Revision as of 14:38, 11 April 2014 by Matt (talk | contribs) (→‎Constitution)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Perform an Imperial economic audit in detail to be provided to the Senate.

Proposed by Zenith, seconded by Hahnmark.

Overview

  • Provide an Imperial economic audit in detail.
  • Passed 25 votes to 3.

Date

  • Passed Autumn 377YE.

Cost

  • 10 Thrones.

Campaign Outcome

  • Civil servants are preparing a detailed audit to be presented in person to the Imperial Senate.

Constitution

The Imperial treasury that is made available to the Senate is what remains from taxation and auctions in the Imperial Bourse after appropriate deductions to meet the running costs of the Empire are removed. The Master of the Imperial Mint receives a breakdown of income and expenditure for the Empire which includes outgoings for Imperial armies, fortifications, stipends, running costs for any great works that require them and the costs to administer the territories of the Empire. The Senate has the ability to curtail most of these outgoings by abrogating past motions, demobilizing armies and dismantling existing fortifications and great works but they cannot change the Empire's territorial administration costs, these are fixed.

A detailed breakdown of all the administrative costs involved in administering the Empire would run to several hundred pages and more. All these costs are fixed, in effect they are "below our abstraction layer", so changing the administrative costs of the Empire is completely outside the remit of the game. It is not part of the game design for PC senators to spend hours examining the number of chickens bought to feed the third regiment of the Granite pillar over a six week period to see if savings could be made by using more chicken legs and less chicken breasts. As a result we don't intend to provide this utterly useless information as it would take hours to manufacture it, hours to read it and the answer to every single question of "Can we change this" would be "no"