Talk:Galactic Government
I am fairly certain that Hapes was not GG as recently as Year 9. I think it changed back to the GE from Hapes and stayed with the GE for a few years before the FF got it. --Alex Tylger 13:21, 31 March 2011 (GMT)
- Never mind, checked some old records and found reference to Hapes being GG in Year 9. Unfortunately, I don't know when we took the status. I recall that galactic government was present in the GNS header for a while, and when they made it dependent on the population factor, it changed from GE to Hapes. I seem to recall it switched from Hapes to the GE briefly for a while too, though that might have been a result of TP construction. Using some internet archive sites, seems like the first appearance of the GG status on the GNS was in Year 8. --Alex Tylger 13:43, 31 March 2011 (GMT)
- The darkness GNS has had the GG in the header once it was chosen by total pop controlled. earliest evidence of this being April 2007 Cite error: Closing
</ref>missing for<ref>tag to FF and held it until as late as June 2009 [1] Horthon Gorthy 18:32, 31 March 2011 (GMT)
- The darkness GNS has had the GG in the header once it was chosen by total pop controlled. earliest evidence of this being April 2007 Cite error: Closing
I have heard that Sorosuub Corporation has been Galactic Government in the past. I have no dates for it, though. --Ruben Wan 01:55, 11 April 2011 (GMT)
- Aye, they were. It was the reason the RA was willing to merge to become the NR. The plan was the RA had a good military, SSC had a good infrastructure, and combined they'd work well together... lol. --Azarin Isard 12:19, 11 April 2011 (GMT)
The only sure date is Y8 D42. See GNS titled: SoroSuub Corporation and Rebel Alliance Announce Merger Plans (Hacked by Maradin Sandwalker on Year 8 Day 42)--Ruben Wan 23:14, 11 April 2011 (GMT)
- Since this GNS was hacked, it was probably after SSC lost the GG status and Hapes gained it.--Ruben Wan 23:33, 11 April 2011 (GMT)
Not IC
Is this really appropriate for an IC wiki? Galactic Government in an IC context isn't determined by 'who has the most population', it's a status claimed by at least two factions (GE/NR). The fact that it's a (flawed) mechanic for some purposes doesn't mean it's IC. Orphaea Imperium 01:44, 1 April 2011 (GMT)
- True, it is a very flawed feature and I think most will agree. However, it does appear in an IC context (on the GNS page) and can therefore be seen as IC. It can't really be ignored. --Alex Tylger 11:20, 1 April 2011 (GMT)
- while I agree with you orph, I think the practicalities is that the GNS has included it for too long and it is now included in SWC IC culture and cannot be ignored. But if it was removed then I would say we should re-examine that conclusion. Horthon Gorthy 13:45, 1 April 2011 (GMT)
- I figure it's about the same as hull points and that kind of mechanic. Just because it's there doesn't mean it's appropriately IC. Orphaea Imperium 07:18, 11 April 2011 (GMT)
- I figure it's about the same as hull points and that kind of mechanic. Just because it's there doesn't mean it's appropriately IC. Orphaea Imperium 07:18, 11 April 2011 (GMT)
- while I agree with you orph, I think the practicalities is that the GNS has included it for too long and it is now included in SWC IC culture and cannot be ignored. But if it was removed then I would say we should re-examine that conclusion. Horthon Gorthy 13:45, 1 April 2011 (GMT)
