From:   IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca" 12-JUN-1994 21:01:30.79
To:     IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca"
CC:     
Subj:   TML biweekly: Msgs 7916-7922 V46#5

Return-path: <jamesp@engrg.uwo.ca>
Received: from engrg.uwo.ca (nova.engrg.uwo.ca)
 by delphi.com (PMDF V4.3-7 #6563) id <01HDGVM5JMQO8WZ5UP@delphi.com>; Sun,
 12 Jun 1994 21:01:26 EDT
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 21:00:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML biweekly: Msgs 7916-7922 V46#5
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-to: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Reply-to: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Message-id: <9406130101.AA07217@engrg.uwo.ca>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Sun Jun 12 21:00:02 EDT
 1994
Precedence: bulk

TML biweekly    Sun Jun 12 21:00:02 EDT 1994    Volume 46 : Issue 5

Today's topics:

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 630  7916 09-Jun-1994 langsl@cbr.hhcs  More Feudal Technocracy <<             
 630  7918 08-Jun-1994 StarTrek76@aol.  Junque Mail << Dear Fellow Travlers;
 630  7919 09-Jun-1994 v.ujcik@genie.g  Traveller @ Origins << All,
 630  7920 09-Jun-1994 Edward Swatsche  re: Thruster Plate design question << M
 630  7921 09-Jun-1994 Edward Swatsche  re: power plants << Roger "StarWolf" My
 630  7922 09-Jun-1994 john.bogan@asb.  BAY WEAPONS AND DEATH STA <<  "Les Howi
 630  7917 08-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: More Feudal Technocracy << Gentles

This is a passively moderated mailing list. All messages sent to the
submission address will be distributed. The biweekly digest is currently
distributed each Wednesday and Sunday at 9:00pm.

Submissions: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca -or- uunet!engrg.uwo.ca!traveller
Administrator: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (James Perkins)

The TML is made possible by facilities provided by the University of
Western Ontario. All opinions and materials below are the responsibility
of the originator.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bundle: 630
Archive-Message-Number: 7916
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 1994 09:41:15 +1000
From: langsl@cbr.hhcs.gov.au
Subject: More Feudal Technocracy


                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                      Date:  Sent on: 09-Jun-1994 09:42am
                                      From:  Alistair Langsford
                                             LANGSFORD ALISTAIR
                                      Dept:  Information Services
                                      Tel No:289 7870

TO:  Remote Addressee                     ( _traveller@engrg.uwo.ca )


Subject: More Feudal Technocracy

    
    David Johnson (djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov) writes:
    
    <This is fine but you have to recognize the `inter-relatedness' of 
    <the feudal system.  The vassals provide local resources (knights, 
    <taxes, etc.) to the lord in return for coordinated services 
    <(military protection). This is what distiguishes a feudal system 
    <from a simple aristocracy where their is no inter-relatedness.
    
    Fine. That is what I am talking about - a Feudal system. I don't 
    mean an Aristocracy which has grown out of a system which is no 
    longer Feudal.
    
    <>          When it comes to 
    <>          managing the industry within a noble's domain, the 
    <>          staff are technical experts in that relevant 
    <>          technologies. This last is the 'technocracy' bit. The
    <>          ruling classes believe in this method of managing 
    <>          industry, which makes them technocrats.
    
    <Yes, this is technocracy but it has no system of 
    <inter-relatedness. 
    
    Perhaps if I say that the technical managers are also vassals of 
    the noble they serve this helps? I didn't think I would have to 
    explicitly point that out, as I thought it was implied already. 
    
    However, with this proviso (ie technical experts being vassals), 
    you have the inter-relatedness. I think we have a reasonable 
    description of what -a- Feudal Technocracy could look like. Thats 
    -a- Feudal Technocracy, not -all- Feudal Technocracies. I was not, 
    by the way, proposing that the system I posted was the ONE TRUE 
    DEFINITION OF FEUDAL TECHNOCRACY. Just that it describes -a- 
    system that fits the term. After all, given Traveller's method for 
    classifying governments, the same government could be classified 
    different ways depending on which aspects of it are seen to be 
    most apparent by the typical traveller. 
    
    <It seems to me that what's happening (and not particularly with 
    <you, Cynthia, nor Hans) is that many folks are confusing 
    <feudalism with aristocracy.
    
    Possibly. In my case I used aristocratic titles (Baron, Knight 
    etc) as terms to identify with Feudal systems from our own earthly 
    history that I am most familiar with, and which other people on 
    the TML might be more familiar with. Obviously I could have been 
    clearer by describing the importance of the mutual obligations 
    between vassals and his/her liege lord.
    
    <Feudalism is based upon mutual obligations between the lord and 
    <his vassals.  An aristocracy has no such requirement.  In 
    <medieval feudal aristocracies these obligations were centered 
    <around military affairs.  
    
    I Agree so far.
    
    <In a feudal technocracy the technocracy `buzz-word' shifts the 
    <focus from military affairs to industrial activities
    
    I agree it can do. I don't agree it automatically does. The 'buzz 
    word' as it has been termed describes an approach to managing 
    industrial resources (see the definition I posted earlier). In 
    Traveller, technology and the industrial capacity for producing 
    high technology weapons is crucial to the ability to wage war. So 
    I think you can still have a high tech militarily centred Feudal 
    system which is technocratic in nature. From what I've seen and 
    heard the Battletech universe is a lot like this. Maybe areas 
    engaged in large scale TCS campaigns are like this too 8-).
    
    
    <>     As with TechLevel definitions, GDW created endless fodder 
    <>     for arguments by mixing structural definitions 
    <>     (Representative Democracy, Tech level of a given artifact),
    <>     with procedural or functional definitions (impersonal 
    <>     bureaucracy, production level of a world).
    <
    <Yes, of course, we all must labor under this confounded burden. 
    <:-)
     
    Which is where we are at the moment, I suspect. 8-))
    
    To me your kieretsu description seems like it -also- fits the 
    description of a Corporate Government. You see it as a good 
    example of a Feudal Technocracy. Given Traveller's way of 
    classifying governments, there is no reason why it can't be both. 
    The classification you choose obviously would show what aspects of 
    the government are most apparent to, or which have most effect on, 
    Travellers. Which ties in with Mark Miller's article on government 
    types way back in JTAS or wherever ( I think it was JTAS ).
    
    By the way, William White recently posted an interesting article 
    on what Feudal means to the XTML that is worth checking out too. I 
    thought it had some nice ideas for variations on the traditional 
    Feudal model.
    
    And since we have gotten on to discussing government types, does 
    anyone else have an example of how they have interpreted a 
    Traveller government type they'd like to post? I'd certainly be 
    interested. After all, it gets a bit boring if all your Feudal 
    Technocracies and Corporate Governments start to look the same. 
    8-)
    
    Alistair,
    langsl@cbr.hhcs.gov.au
    


------------------------------

Bundle: 630
Archive-Message-Number: 7918
From: StarTrek76@aol.com
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 94 23:58:47 EDT
Subject: Junque Mail

Dear Fellow Travlers;
     Want to stepup to the world of multi-media? Then this is for you!!!
Dear Correspondants:

        As with last week's Junque Mail, I'm here again pushing
some obsolete multi-media hardware/software. OOPS! I don't mean
the Hardware or Software is obsolete, only that I am dis-investing 
in multi-media [the big buzz-word in computers today]. I have
decided that since I use the CD/ROM drive in my system less than 
once a month, it is a luxery I can no longer afford. OH! One more
thing, this unit is an IBM PC compatible unit. It WILL work with
Apple MacIntosh also, but you'de have to buy drivers etc for it,
as the ones I have that I'm throwing in are for the IBM.
        So, here we go again. 
        FOR SALE ---- ONE CD/ROM DRIVE with Accessories.
The drive itself is an external model, so if you have a small 
computer with zero internal drive bays left, it won't matter. The
DM-5024 is manufactured by the Texel Corporation, a Japaneese firm
with local offices in Santa Clara, California. It comes in a 
9.5 x 10 x 2.125 inch white plastic enclosure with its own internal
power supply, and an internal audio amplifier for CDs with sound
clips on them.
        The Interface card and the software are manufactured by 
Trantor Systems, Inc of Freemont, Ca. Both the Drive unit and the 
SCSI interface card have very extensive documentation. The software
documentation is contained on the disks themselves in the form
of read.me and help files. 
        The accessories pack for this excellent value includes:
the CD caddy [of course!] a pair of stereo headphones for the
drive's audio amplifier, all the connecting cables and hardware
necessary to install this unit in an IBM PC {I don't know about
the MacIntosh ... but both the drive and SCSI interface ARE com-
patible with Apple.} and TEN CDs complete with any auxilliary
software necessary to run them, jewel cases for each CD, and of 
course the documentation on these CDs.
        The CDs are: 1] PUBLISH IT! (version 2.0) by Timeworks 
software. This CD includes a built in graphics tool box, 69 fonts,
a thosand clip art images, 85 ready to use sample layouts and a
complete word processor. [plus THICK users manual. The others
all have documentation, but Publish It is the best.
        2] The Aircraft Encyclopedia by Quantum Press
        3] CD Game Pack II by Software Toolworks
        4] GUIDE Star Charts (Version 3.0) Probably the best
Star Chart/Planetarium program available in the USA today. See
Review in a recent (June or July, 93) issue of Sky and Telescope.
        5] US History on CD/Rom by Bureau Development Corp.
        6] US Atlas and AUTO MAP by Software Toolworks
        7] Software Toolworks Multimedia Encyclopedia - is what
I was using the most often.
        8] The Best of Media Clips, by ARIS entertainment. This 
disk has photographs, .wav and .midi sounds and other neat multi-
media things.
        9] Selected Astronomical Catalogs from NASA, the guys who
brought you the Challenger Disaster. This disk is a pretty good
one however, full of diffrent star catalogs, including the Yale 
Bright Star Catalog and the Gliese catalogue.
        10] North American Indians, by Quanta Press.
All these CDs are contained in a hansome, utilitarian plastic 
"media Mate" which will keep them handy, safe and out of the way
when you're not using them.

        The price of this complete package is $550.00 {US$ only}.  As for shippi
ng,
I'll pick up the first $20.00 - which will be enough to send this via 3rd
class slow-boat to china mail in the US.  After that, YOU pay the shipping.
The package, which is all packed, just waiting for a lable weighes 18 pounds
[better round off to 20 to account for vagerencies in bathroom scales.] Now
you can shop around and decide for yourself how fast and how much ...

     Anyone interested in this should contact me, electronically via E.Mail,
before the 4th of July. The price of $550.00 for the entire package is
guarenteed until then. 

StarTrek76@aol.com
or
R.BLACKBURN2@genie.geis.com


------------------------------

Bundle: 630
Archive-Message-Number: 7919
From: v.ujcik@genie.geis.com
Date: Thu,  9 Jun 94 03:53:00 UTC
Subject: Traveller @ Origins

All,
 
     All those going to Origins next month, please raise you hand.
Don't be shy....raise 'em high!
 
     I would be glad to act as coordinator for a get-together of
whatever type is agreed upon....meal, room, game session, multiples
of the above, etc, etc.
 
     While both Loren Wiseman and Frank Chadwick are listed as
special guests, there is a dearth of Traveller listed in the
convention guide. So I thought I'd try to get some interest
sparked. Maybe we can even talk them into giving a special talk
just to the Traveller types attending
 
     I'm cross posting this to the TML, xboat, and on GEnie.
 
     I'm not sure if it's a good idea to post back through the
mailing list, (if James says it's okay, then do) so I'll take info
via personal email. If I get enough response, I'll post a summary
or two back to the mailing lists. Let me know when you're arriving
and departing, times you are definitely *not* available to meet
(i.e. other game or seminar you're attending), and type of meeting
you'd prefer.
 
     Oh yeah, no flames will be tolerated about different versions.
If there is enough interest, we can break up in order to
accommodate the TNE haters and the CT/MT despisers. However, I'm
just offering my services as an unbiased intermediary. This is a
representative democracy (tm) and the majority will be allowed to
guide the discussion. The attender assumes all
liability.....whoops, got carried away there.
 
     Anyway, I'm not a Hater or a Despiser, so I'm open to email
from all! Hope to see some of you there....
 
               Happy Travellering,
 
                    Duke James of Ujcik
                    (aka Jim Ujcik)
 
Certified Flight Instructor-Instruments                   Amateur: WD9HBC/6
GEnie: v.ujcik                             Internet: v.ujcik@genie.geis.com
 

------------------------------

Bundle: 630
Archive-Message-Number: 7920
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 94 00:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: re: Thruster Plate design question
From: Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Swatschek)

Mark Urbin wrote:

> I'm designing a ship (a jump capable starship in my case) with Thruster
> Plates. I'm operating under the impression that the Thruster Plates
> provide lift as well as thrust.


   Thruster plates only provide thrust.  Going by DGP's explanation in SoM,
thruster plates can change the direction of thrust, but the amount of
thrust decreases as it moves away from its main axis, so you get only 10%
thrust in reverse.  A short, squat ship with it's thruster on the bottom (a
tradition flying saucer or cone shape for example) would be the best
configuration for a ship - uncomplicated VTOL ability, and the decks are at
right angles to the normal axis of thrust and the ground; if you lose your
inertial compensators or are sitting on the ground, the g-forces are coming
from the accustomed direction.

   You can, of course, define how it works for your own purposes.  You
could have thruster plates act on a volume like the contra-grav lifters.
This way you don't have to worry about the placement of the drive or the
axis of thrust.  , Another consequence is there won't be any feeling of
acceleration due to the drive - the drive is acting to accelerate on
everything in the volume.


- --
               Edjs                    _
              ------                _ //  CI$  : 76427,662
   Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca  \X/   GEnie: E.SWATSCHEK


------------------------------

Bundle: 630
Archive-Message-Number: 7921
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 94 00:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: re: power plants
From: Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Swatschek)

Roger "StarWolf" Myhre wrote:

> One other thing that eat up space is the powerplant. Where did the size
> modifier go? I think someone asked this before. If GDW read this list,
> I'ld appreciate an answer on these questions.


   The scale efficiences modifier was eliminated.  But, the need for power
has diminished as well.  The MT Subsidized Merchant had a 1476 MW
poerplant; the TNE version has a 282 MW plant.  In MT, your basic ship
laser required 250 MW;  adding 4 lasers to the merchant requires 68% of its
installed power.  Only 6% is required for the TNE version (4 lasers at 4.2
MW each).  This makes it easier for characters to arm their ships.

   Engineering crew seems to be making up for the shrinkage in power
plants. :)  One recent design, a 20kt battle rider, required 840 engineers
(this with TL-16 computers) - plus the 140 cmd crew.  Using the power
plant's volume instead of output gives somewhat more acceptable numbers.
Meson guns are almost as bad as power plants: a TL15, 25600 Mj MG (see
below) requires a crew of 128.



TL  Description    BoreD BoreA   Power    Vol     Mass   Length   Crew Cost
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

15   6 400 Mj  MG    9     64    1 778   17 347  11 850   250      32 1612
15  25 600 Mj  MG   18    256    7 111   69 376  47 386   250     128 6445
15  57 600 Mj  PAW   3.6   10   64 000   14 219  21 965   240       8 509


TL   Description     Short      Medium     Long       Extreme    ROF
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
15   6 400 Mj  MG    10: 400    20: 200    40: 100    80:  50    100
15  25 600 Mj  MG    10: 800    20: 400    40: 200    80: 100    100
15  57 600 Mj  PAW   10:1200    20:1200    40:1200    80:1200    800


BoreD, BoreA: bore diameter and area.


- --
               Edjs                    _
              ------                _ //  CI$  : 76427,662
   Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca  \X/   GEnie: E.SWATSCHEK


------------------------------

Bundle: 630
Archive-Message-Number: 7922
From: john.bogan@asb.com
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 94 02:45:41 
Subject: BAY WEAPONS AND DEATH STA


 "Les Howie"  writes

> 

Steven M Bonneville (bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu) wrote:
 
> 
> It looks to me like the lighter weapons are really only useful for 
> 
> anti-missile fire or to try and scrub the communications and sensory
> 
> antennae off a ship.  The only other thing I can think of doing with
> 
> them is to try to saturate a big ship's anti-missile defenses and get
> 
> a fusion weapon right up next to it.  So I suppose the *really* big 
> 
> ships like the _Tigress_-types will depend more on what we'd currently
> 
> consider very heavy weapons to do any real damage to the enemy line.
> 
> I have no idea what sort of power the TNE equivalent to the meson-T
> 
> delivers on target, but it is probably massive. 

I've designed a cruiser-sized meson gun, resonably sized for that class of
ship, with a DV of 1000 (yes, one thousand).  A Tigress could sport something
even larger, possibly with a DV several times that, depending on how
specialized
you want to design the ship.

> >  The big ships will
> 
> need to depend on heavy bays to back up the main gun, though, since
> 
> the turrets and "pea-shooter" spinal mounts on escorts won't do much
> 
> good. 
  
>   I'm not sure if the 100-ton bays can cut it; I haven't checked.

I have, and bay weapons tend to be pretty useless except as hull-scrapers.

If a PA is operating at the maximum Mj for it's length, its penetration value
works out
to 5 times it's length in meters within it's effective range.

I don't have the exact numbers here, but for a 50-ton bay that works out to
a PV of 60, and for a 100-ton bay a PV of about 80.  Considering that cruisers
and battleships will have armor ratings in the THOUSANDS, they're only
good for blinding the enemy (a tactic which will be very popular in battles
under
BL rules, I should think.)

Bay mesons have such pitiful range they're not worth building in most cases.

Lasers should be limited to about 50 Mj/tech-level, which is an arbitrary
limit,
but is needed for game balance.  Joule for joule, lasers are more versatile
than
PA's or MG's and have a superior ability to deliver damage to the target.
Allow them to compete directly, and there rapidly becomes no point to building
PA's and MG's.  Putting a limit on them keeps them at the low end of the
weapons
spectrum, where they have traditionally been in Traveller.



> 

Well, so much for the Meson armed death star -- back to the 
drawing board, Darth.

> 


Les Howie
> 
Prograph International


- -------

P'shaw, I tried that ages ago with High Guard.  Threw in the towel when I
realized
I'd have to depopulate most of a sector just to crew the engine room. 
Considering
TNE ships have a crew requirement 3 to 4 times that of HG...

That's it!  The Virus was a hoax!  All those people never died, they were
pressed
into service to crew Lucan's Death Star!

Well, I can wish, can't I?  ;-)


John Bogan

------------------------------

Bundle: 630
Archive-Message-Number: 7917
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 94 20:59:45 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: More Feudal Technocracy

Gentlesophonts:

On XTML (yes, I'm reading it) Bill White <whitew@eden.rutgers.edu> writes:

> I tried to post this on the TML, but it didn't show up.

I'll stick to TML for my response.  I'm sure glad I'm the first to be
able to get into this mess the two lists are going to cause.  :-)

> feudalism "is a total organization of society,"
> specifying the status of individuals within its purview, and
> establishing implicit and explicit responsibilities among them.

Keep this is mind.  This `inter-relatedness' between the participants in
feudalism is the key point that distinguishes it from other government
types.

>      If we accept the definition of a "technocracy" to be "a
> government by an elite controlling some aspect of the application
> of the society's technology", then the worlds to which we assign
> UWP Gov Code 5 must meet two criteria. 

I question this defintion below.
 
>      First, the legal rights, responsibilities, and roles of
> individuals must be defined in terms of their socioeconomic
> status (thus, "feudal").

There is nothing specific about socioeconomic status with respect to
feudalism.  It is rather the differences in the responsibilities of
the various parties that determines their relative *political* power.
A vassal may very well have greater *wealth* than her liege but the
nature of the feudal relationship ties her to her liege nonetheless.

>      Second, an elite class which controls some critical
> technology must make up a privileged, ruling class (ergo,
> "technocracy").

Again, there is nothing about `elites' or `priviledge' inherent in feudalism
*or* technocracy.  Elite trappings from medieval times are related to the
aristocractic relationships based upon heredity between the ruling class
(nobles) and the ruled (commoners).  This was not a feudal relationship
but rather an oligarchic one.

>      This critical technology may be military technology -- the
> lance, armor, and warhorse of the medieval knight, for example --
> but does not have to be.  Nor is it necessarily a single
> technology:  access to more advanced technical knowledge and
> resources may be sufficient.

In medieval feudalism the ruling class controlled *all* forms of technology
as well as the economic basis for that technology.  Furthermore, the modern
meaning of the term technocracy does not pertain to a single type of
technology but instead refers to a source of authority based upon technical
ability in general (as opposed to some other source such as property
ownership, heredity, divine access, popular consent, etc.).  In contemporary
society, technical ability is also closely tied to industrial capability and
the economic base.  This suggests that a feudal technocracy based upon a
single form of technology will be the exception rather than the rule.  Most
feudal technocracies will therefore be based upon an `inter-related'
relationship between those with industrial capabilities.

>      However, the existence of a critical technology helps to
> differentiate a feudal technocracy from an oligarchy.  It occurs
> to me as well that, whereas oligarchies may tend to be relatively
> homogeneous ("monolithic" in World Builder's Handbook terms),
> feudal technocracies admit more possibility for conflict, as the
> elites may sometimes work at cross-purposes -- though within the
> social bounds established by the feudal arrangement.

Actually, it is the fact that the feudal technocracy is based upon
a full range of technological endeavor that permits different segments
of the ruling class to work at cross purposes.  Look at how the hegemony
of the AMA has been rattled now that insurance providers and employers have
entered the health care debate.

>      How many different types of social systems can be posited
> which fit the first half of this definition?  I could think of
> five; there are probably more.

These are all interesting suggestions but some might be better classified
as types other than feudal technocracies.

> 1.  Traditional Feudalism:  An elite, usually military, ruling
> over a producing "proletariat" of farmers and laborers.

This is the oligarchic or aristocractic aspect of medieval society.  It
was called serfdom.  The feudal relationship existed *between* the members
of the ruling class (lords and vassals), not between the ruling class and
the commoners.

> 2.  Corporate Feudalism:  A complex arrangement consisting of
> individual economic organizations within which "employees" and
> "managers" have certain specified tasks.

This is more akin to an aristocratic model.  In most corporate systems
the employees will serve at the whim of management.  Even heavily unionized
systems that limit management's ability to replace workers still do not
create any obligation upon management toward the workers other than that
of continued employment.  If management chooses to run the
company into the ground, the workers are powerless and unable to stop
them or correct the move - at least not through any agreed upon and 
previously defined relationship.

> corporations themselves are bound by a web of economic alliances
> and buyer-seller arrangements.

Here is the system of `inter-relatedness' that characterizes the Japanese
*kieritsu* and begins to describe the true nature of a feudal technocracy.

> 3.  Contract Feudalism:  Within this type of society, economic
> relations between individuals are defined in terms of "contracts"
> which may be implicit or tacit but which, by certain behaviors,
> all parties acknowledge to be legally binding.

This is essentially redundant but it describes the mechanics of the
feudal relationship quite well.

> 4.  Arcological Feudalism:  The society is arranged as one or
> more arcologies; that is, self-contained and economically self-
> sufficient communities.

Again, self-sufficiency makes a feudal relationship problematic.  Without
the need for `inter-relatedness' there can be no feudal relationship.

> 5.  Caste Feudalism:  All economic roles are hereditary and
> confer a greater or lesser degree of social status upon the
> possessor.

This is another aristocractic form.  Basing authority upon heredity
removes the need for an agreed upon relationship between parties based
upon their `inter-relatedness'.  Under a caste system there is no
obligation placed upon the upper castes toward the lower castes.

> 1.   MEDICAL - The society's elite are the doctors who can extend
> or deny life-saving treatment, including anagathics.

If medical practitioners can deny their services at will then this
is an aristocractic relationship, not a feudal one.

> 2.  TRANSPORT - In a world where communities are isolated and not
> self-sufficient, those who control transport technology exert a
> great deal of influence upon other members of the society.

Again, there must be some sort of `inter-relatedness' for this relationship
to be feudal.

> 3.  COMPUTER - In a complex economy, those who control the
> computers and telecommunications technology that enable it to run
> smoothly hold considerable power to direct resources as they see
> fit.  In some places, highly advanced AI-like "expert systems"
> may be the elite.

Again, this may be a technocracy but it is not feudal.  Am I beginning
to sound like a broken record?  (Please stop, Dave.  Dave?  What are
you doing, Dave?  Dave?  Please stop . . . .  Daisy, daisey, give me your
answer, do . . . .)

>      The above elements can be combined to provide the referee
> with some inspiration when obliged to detail a UWP Gov Code 5
> world.

This has been some excellent work and is quite a contribution to anyone's
campaign.  It may even fit many folk's view of government code 5 but I
think we could be more careful in our defintions of any type of government
if instead of focusing upon the particular manifestations of a certain
government type, in this case various forms of technology, we instead 
focus upon the nature of authority (who has it) and the source of that
authority (how it is legitimized).

>      All the above is IMHO, of course.  I know there are some
> holes in my argument.  Any comments, gripes, protestations,
> modifications, exhortations, helpful hints, complaints, or
> accusations will be greatly appreciated.

Same goes here.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

------------------------------

End of TML Biweekly
******************
