Background

How did you learn about PrUn? What made you keep playing?

A friend who doesn't play the game himself but is familiar with my background recommended PrUn to me when the developers were getting ready for the Steam release. The combination of sci-fi and economics drew me in and both this strong concept and the community is why I stayed.

What are your long-term goals? Would you care to share anything about your real-life background/profession?

When I started out, veterans were laughing at someone for getting "Hubur'd". I felt bad for that player and resolved to move to the frontier myself. Out of the two options of Hubur and Arclight, Arclight was the one that was closer. Over the years, I've slowly colonised planets in the region and built up infrastructure in case others wanted to follow, a process that continues to this day.

As for my real-life... retired at age 32, but I still engage with the financial markets on a daily basis.

What does your nickname and company name mean?

The reasoning behind the names is the same: if I found myself in this setting for real, what name would I pick? In the case of my nickname, that setting was The Lord of the Rings Online. My company name [Rose Capital] is a reference to my background as a trader.

Why did you decide to run?

Ever since the Realpolitik update, I've ran on every planet where I have a presence. In Arclight, where infrastructure upkeep is not guaranteed, it's to serve as a caretaker. On planets with big populations like Gibson (my starting planet) and Umbra, it's mostly to act as an observer. Making sure treasuries aren't raided and motions are reasonable.

The headache that comes with providing for a big starter planet means that I don't actually want governorship of those planets. Should nobody be willing to become governor, I'll step forward and assume responsibility until a suitable replacement can be found. Not that this has ever been an issue with core worlds; there's almost always someone who does want to become governor.

Polity

In your opinion, is Benten a leading region or a lagging one?

Benten is a leading region in some areas and a lagging one in others. Even when my company was still young, Benten was more of a generalist region – doing many things well, but not standing out. A quick glance at the monthly reports will show you that Benten lags behind Moria and Antares in raw economic power. That's certainly an important metric, but I think there's more to Benten than just what can be encapsulated by economic figures alone.

Can you elaborate on ways Benten is leading or what isn't captured by stats? I'll give two examples: an economic one and a community one. Being less specialised than the other regions and better able to quickly pivot, sudden shifts in supply due to big players quitting or other price spikes hit Benten less severely. Lower fuel prices also make alleviating potential shortages easier to do than it would be in other regions.

As for the community, I'm not sure I would rate the support that's made available to new players as the absolute best, but it definitely ranks up there. New player retention has always been a stumbling block for PrUn, so this is something that benefits both Benten and the game as a whole.

What do you think is the most important issue in this round of elections?

I don't need the most votes in this election to win. I'll consider it a win if MartianEngineer stays governor but acknowledges certain grievances parliament has had and, going forward, incorporates some of the points I've brought up.

Policy

Why is your program better than the program of the other party?

MartianEngineer has proven to be a capable governor. I don't want his position but I do want to send a signal to him.

The split comes down to whether taxes should be raised and local taxpayer money used to fund infrastructure on unrelated planets. It's my opinion that those planets need to hold up their own pants, just as we do ours. Forcing everyone to contribute to a cause that they may not agree with also doesn't sit well with me.

In short, I want to keep taxes at a level where planetary infrastructure can be maintained and expanded as necessary, and for the treasury to not fall below a certain threshold. This way the government isn't forced to make rash decisions in case real-life happens to the governor or multiple MPs. On top of that, supporting regional development can be looked at, provided that parliament has a say – since under MartianEngineer's current term it does not.

What do you mean by that last part? At least on Gibson, your faction has 4 seats right now and can outvote MartianEngineer on any motion.

During MartianEngineer's current term, certain infrastructure projects were pursued. Erendrake mentioned Asbestos Lead Asbestos (UV-072c), but Gibson saw a similar incident. Parliament was not consulted, and only after the money was spent did we receive an explanation and a request for reimbursement.

Though I find myself agreeing with Andy97 (on Umbra) and Wildgardener (on Gibson), Erendrake and forevertrash are far more neutral (and level-headed) on the matter. Evolivolution hasn't spoken out at all. So rather than a faction with 4 seats, it's more like 2 on any given planet and 3 in total; with occasional but not guaranteed support from 1 more.

3 in total is enough since there are only 5 seats though, right? Can't you just reject MartianEngineer's request for reimbursement?

3 would be enough if we were a unified front, but as mentioned it's usually just 2 people (Andy97 and myself or Wildgardener and myself). We did reject MartianEngineer's request for reimbursement on Gibson, but only because forevertrash and Erendrake abstained. Everyone agreed that MartianEngineer should be reimbursed (after all, the money was already spent), but Martian wanted the reimbursement in one big block that would have left Gibson with very little in the way of financial buffers. After rejecting his motion, parliament agreed on several smaller reimbursements – spread out to not hit the treasury too badly. Everyone was on board with that, so that motion did pass.

Does that include you? Were you on board with reimbursing MartianEngineer for regional development after he spent his own money?

I was one of the people who voted both against reimbursing MartianEngineer in one big block that would drain the treasury and in favour of paying him in several chunks instead. (My exact wording in the government chat: "I voted yes on CoGC/POPI Upkeep, but no on the WH upgrade reimbursement. Don't get me wrong, the warehouse has been upgraded and you should be reimbursed for that. It's only fair. The reason I voted no is because of how little buffer would remain. If you break it up into several smaller reimbursements over time, I will vote yes on all of them.")

I should add that all members of parliament then donated/contributed to the planetary treasury – out of free will – because at the end of the day it wasn't the warehouse upgrade that we had an issue with.

Oh, the WH upgrade was on the same planet.

Yes, this all took place on Gibson.

What regional infrastructure should Benten develop?

Gateways are making good progress, so although I applaud them and the people who build them, I won't touch on those. Rather than blanket development of everything, without having checked if there is even demand, I feel there is a role for targeted development.

A tame example: being a chemistry planet, Umbra would benefit from the increased H supply brought by further settlement and development on Coldwell Deep (CB-282d)... and Umbra should be willing to shoulder some of the costs in exchange for that benefit. Similar incentives can be thought up for AL (benefiting Gibson), CL, and so on.

Can you draw a clearer line between targeted development and rash/blanket development? If the government of Umbra/Gibson take the money to build up pops on a dozen planets, at what point does it cross the line?

Rather than arbitrarily picking a number, I think it makes more sense to use a planet's CoGC as a starting point. Regardless of which one it is, that planet will serve as a nexus connecting industries upstream to those downstream of it. Farming worlds have H2O taps upstream and food processing and carbon production downstream. Those should be the first targets for development, unless the region as a whole is suffering from severe shortages. In that case – let's say the region has insufficient fuel refining capacity, leading to high fuel prices that eat into everyone's margins – developing that (otherwise unrelated) industry might be justified.

It seems hard to look at a program (such as "develop a fuel refining planet using Gibson funds because fuel is getting expensive") and identify which faction it came from. Are there parts of your platform that are in contrast to the other faction, either at the specific policy level or at a broader platform level?

In the case of developing fuel refining capacity due to shortages, it ultimately matters little which planet provided the funds. It stands to reason that a full starter planet with all its local infrastructure already in place and a decent surplus in the treasury will look at solving problems further afield (such as fuel shortages) before a planet that does not have the previously mentioned perks. In the end, there exists this complex question of whether the local population would benefit more from low(er) production fees vs lower cost of input materials – brought about by using taxpayer money for development. The answer will change with market conditions and won't always be the same, which is one more reason why I prefer targeted development over spending blindly.

MartianEngineer, to his credit, has been taking constructive criticism and including it in his plans. However, up until this point I have heard no reasoning, seen no grander plan than just "grow infrastructure". Where? Who benefits? Can the same results be achieved in different, perhaps cheaper ways? When can we consider it a success? At least in the current term, we got none of that from him.

OptimizedFunction hasn't engaged in the discussion nearly as much, but it seems his focus is more on dealing with starter planets filling up by settling new planets for mid-tier players. The planets he has in mind are mostly those with multiple red environmentals and/or bad resource deposits. The type that an experienced player might want to set up HYF or INC operations on. Since new players will rarely if ever pick those types of planets, I feel that forcing everyone on a starter planet (which by definition has many new players) to contribute to that goal isn't particularly fair.

Polling

Is there anything Benten should do differently for future elections?

I'm positively surprised by how civil we've managed to keep things. Campaigning might have been less heated if it had started earlier rather than using the opening of the voting period as the bell in a boxing match. Beyond that, I think the elections proceeded relatively smoothly.