exist an archive of every single individual in the galaxy and his or her personal ethics and leadership talent.

And even then a person with all the traits of a good leader, doesn't necessarily make a good leader when put in a position of leadership.
I much prefer the Functional approach to leadership which can be taught and instilled and produce good results even from people who dont fit the text book qualities of what a good leader is.

Fair enough, that's your personal choice. Plenty of non-royal people bear leadership qualities and they learned it just as well. I for one will make a judgment call based on whoever has the best qualities for the position. Either form of selecting a leader carries with it a risk of failure - you never know what a bloodline will produce, and you never know for sure what a person will do in future if they get in to power. I will choose the risk of supporting an adult whose character I can judge for myself, however, rather than committing to an unborn bloodline. I accept the risk that the chosen individual may end up being not the leader I judged them to be.

However I must point out, this isn't just above governance.
The Emperor isn't an analogue of a President.
A President is elected to do a Job, run the state.
The Emperor must be a living embodiment of the state.
"Bask in his glory" isn't egotism but a carefully crafted cult of personality around the Imperial Person
Senators may rise and fall, chancellors come and go, but the Emperor remains.
I think that is why so you see my point of view as an advocation of a rubber stamping figure head, it is far from it but it does have a desire to have a distinct separation between the Emperor and the Government, in terms of the Emperor is above it all but occasionally enters into the political realm from time to time for the good the the citizens.

Just as you advise for HIH Aisling
"If I were advising Aisling? Truly? I'd tell her to publicly and visibly give large chunks of money away to those in need and be seen to get stuck in - HERSELF, not her supporters - to go and listen to people in need and personally labour to aid them."

Might be good advise for a Congress hopeful in the Federation, but in the Empire, might evoke the response
"What is the Empire coming to, a Princess personally engaged in labour, that is just not proper, Where did we go wrong?"

Depends on the citizen. You are right, some citizens would object to a princess at labour. For me it is the virtue of a good leader to never command people to do anything he or she would not do him or herself. Such a leader can inspire incredible devotion.

I think we all need a glass or two of Eranin Pearl Whiskey after this debate

Sir, I will join you in that glass of Pearl Whiskey, and add that for the peace of all here I think we should here mark an end to this debate. Here's to Elite!

 

[CMDR_Vyse]

I'm an outside observer on this. The Empire pays me well to deal with piracy in their systems, and they now pay me well with commerce. I've been recognized enough to be called a "baron" and I now am a proud owner of one of Gutamaya's most impressive products. That being said, here are my thoughts.

I also think that Aisling is far more than she appears. She gives off a vibe of being an empty-headed ideologue or a celebrity socialite, but someone like that who wields the power that she does never holds on to that power unless there's something else involved. Even with a supposed royal pedigree, red flags are still red flags, and there are only two possible reasons for why she is the way she is. It's either a carefully crafted front, as the esteemed miss Lucy said above, or she's being manipulated herself. And if we take option two, we can firmly cross out Patreus as the manipulator.

The reason? Patreus has nothing to gain by Aisling's silly little stunts. She just comes out looking ridiculous, and by proxy he does too unless her attitude changes. The slavery contest was little more than a juvenile popularity contest, and she came off the worse for it. What does Patreus get from that? Essentially, he loses face by proxy.

Patreus is the one being manipulated, either by Aisling herself or by Aisling's puppet master. However, I also think he may be fully aware that he is being manipulated and is playing along to see how it all plays out, or, perhaps, to ascertain who the puppet master is. The Emperor's assassination attempt looks to have caught him off guard, and considering how swiftly blame got laid on him and his people, it strikes me as a setup and Patreus knows it.

Patreus reminds me of this guy.http://skiesofarcadia.wikia.com/wiki/Galcian He even looks like him.

He doesn't want money or wealth. He wants power. Authority. He's ambitious, skilled, and charismatic. It is still entirely possible that he was behind the attempt on the Emperor's life, but even so, it doesn't change the above statement. If Patreus gets the throne, I guarantee you the Empire will expand. Greatly. We may even go from a cold war with the Federation to a full blown shooting war. He is a war hawk the likes of which we haven't seen in centuries.

 

[Commander Starcloak]

Patreus reminds me of this guy.http://skiesofarcadia.wikia.com/wiki/Galcian He even looks like him.

To join in the hilarious lookalike suggestions for Patreus - British gymnast Louis Smith is a dead ringer. http://i2.cdnds.net/13/09/618x916/showbiz-mum-of-year-louis-smith.jpg