Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Message to all: Address the arguments, do not attack the user - thanks!

Iracundus wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:
I am not disputing that these worlds may have seceded from the Imperium, I am disputing your claim (and you have made this claim) that they successfully resisted Imperial attempts to reclaim them.

The Imperium lost worlds forever. They were shown to have seceded. No other possible method of loss is shown. If you propose a new method, prove it.

Take a situation where a film is shown of person is shown falling off a high building, but it cuts out while he is still falling. We are told afterwards he died. In the absence of any new method of death, the method would be concluded to have been by falling. If someone then claims well he could have died by a heart attack before he finished falling, they have to prove that. That is the analogous situation

It is incredibly frustrating to see you ignore the point of my post so deliberately. Please read it again, and this time when you respond address my point.

I am disputing your claim that they successfully resisted Imperial attempts to reclaim them.

That is ridiculous, an Imperial planet could declare itself independent in the year 998.M41. That does not mean the secession is (or is going to be) successful in the year 999M41.

Did you read my definition accurately?

If a planet declares itself independent, and is STILL independent by the end of the year 999.M41 which is the latest current time for a 40K observer, then it has been successful. If it is back under the control of the Imperium by the end of 999.M41, then it has not been. Our knowledge of the 40K time extends only up to that point.

We can infer future events from what we know now, and what is likely to happen.

If we have an Imperial Battlefleet and over a hundred Imperial Guard regiments getting ready to making planetfall over an Agri-world that is claiming independence, you can safely infer that the secession movement of this planet is doomed to failure.

Your definition of a successful secession is one that is still ongoing in the present, no matter how old the secession is. This would mean that the oldest secession, one that has been ongoing for millenia and the Imperium has essentially given up on reconquering, is looked at with the exact same amount of success as a 1 year old fledgling-secession unaware of the Imperial Fleet moving into orbit above them.

Correct. As of at the end of 999.M41, so long as the Imperium has not reclaimed it then it has been successful. It does not matter one whit that the Imperium might have ships in orbit at the end of 999.M41, because the outcome of their actions is unknown and undecided as of 999.M41. You cannot conclude that the secession has failed because of a "maybe" event in the future, because it is also possible the Imperium might be repulsed if the clock were to tick over into M42. What matters is who is in control at the moment the observer makes the observation. Nothing about the future beyond the point of observation can be concluded with absolute certainty. In the absence of a conclusion, you cannot therefore conclude any particular rebellion or secession successful or not.

You cannot apply arbitrary decisions of the unknown future as a means of judging the past. Such is flawed reasoning because it is inherently subjective and allows for no conclusions. The example of Cadia at the end of 999.M41 is a point. Chaos controls the ground (or most of it anyway). For the purposes of this analogy, define Cadia as Chaos controlled due to the majority hold. The Imperium has more ships in space. It doesn't matter that the Imperium might have ships in orbit. The Imperium cannot be stated to own Cadia so long as they do not actually control the territory itself or govern it. Saying "Oh but they will win it" is a completely unprovable claim about the future

My definition is the Imperium either officially acknowledging the secessionists independence (which, as you have point out is most unlikely) or pragmatically acknowledging that they don't have the resources to reconquer the secessionists, or that the resources are better spent elsewhere. So yes, if the Imperium laid claim to a secession of a dozen or so worlds and never recognised their independence, but also took not steps (or their steps were never successful) to reconquer them, then that secession would be successful.

That reasoning is totally flawed because it can equally be applied for example to Taiwan or Japan. Taiwan still claims the mainland of China as its own. Japan claims the Kuril islands. They all say they will take it back "some day". There is no definition to work with of what constitutes "pragmatically acknowledging". Those are just weasel words that any person can shift. They can always claim they are still taking steps to reclaim those territories, just very slow very long steps but still pragmatic steps. You cannot conclude their efforts are unsuccessful because you don't know whether they have finished their efforts. It is always possible to claim someone just taking very slow steps to reclaim the territory say in a hundred years or more. Again by such a definition, they will have not pragmatically acknowledged anything and so therefore they have never lost the territory.

As I have said, and this is getting quite tiring, it doesn't matter if they continue to lay claim to the territories, or claim that they are taking further steps to reclaim them. If the initial campaign to quash the rebellion is beaten back and defeated, the rebellion has culminated in a successful secession. The problem with the Imperium in this case, is that their idea of a single 'campaign' can last to over 500 years. It would take a massive effort, even by 40k standards, to defeat it. Something that a few Alien Empires can do, but certainly no single secessionist world or even sector.

Also your definition fails to account for the flow of time. By your definition then in that quote above, then a world that secedes near the end of 999.M41 is STILL successful because the Imperium has not taken any steps to reconquer them. And before you claim "But they will," you cannot claim that with certainty since the knowledge of what happens after 999.M41 is unknown and unrevealed by GW.

No, if the Imperium backs off, vowing to return, but doesn't actually immediately continue the campaign, then the rebellion has concluded in a successful secession.

If, 1,000 years in the future, the Imperium launches another attack and is successful, the initial secession was still successful. All the Imperium has done is finally subdue what was, up till that point in time, an entirely independent world.

Incidentally resorting to ad hominem is failing to debate a topic and by doing so it is showing you don't have any real argument if you are having to resort to personal attacks. It is the last refuge of those that cannot defend their argument. You have also again simply tried to arbitrarily dismiss the other side's arguments through various dismissal tactics of calling things "ridiculous" or "strawmen", when these are in fact the logical end results of applying the paradigm you are proposing: that nobody wins or holds anything unless the other side admits formally losing. You have failed completely to address such results of your flawed reasoning. Your tossing off of the phrase "pragmatically acknowledging" is a pointless and meaningless phrase as it is an inherently subjective judgement of what constitutes "pragmatically". Just because YOU think certain actions are "pragmatic acknowledgement" of loss of territory (such as Taiwan having lost mainland China) doesn't mean the politician of that country has to. And if they don't think so, and think their plans are completely reasonable albeit perhaps long term plans to retake the territory then what? You have just run into a situation where your model cannot produce a conclusion that is not reliant purely on your own personal opinion.

Pragmatic acknowledgement might require further discussion (after all when can we say an Imperial Crusade has truly ended, when it achieves it's objectives or when it is re-directed/annihilated completely?). But I would say that it is much better than simply looking at the present and say 'All current rebellions are successful secessions', because that is far too simplistic.

My model does not produce such situations or have to rely on such subjective arbitrary decisions whereas yours does. It relies only on one simple situation: Who has control of the world at the time of the observer's observation. What might happen after that point in time is irrelevant for the purposes of rendering a decision at that specific moment about whether a world has seceded or not. No subjective judgments about "pragmatically acknowledging" are needed whatsoever.

So is my definition subjective or arbitrary? Consistency is in order.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
We can infer future events from what we know now, and what is likely to happen.

If we have an Imperial Battlefleet and over a hundred Imperial Guard regiments getting ready to making planetfall over an Agri-world that is claiming independence, you can safely infer that the secession movement of this planet is doomed to failure.

You are making a future prediction. It cannot be confirmed as it is possible, however unlikely, that the Imperium will not succeed or is forced to withdraw due to further commitments elsewhere such as happened with the Tau during the Damocles Crusade. In the absence of knowledge of the 40K future, you cannot conclude anything. It was a perfectly reasonable "safe" inference during the Damocles Crusade to conclude the Tau would have lost their sept world of Dalýth given they had lost orbital supremacy to the Imperials. Oh wait, other things intervened and the planet remained in Tau hands. See how fallible any "inference" is? What may seem "safe" to one person may seem unsafe to another.

As I have said, and this is getting quite tiring, it doesn't matter if they continue to lay claim to the territories, or claim that they are taking further steps to reclaim them. If the initial campaign to quash the rebellion is beaten back and defeated, the rebellion has culminated in a successful secession. The problem with the Imperium in this case, is that their idea of a single 'campaign' can last to over 500 years. It would take a massive effort, even by 40k standards, to defeat it. Something that a few Alien Empires can do, but certainly no single secessionist world or even sector.

And you have yet again failed to give any means of objectively determining any such threshold. The Imperium can determine the single campaign to last for 10,000 years or more, so just because the Imperium defines it then that means a world can never be successful? Such reasoning falls down under the exact same rationale as all the previous real world examples because it relies on the Imperium's benchmarks and goalposts for determination. The Imperium can claim any campaign against a rebelling world is "indefinite until it is reclaimed". Again by your definition of just taking the Imperium's idea of a campaign, there can be never any secessions.

No, if the Imperium backs off, vowing to return, but doesn't actually immediately continue the campaign, then the rebellion has concluded in a successful secession.

If, 1,000 years in the future, the Imperium launches another attack and is successful, the initial secession was still successful. All the Imperium has done is finally subdue what was, up till that point in time, an entirely independent world.

You have not answered the question: at that moment in time in 999.M41, has the world succeeded? You cannot give a clear definitive yes or no that is not reliant on complete hypotheticals about the future of the 40K universe.

Yet again you are trying to shift the topic to "initial secession." We are talking if someone asks about a world and you have to say, did the world succeed, yes or no? Your method of reasoning does not allow for any conclusion to be made ever. It is always possible to say well maybe in 1,000 the Imperium will succeed. Or maybe in 500 years they will try and fail. Hypotheticals like that are not evidence because they are entirely subject to personal opinion. It is as valid for someone to claim the exact opposite and there is no grounds to reach a conclusion.

Pragmatic acknowledgement might require further discussion (after all when can we say an Imperial Crusade has truly ended, when it achieves it's objectives or when it is re-directed/annihilated completely?). But I would say that it is much better than simply looking at the present and say 'All current rebellions are successful secessions', because that is far too simplistic.

Again your model allows for no predictions to be made whatsoever as it relies on entirely subjective definitions. The Black Templars say their Crusade is eternal. Then does that mean none of their enemies can ever win because the Black Templars have not ended their efforts?

Something being simple is not grounds for claiming something is wrong or not workable. The model produces conclusions that are objective in so far as the control of a world can be determined from the known 40K data at that particular time. No judgments or arbitrary "what if" arguing is necessary.

A model is useful only in so far as it can produce results. Your model is fatally flawed because it cannot produce conclusions, and because it is reliant on the subjective personal opinion of one person, you. If someone attempted to use your model, and had a different subjective opinion, then no conclusion can be reached. You make the mistake of equating "simple" has to be bad. E=MC^2 is simple. Complexity has no relevance on how useful or workable a model is.

So is my definition subjective or arbitrary? Consistency is in order.

Yes, your definition is subjective and arbitrary because it relies on your determination of what constitutes a "pragmatic acknowledgement" of defeat, or your definition of what constitutes a Crusade's end, or your "inference" of what might happen for any particular world in the future. You try to claim it is "safe" to make inferences about the fate of certain worlds. Again what constitutes "safe" is a purely subjective decision and as shown, inferences if based at a particular point in time can turn out to be drastically wrong.

It is subjective AND arbitrary because your model is purely reliant on whatever you as one person should happen to hold as an opinion at any particular time about a particular situation. If your opinion changes, the conclusions produced by your flawed model change. A decision that a "safe" inference is no longer safe, changes the outcome. A decision that an Imperial campaign of 10,000 years is unreasonable and a pragmatic acknowledgement of loss is a completely arbitrary decision because what about an Imperial campaign of 9,999 years before they give up? How about 5,000 years? Any cut off threshold is imposed purely as an arbitrary personal whim by you. Your model relies on the whims and decisions of one person. It produces no replicable results. Any other person using that model can produce completely different conclusions based on their particular opinions and biases on any of the above decisions.

My model relies on no individual subjective opinions or arbitrary decision making of what is a "safe" inference or what the definition "pragmatic acknowledgement" or any such waffling definitions. If two different people at the same point in time in the 40K universe with the same information use it, they will reach the same conclusion about any world. It produces replicable consistent results regardless of the user. That is consistency. It does not attempt to predict the future, which is unknown and which would involve subjective decisions about what is or is not likely to happen.

It relies on only a simple easily applied rule:
Who has control of the planet at the moment of observation by the observer? Imperium? Secessionist? Or currently being contested with actual combat on the planet at the time of the observation. Those are the only 3 outcomes, and people can reach the same results reliably so long as there is sufficient data about who controls the planet.

So you ignored the first part of my post entirely now? This is getting quite frustrating.

Iracundus wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:
We can infer future events from what we know now, and what is likely to happen.

If we have an Imperial Battlefleet and over a hundred Imperial Guard regiments getting ready to making planetfall over an Agri-world that is claiming independence, you can safely infer that the secession movement of this planet is doomed to failure.

You are making a future prediction. It cannot be confirmed as it is possible, however unlikely, that the Imperium will not succeed or is forced to withdraw due to further commitments elsewhere such as happened with the Tau during the Damocles Crusade. In the absence of knowledge of the 40K future, you cannot conclude anything. It was a perfectly reasonable "safe" inference during the Damocles Crusade to conclude the Tau would have lost their sept world of Dalýth given they had lost orbital supremacy to the Imperials. Oh wait, other things intervened and the planet remained in Tau hands. See how fallible any "inference" is? What may seem "safe" to one person may seem unsafe to another.

True, you can't say anything will happen with any great degree of certainty. After all, a fleet en route to crush an unruly world may be lost to the warp entirely.

That does not mean you cannot reach reasonable conclusions as to what the outcome of current events will be though.

As I have said, and this is getting quite tiring, it doesn't matter if they continue to lay claim to the territories, or claim that they are taking further steps to reclaim them. If the initial campaign to quash the rebellion is beaten back and defeated, the rebellion has culminated in a successful secession. The problem with the Imperium in this case, is that their idea of a single 'campaign' can last to over 500 years. It would take a massive effort, even by 40k standards, to defeat it. Something that a few Alien Empires can do, but certainly no single secessionist world or even sector.

And you have yet again failed to give any means of objectively determining any such threshold. The Imperium can determine the single campaign to last for 10,000 years or more, so just because the Imperium defines it then that means a world can never be successful? Such reasoning falls down under the exact same rationale as all the previous real world examples because it relies on the Imperium's benchmarks and goalposts for determination. The Imperium can claim any campaign against a rebelling world is "indefinite until it is reclaimed". Again by your definition of just taking the Imperium's idea of a campaign, there can be never any secessions.

Again and again you are positing the strawman that I am saying that the Imperium's claims actually matter. The Imperium could claim that a campaign is 'ongoing' when it is in fact completely destroyed. But if the Imperium is in fact constantly sending new reinforcements and forces to back up an existing campaign, then the campaign is in fact ongoing, and the success of the secession is still unresolved.

No, if the Imperium backs off, vowing to return, but doesn't actually immediately continue the campaign, then the rebellion has concluded in a successful secession.

If, 1,000 years in the future, the Imperium launches another attack and is successful, the initial secession was still successful. All the Imperium has done is finally subdue what was, up till that point in time, an entirely independent world.

You have not answered the question: at that moment in time in 999.M41, has the world succeeded? You cannot give a clear definitive yes or no that is not reliant on complete hypotheticals about the future of the 40K universe.

It has not succeeded, because the matter has not been resolved. But is has not yet failed either. If the reader was never told of the outcome of the Siege of Vraks, we would say it was unresolved. It's a fairly simple concept.

Yet again you are trying to shift the topic to "initial secession." We are talking if someone asks about a world and you have to say, did the world succeed, yes or no? Your method of reasoning does not allow for any conclusion to be made ever. It is always possible to say well maybe in 1,000 the Imperium will succeed. Or maybe in 500 years they will try and fail. Hypotheticals like that are not evidence because they are entirely subject to personal opinion. It is as valid for someone to claim the exact opposite and there is no grounds to reach a conclusion.

I have not shifted topics. Either a matter of secession is resolved or unresolved. If it is resolved then it has either succeeded or failed. To claim victory when the war is, in fact, still underway is premature.

Pragmatic acknowledgement might require further discussion (after all when can we say an Imperial Crusade has truly ended, when it achieves it's objectives or when it is re-directed/annihilated completely?). But I would say that it is much better than simply looking at the present and say 'All current rebellions are successful secessions', because that is far too simplistic.

Again your model allows for no predictions to be made whatsoever as it relies on entirely subjective definitions. The Black Templars say their Crusade is eternal. Then does that mean none of their enemies can ever win because the Black Templars have not ended their efforts?

Equivocation, and a terrible attempt at it as well. The Black Templar's Crusade is a series of campaigns, each of which may result in either a victory or a loss. Do not try to compare their Crusade to a world's attempt at secession.

Something being simple is not grounds for claiming something is wrong or not workable. The model produces conclusions that are objective in so far as the control of a world can be determined from the known 40K data at that particular time. No judgments or arbitrary "what if" arguing is necessary.

A model is useful only in so far as it can produce results. Your model is fatally flawed because it cannot produce conclusions, and because it is reliant on the subjective personal opinion of one person, you. If someone attempted to use your model, and had a different subjective opinion, then no conclusion can be reached. You make the mistake of equating "simple" has to be bad. E=MC^2 is simple. Complexity has no relevance on how useful or workable a model is.

Your model is the one that produces results that are far too arbitrary. You keep saying that a secession is either successful or unsuccessful, even when no actual outcome has been reached.

Simple is good, when applied properly. Your definition is far too simplistic, and inappropriate for the matter at hand.

So is my definition subjective or arbitrary? Consistency is in order.

Yes, your definition is subjective and arbitrary because it relies on your determination of what constitutes a "pragmatic acknowledgement" of defeat, or your definition of what constitutes a Crusade's end, or your "inference" of what might happen for any particular world in the future. You try to claim it is "safe" to make inferences about the fate of certain worlds. Again what constitutes "safe" is a purely subjective decision and as shown, inferences if based at a particular point in time can turn out to be drastically wrong.

Actually, you haven't shown me any examples where it is drastically wrong to view a secession as either successful, failed or unresolved. Please do.

It is subjective AND arbitrary because your model is purely reliant on whatever you as one person should happen to hold as an opinion at any particular time about a particular situation. If your opinion changes, the conclusions produced by your flawed model change. A decision that a "safe" inference is no longer safe, changes the outcome. A decision that an Imperial campaign of 10,000 years is unreasonable and a pragmatic acknowledgement of loss is a completely arbitrary decision because what about an Imperial campaign of 9,999 years before they give up? How about 5,000 years? Any cut off threshold is imposed purely as an arbitrary personal whim by you. Your model relies on the whims and decisions of one person. It produces no replicable results. Any other person using that model can produce completely different conclusions based on their particular opinions and biases on any of the above decisions.

My model relies on no individual subjective opinions or arbitrary decision making of what is a "safe" inference or what the definition "pragmatic acknowledgement" or any such waffling definitions. If two different people at the same point in time in the 40K universe with the same information use it, they will reach the same conclusion about any world. It produces replicable consistent results regardless of the user. That is consistency. It does not attempt to predict the future, which is unknown and which would involve subjective decisions about what is or is not likely to happen.

First of all. Arbitrary.


Secondly, you have repeatedly succeeded in twisting my argument and, when you cannot do that, ignoring my argument completely. I don't think you're worth the effort of keeping awake any longer. Good night, and please revise the english language.

Taros did it successfully.

kronk wrote:Taros did it successfully.

If we're talking about the same planet, I believe OP specified that the secession was to complete independence, not to the Tau Empire.

Ah. I see his stipulation now.

In that case, no.

There isn't a planet or system that would be strong enough to resist the might of the imperium were it to Secede without outside help.

If their was a planet, we wouldn't hear about it.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
True, you can't say anything will happen with any great degree of certainty. After all, a fleet en route to crush an unruly world may be lost to the warp entirely.

That does not mean you cannot reach reasonable conclusions as to what the outcome of current events will be though.

You cannot. What is judged "reasonable" is a subjective decision based on the personal opinion and biases of the person. Your model cannot provide for when 2 people think opposite outcomes are both "reasonable". It was "reasonable" to think Dal'yth would fall. A case can also be made that it would have been "reasonable" for it to have held out in the end.

Again and again you are positing the strawman that I am saying that the Imperium's claims actually matter. The Imperium could claim that a campaign is 'ongoing' when it is in fact completely destroyed. But if the Imperium is in fact constantly sending new reinforcements and forces to back up an existing campaign, then the campaign is in fact ongoing, and the success of the secession is still unresolved.

An easy counterexample punctures your scenario: The Imperium can be requisitioning troops or making plans to launch another assault in 100 years, 10,000 years, or a 100,000 years. What constitutes "constantly sending new reinforcements"? Again an arbitrary threshold determined by your own personal whims. An Administratum clerk allocating future births on Krieg to a regiment for assignment to such a planet then could constitute action towards sending reinforcements, even if this should be hundreds or thousands of years down the line. Again your model has absolutely no ability to reach conclusions reliably and is again dependent on a personal decision by you as to what constitutes an active campaign.

It has not succeeded, because the matter has not been resolved. But is has not yet failed either. If the reader was never told of the outcome of the Siege of Vraks, we would say it was unresolved. It's a fairly simple concept.

Your two situations there are not analogous. Having a situation be resolved and in the past but with insufficient data is not the same as a situation unresolved in the present, with everything else unknowable because it lies in the future.

I have not shifted topics. Either a matter of secession is resolved or unresolved. If it is resolved then it has either succeeded or failed. To claim victory when the war is, in fact, still underway is premature.

And your definitions about what constitutes a war that is still underway is entirely subjective to your personal decision. Again you seem to fail to address this fatal fundamental flaw in your model. You keep at some point having to make a decision about what constitutes some threshold or defining some case situation but such decisions are not based on anything more than your personal opinion. Any other person can just as easily decide a different way and then your model produces completely different results.

You keep using words like "reasonable" or "safe", when really all that amounts to is you imposing your decisions as if they were some Word of God. You say something is "reasonable" or "safe", but there is nothing backing it up. A person can say all your claims of what is reasonable is in fact unreasonable and that all the "safe" inferences are nothing of the sort, then your model falls apart because it is dependent on such entirely personal decisions.

Equivocation, and a terrible attempt at it as well. The Black Templar's Crusade is a series of campaigns, each of which may result in either a victory or a loss. Do not try to compare their Crusade to a world's attempt at secession.

Again all you are trying to do is dismiss anything that shows the holes in your position.

Your definition and model is reliant on your completely arbitrary claim of what constitutes an ongoing campaign. I say the Black Templar's Crusade is really just one very long campaign that involves the whole galaxy. There I just defined an ongoing campaign effort in as arbitrary a fashion as you did. Since it is an ongoing campaign effort, no enemy has ever won or will ever win against the Black Templars because their efforts have never ceased. See how utterly impossible such a model is when it relies on such arbitrary definitions?

Your model is the one that produces results that are far too arbitrary. You keep saying that a secession is either successful or unsuccessful, even when no actual outcome has been reached.

Of course an outcome has been reached. An outcome has always been reached as of that particular moment in time. Where things go from there is a different matter. There is nothing arbitrary whatsoever about it.

As of 1941, ask people and they could conclude Germany had won. Ask in 1945 and they would say Germany had lost. The answer given depends entirely on the perspective and the time of asking. You seem to have a problem with this issue of something changing with time.

Simple is good, when applied properly. Your definition is far too simplistic, and inappropriate for the matter at hand.

There you go again. You really don't seem to see the flaw in your model: Nobody made you God for you to decide what is or is not inappropriate. Your model is flawed again because it relies on your opinion as if it were the Word of God to make determinations of what is reasonable, appropriate, safe, or whatever other semantic gyrations you want to use.

ar·bi·trar·y   [ahr-bi-trer-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural ar·bi·trar·ies.
adjective
1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2.
decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3.
having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4.
capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.

See definition 4. Your model relies on capricious rulings about what constitutes ongoing effort, what constitutes "reasonable" conclusions and "safe inferences". There is nothing other than your own personal decision about what should constitute such things, and your model just simply demands that others accept your word without question. And of course it just happens all of your predictions and inferences just happen to be safe and reasonable. No provision is made for what happens when if someone should say the opposite. You can claim it is reasonable to conclude that Dal'yth would fall. A Tau player can say that is completely unreasonable and say it is reasonable that the planet would hold out. Your model has no way to resolve this. Note: Simply waving your hand and saying the Tau player is being "ridiculous" is not a means of resolving whether something is reasonable or not. Using your model, the Tau player could just as equally wave you off as being "ridiculous". Then there is just impasse and no conclusion.

Secondly, you have repeatedly succeeded in twisting my argument and, when you cannot do that, ignoring my argument completely. I don't think you're worth the effort of keeping awake any longer. Good night, and please revise the english language.

Oh the sour grapes tactic "I'm too good or tired for this". You over and over again never address any of the points other than waving them away with a God ruling "It's too simplistic", "It's ridiculous". You completely fail to see the flaws because you appear to see no flaw with your rulings or that there could be any other possibility than what you decide. The problem is YOUR rulings are not what other people might decide. You are not God. You do not get to depending on your mood decide whether a point that disagrees with you is ridiculous. Any model dependent on such personal decisions cannot work because such decisions are inherently subjective especially when your definitions are so vague and fuzzy and dependent on personal rulings. All that means is when you decide something it is reasonable, then if someone decides the opposite, you say "Oh that's unreasonable" and try to ignore it. If you cannot argue your point and wish to concede, just say so instead of this pointless face saving maneuver.

Nobody has twisted anything about your argument. It is just your model has holes the size of a battlecruiser and your only response to the pointing out of the ludicrous conclusions that ensue from using it, and the inability to apply such a model in a reliable fashion has been to wave your hand and dismiss things without addressing them.

Such a model is no basis to make any rational or objective determinations about anything because it is no fundamentally different from "I think it is so therefore it is so." Sorry, but you don't own the 40K franchise. You are not in a position to make such Word of God rulings. Your contention of what is reasonable in 40K has no greater standing than any other person's.

And in some cases once the Imperium has taken all the resources from the world they are released from their tithes, their regiments are disbanded and the Imperium tears down or removes much of its presence. Released from the protection from the Imperium such worlds don't last long. In one of the books "Planet Kill" or something like it, wasn't the planet collapsing from being all but hollow?

Iracundus wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:
True, you can't say anything will happen with any great degree of certainty. After all, a fleet en route to crush an unruly world may be lost to the warp entirely.

That does not mean you cannot reach reasonable conclusions as to what the outcome of current events will be though.

You cannot. What is judged "reasonable" is a subjective decision based on the personal opinion and biases of the person. Your model cannot provide for when 2 people think opposite outcomes are both "reasonable". It was "reasonable" to think Dal'yth would fall. A case can also be made that it would have been "reasonable" for it to have held out in the end.

While I might think it was 'reasonable' to suggest Dal'yth would eventually fall, I would still say that the matter was unresolved. And it would remain unresolved until it ended in success or failure one way or the other. If there was still large-scale fighting on the planet that could end either way in the present, you cannot make the claim that the secession has been successful.

Again and again you are positing the strawman that I am saying that the Imperium's claims actually matter. The Imperium could claim that a campaign is 'ongoing' when it is in fact completely destroyed. But if the Imperium is in fact constantly sending new reinforcements and forces to back up an existing campaign, then the campaign is in fact ongoing, and the success of the secession is still unresolved.

An easy counterexample punctures your scenario: The Imperium can be requisitioning troops or making plans to launch another assault in 100 years, 10,000 years, or a 100,000 years. What constitutes "constantly sending new reinforcements"? Again an arbitrary threshold determined by your own personal whims. An Administratum clerk allocating future births on Krieg to a regiment for assignment to such a planet then could constitute action towards sending reinforcements, even if this should be hundreds or thousands of years down the line. Again your model has absolutely no ability to reach conclusions reliably and is again dependent on a personal decision by you as to what constitutes an active campaign.

Mustering for a new campaign and sending reinforcements to an existing and ongoing campaign (where fighting is still going on) are two different things.

It has not succeeded, because the matter has not been resolved. But is has not yet failed either. If the reader was never told of the outcome of the Siege of Vraks, we would say it was unresolved. It's a fairly simple concept.

Your two situations there are not analogous. Having a situation be resolved and in the past but with insufficient data is not the same as a situation unresolved in the present, with everything else unknowable because it lies in the future.

If, in the present timeline of the 40k universe from the reader's point of view, the Siege of Vraks had still not reached a conclusion then we have to say the situation is unresolved. We can guess as to the outcome, but that does not presently change the fact that the situation is still currently unresolved.

I have not shifted topics. Either a matter of secession is resolved or unresolved. If it is resolved then it has either succeeded or failed. To claim victory when the war is, in fact, still underway is premature.

And your definitions about what constitutes a war that is still underway is entirely subjective to your personal decision. Again you seem to fail to address this fatal fundamental flaw in your model. You keep at some point having to make a decision about what constitutes some threshold or defining some case situation but such decisions are not based on anything more than your personal opinion. Any other person can just as easily decide a different way and then your model produces completely different results.

I have encouraged a discussion on what might constitute an ongoing campaign by the Imperium's standards. I've put forward my idea of what it might be because that is what you do in discussion's about hypothetical scenarios.

You keep using words like "reasonable" or "safe", when really all that amounts to is you imposing your decisions as if they were some Word of God. You say something is "reasonable" or "safe", but there is nothing backing it up. A person can say all your claims of what is reasonable is in fact unreasonable and that all the "safe" inferences are nothing of the sort, then your model falls apart because it is dependent on such entirely personal decisions.

You keep claiming that I am imposing my own personal standard as Word of God, when in fact I have posited a possible definiton. I haven't said it was flawless and not to be challenged, but I have made logical arguments to support why I think it is appropriate. I have also pointed out why I think your definition is inappropriate.

Equivocation, and a terrible attempt at it as well. The Black Templar's Crusade is a series of campaigns, each of which may result in either a victory or a loss. Do not try to compare their Crusade to a world's attempt at secession.

Again all you are trying to do is dismiss anything that shows the holes in your position.

Your definition and model is reliant on your completely arbitrary claim of what constitutes an ongoing campaign. I say the Black Templar's Crusade is really just one very long campaign that involves the whole galaxy. There I just defined an ongoing campaign effort in as arbitrary a fashion as you did. Since it is an ongoing campaign effort, no enemy has ever won or will ever win against the Black Templars because their efforts have never ceased. See how utterly impossible such a model is when it relies on such arbitrary definitions?

Actually, you are the only one who has made such an arbitrary definition of what a campaign is. This argument doesn't follow. As part of their Crusade, the Black Templars could launch a campaign against an Ork-held world. The campaign might end in disaster, with every Templar killed to the last. The Templars might then conduct a second campaign, this time successfully cleansing the world of orks. The first campaign still ended in failure.

As to the nature of the crusade as a whole, even if we use your definition that states the whole thing is just one long campaign, we can't say that the Crusade has ended in either success or failure because it hasn't ended (and likely won't end until the last Templar or Xenos/heretic is dead).

Your model is the one that produces results that are far too arbitrary. You keep saying that a secession is either successful or unsuccessful, even when no actual outcome has been reached.

Of course an outcome has been reached. An outcome has always been reached as of that particular moment in time. Where things go from there is a different matter. There is nothing arbitrary whatsoever about it.

As of 1941, ask people and they could conclude Germany had won. Ask in 1945 and they would say Germany had lost. The answer given depends entirely on the perspective and the time of asking. You seem to have a problem with this issue of something changing with time.

In 1941 Germany hadn't won the war. People might conclude that Germany was winning and even *would* win the war, but you can't say that in 1941 Germany won the war, because the war hadn't reached a conclusion.

Simple is good, when applied properly. Your definition is far too simplistic, and inappropriate for the matter at hand.

There you go again. You really don't seem to see the flaw in your model: Nobody made you God for you to decide what is or is not inappropriate. Your model is flawed again because it relies on your opinion as if it were the Word of God to make determinations of what is reasonable, appropriate, safe, or whatever other semantic gyrations you want to use.

So anyone who challenges your position is clearly deluded and thinks they have the authority of God? Nice to know.

ar·bi·trar·y   [ahr-bi-trer-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural ar·bi·trar·ies.
adjective
1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2.
decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3.
having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4.
capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.

See definition 4. Your model relies on capricious rulings about what constitutes ongoing effort, what constitutes "reasonable" conclusions and "safe inferences". There is nothing other than your own personal decision about what should constitute such things, and your model just simply demands that others accept your word without question. And of course it just happens all of your predictions and inferences just happen to be safe and reasonable. No provision is made for what happens when if someone should say the opposite. You can claim it is reasonable to conclude that Dal'yth would fall. A Tau player can say that is completely unreasonable and say it is reasonable that the planet would hold out. Your model has no way to resolve this. Note: Simply waving your hand and saying the Tau player is being "ridiculous" is not a means of resolving whether something is reasonable or not. Using your model, the Tau player could just as equally wave you off as being "ridiculous". Then there is just impasse and no conclusion.

For definition 1 through to 3 to apply, I would have to have claimed that my opinion on the matter was the only one that should be considered. It's a little insulting for you to claim that is the case.

Secondly, you have repeatedly succeeded in twisting my argument and, when you cannot do that, ignoring my argument completely. I don't think you're worth the effort of keeping awake any longer. Good night, and please revise the english language.

Oh the sour grapes tactic "I'm too good or tired for this". You over and over again never address any of the points other than waving them away with a God ruling "It's too simplistic", "It's ridiculous". You completely fail to see the flaws because you appear to see no flaw with your rulings or that there could be any other possibility than what you decide. The problem is YOUR rulings are not what other people might decide. You are not God. You do not get to depending on your mood decide whether a point that disagrees with you is ridiculous. Any model dependent on such personal decisions cannot work because such decisions are inherently subjective especially when your definitions are so vague and fuzzy and dependent on personal rulings. All that means is when you decide something it is reasonable, then if someone decides the opposite, you say "Oh that's unreasonable" and try to ignore it. If you cannot argue your point and wish to concede, just say so instead of this pointless face saving maneuver.

You seem to have the idea that if you repeatedly ignore someone's argument and instead argue against what they haven't said you "win" the discussion. I have seen better attempts at this than yours.

Nobody has twisted anything about your argument. It is just your model has holes the size of a battlecruiser and your only response to the pointing out of the ludicrous conclusions that ensue from using it, and the inability to apply such a model in a reliable fashion has been to wave your hand and dismiss things without addressing them.

Would you like me to point out where you have purposefully either ignored the point I was making or ignored the comment entirely? Because that would be an awful long list.

Such a model is no basis to make any rational or objective determinations about anything because it is no fundamentally different from "I think it is so therefore it is so." Sorry, but you don't own the 40K franchise. You are not in a position to make such Word of God rulings. Your contention of what is reasonable in 40K has no greater standing than any other person's.

That would be a good point if I had made any such claim claim. I haven't, so stop pretending I have.

Entire systems have been lost in the insane bureaucracy of the IoM. Warp-Storm have cut off access to systems for millennia. It would be fairly easy to accidentally be cut-off from the Imperium.

Making a point to tell the IoM/High Lords off would result in several Inquisitors, assassins, and the SoB raining down righteous fire all over everything.

Is there any fluff regarding non-IoM humans who have gained technological superiority without the help of the IoM?

Hazardous Harry wrote:I am disputing your claim that they successfully resisted Imperial attempts to reclaim them.

Does it really matter? They remain lost. Either the Imperium never bothered to reclaim them, or it tried and failed. It may try in the future, but we have no way of knowing how that will pan out.

Kaldor wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:I am disputing your claim that they successfully resisted Imperial attempts to reclaim them.

Does it really matter? They remain lost. Either the Imperium never bothered to reclaim them, or it tried and failed. It may try in the future, but we have no way of knowing how that will pan out.

It does matter, because while we have a couple of cases where the Imperium has lost worlds because they are forgotten, we don't really have any examples where the Imperium decides to give up on seceding worlds because they would be too difficult to recover.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
While I might think it was 'reasonable' to suggest Dal'yth would eventually fall, I would still say that the matter was unresolved. And it would remain unresolved until it ended in success or failure one way or the other. If there was still large-scale fighting on the planet that could end either way in the present, you cannot make the claim that the secession has been successful.

And that was not the example you proposed. You tried to claim a secession is not successful if there are Imperial ships in space. No fighting whatsoever on the planet at all, and then tried to claim it was "reasonable" or a "safe inference" to claim it would fall.

You have also implied that a 4,000 year old secessionist system is not the same thing as a 1 year old secessionist system, even if both are independent at the end of 999.M41. Age has nothing to do with success. The old system could be assaulted the next year and fall. The 1 year old system might go on for centuries or millenia or permanently be independent. However AS OF 999.M41, they are both independent and as of 999.M41 they have both succeeded.

It also yet again shows this issue of you being the one deciding that Dal'yth falling is "reasonable". You ignore the situation of a Tau player claiming it is unreasonable and that the reasonable conclusion is that Dal'yth stands. It just happens that your personal preference is the "reasonable" one and others are conveniently ignored.

Nothing of the sort is true. It is not "safe" to assume any of the above just as it was not "safe" to assume Dal'yth would fall.

Mustering for a new campaign and sending reinforcements to an existing and ongoing campaign (where fighting is still going on) are two different things.

Again only according your personal opinion and interpretation of things, which is again the flaw in your model.

Another person could conclude the very act of allocating troop production in the future constitutes ongoing campaign. In which case then your model produces completely different results.

Over and over your model relies on you and you alone making decisions about what constitutes something or not, and these decisions ARE arbitrary because another person could just as easily conclude something entirely different with as little reason.

If, in the present timeline of the 40k universe from the reader's point of view, the Siege of Vraks had still not reached a conclusion then we have to say the situation is unresolved. We can guess as to the outcome, but that does not presently change the fact that the situation is still currently unresolved.

This only shows you really did not read my posts at all, because my model would give a contested result if the actual siege were still ongoing with actual combat on the surface. I listed the criterion for determination earlier, and this is not determinant on any personal rulings or definitions.

I have encouraged a discussion on what might constitute an ongoing campaign by the Imperium's standards. I've put forward my idea of what it might be because that is what you do in discussion's about hypothetical scenarios.

And your model gives no conclusions and no definitions of what constitutes an ongoing campaign. All it does is throw the definition back into one person's hands and they can end up concluding whatever they like, such as for example the Black Templar's Crusade constituting an ongoing campaign.

You keep claiming that I am imposing my own personal standard as Word of God, when in fact I have posited a possible definiton. I haven't said it was flawless and not to be challenged, but I have made logical arguments to support why I think it is appropriate. I have also pointed out why I think your definition is inappropriate.

You have not pointed out any of the sort. You have only made the statement of my model being simple so therefore it's inappropriate in a sweeping declarative fashion, with no reasoning other than you say it's inappropriate. That is not reasoning at all. Nobody gave you the right or power to declare things inappropriate or appropriate. That's your model relying on you to dictate what is or is not. There is no rhyme or reason in your model other than it relies on one person making declarations that things are this way or things are not this way. Such a model is inherently unreliable because there is no guarantee whatsoever that any other person would make the same declarations.

Actually, you are the only one who has made such an arbitrary definition of what a campaign is. This argument doesn't follow. As part of their Crusade, the Black Templars could launch a campaign against an Ork-held world. The campaign might end in disaster, with every Templar killed to the last. The Templars might then conduct a second campaign, this time successfully cleansing the world of orks. The first campaign still ended in failure.

It can just as easily be defined that the second attempt was just a continuation of the first attempt in the same way that a city does not fall to the first wave, doesn't mean it didn't fall to the first attack.

As to the nature of the crusade as a whole, even if we use your definition that states the whole thing is just one long campaign, we can't say that the Crusade has ended in either success or failure because it hasn't ended (and likely won't end until the last Templar or Xenos/heretic is dead).

And it produces the ridiculous conclusion that nobody has ever won against the Templars since the campaign is ongoing. And if their campaign is eternal, then nobody can ever win against the Templars because the campaign is ongoing. Again there is this reliance on "ongoing campaign" with no definition of that other than what you say it is. I notice your complete silence on this, which is the logical end result of this line of reasoning, because a person using your model can define "ongoing campaign" however they like.

So anyone who challenges your position is clearly deluded and thinks they have the authority of God? Nice to know.

When all you do is simply brush aside other positions as "inappropriate", then you have no reasoning other than trying to be an "authority". You don't have that authority to just sweep aside counterpoints or other models with unsupported declarations. Your model relies on vague terms and conveniently the person that defines them happens to be you, or whoever is using the model.

For definition 1 through to 3 to apply, I would have to have claimed that my opinion on the matter was the only one that should be considered. It's a little insulting for you to claim that is the case.

That has been the model you have been using, that only your opinion matters. Only you make the determinations of what constitutes an ongoing campaign, and you end up saying what is safe or reasonable to infer. Only your personal opinion and decisions get applied. There is no objective reference other than you making such "decisions".

And such a model is flawed because anyone else can use that same model and make completely opposite decisions with as little backing. And there is no ability to replicate conclusions with such a model when it is based on such arbitrary rulings on the part of whoever is making them.

You seem to have the idea that if you repeatedly ignore someone's argument and instead argue against what they haven't said you "win" the discussion. I have seen better attempts at this than yours.

Not too "good" for this thread or this debate anymore? I thought you were "tired" and were going to try and bow out.

I haven't been the one ignoring it. I have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your argument while you have been completely unable to defend other than just waving your hand and claiming the opposing model is "inappropriate" as if you were a judge empowered to make such decisions. Address that underlying point. Your model is reliant on so-called "reasonable conclusions", vague undefined "practical acknowledgement", "safe inferences", and "ongoing effort/campaign" with no definition of these other than the whim of the person using the model declaring what is or is not reasonable to conclude. The definitions of these vague fuzzy terms is left up to the person implementing the model and hence they can declare whatever they want constitutes reasonable.

Such a model is completely unworkable and produces essentially the same results as "I think this is reasonable so it is the case. I think your stuff is unreasonable so therefore it's wrong." There is no reasoning or logic there other than using a personal opinion to make judgments.

That would be a good point if I had made any such claim claim. I haven't, so stop pretending I have.

Your model is completely reliant on such. It works only if other people accept the rulings and decisions made by you or whoever is using the model. If those decisions are contested, and they are easily contested since there are no firm definitions, then it can produce no reliable replicable conclusions.

The complete reliance on personal definitions used by the user of the model also can lead to such ridiculous situations of concluding that Black Templars have never been defeated and no enemy has ever won against the Black Templars since their eternal Crusade is an ongoing campaign. Troops can always be "on the way", maybe in 10,000 years or 100,000 years.

Kaldor wrote:
Does it really matter? They remain lost. Either the Imperium never bothered to reclaim them, or it tried and failed. It may try in the future, but we have no way of knowing how that will pan out.

The issue here is the text clearly shows a sequence of events, of worlds seceding and then saying worlds were lost forever. What is the problem however is he has been trying to invent other reasons of loss other than successful secession, when there is no evidence given of any other method of loss, yet the text does already mention the existence of one method, that of secession.

The situation could be similar to saying "Brushfires broke out. Many houses were totally destroyed." And then trying to say "well maybe the houses were destroyed by a tornado or a flood or maybe they fell apart spontaneously." The original statements already includes the method of loss: fire. The sequential positioning of the sentences show one leading to the other. Nobody else proposed the possibility of fires burning down the houses but the original text gives this. To propose new unmentioned methods of destruction being responsible requires proof, and he has been completely unable to provide any proof whatsoever for the claim of other methods being responsible for the worlds Macharius conquered being lost.

Iracundus wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:
While I might think it was 'reasonable' to suggest Dal'yth would eventually fall, I would still say that the matter was unresolved. And it would remain unresolved until it ended in success or failure one way or the other. If there was still large-scale fighting on the planet that could end either way in the present, you cannot make the claim that the secession has been successful.

And that was not the example you proposed. You tried to claim a secession is not successful if there are Imperial ships in space. No fighting whatsoever on the planet at all, and then tried to claim it was "reasonable" or a "safe inference" to claim it would fall.

Actually, I would say that if there was fighting in space or spaceships beginning a ground invasion, that would mean the secession is every bit as contested as there being actual troops on the ground. WWII didn't start when the first Allied troops entered Germany, after all.

You have also implied that a 4,000 year old secessionist system is not the same thing as a 1 year old secessionist system, even if both are independent at the end of 999.M41. Age has nothing to do with success. The old system could be assaulted the next year and fall. The 1 year old system might go on for centuries or millenia or permanently be independent. However AS OF 999.M41, they are both independent and as of 999.M41 they have both succeeded.

I have said a 1 year old secessionist is not successful because there is no way the Imperium could have reacted in that single year. A 4,000 year old secession means the Imperium has had plenty of time to react and fail or succeed in quashing the rebellion. You do understand that establishing independence is a process right?
I'll come back to the US Revolution example. The secession of the revolution was, and will always be, successful because the US managed to establish its independence from the British Empire. If the British Empire was, today, to re-emerge and retake the USA that does not mean that the initial secession of the US from Britain was any less successful. Pay attention to what I am doing here. I'm not only saying that you're wrong, I'm giving you reasons why you are wrong. I have been doing this throughout the entire thread.

It also yet again shows this issue of you being the one deciding that Dal'yth falling is "reasonable". You ignore the situation of a Tau player claiming it is unreasonable and that the reasonable conclusion is that Dal'yth stands. It just happens that your personal preference is the "reasonable" one and others are conveniently ignored.

Nothing of the sort is true. It is not "safe" to assume any of the above just as it was not "safe" to assume Dal'yth would fall.

Yes, but my assumption as to wether the secession of Dal'yth would be successful or not doesn't actually mean anything. The actual conflict of Dal'yth would still be unresolved, regardless of my opinion.

Mustering for a new campaign and sending reinforcements to an existing and ongoing campaign (where fighting is still going on) are two different things.

Again only according your personal opinion and interpretation of things, which is again the flaw in your model.

Another person could conclude the very act of allocating troop production in the future constitutes ongoing campaign. In which case then your model produces completely different results.

Over and over your model relies on you and you alone making decisions about what constitutes something or not, and these decisions ARE arbitrary because another person could just as easily conclude something entirely different with as little reason.

You keep acting like I'm throwing my personal opinion around like it's word of god. Stop doing that.

And you really don't understand the difference between mustering for and conducting a campaign? No, of course you do. You just pretend you don't so you can pretend to shoot down my argument.

If, in the present timeline of the 40k universe from the reader's point of view, the Siege of Vraks had still not reached a conclusion then we have to say the situation is unresolved. We can guess as to the outcome, but that does not presently change the fact that the situation is still currently unresolved.

This only shows you really did not read my posts at all, because my model would give a contested result if the actual siege were still ongoing with actual combat on the surface. I listed the criterion for determination earlier, and this is not determinant on any personal rulings or definitions.

So why is the fact that there is actual combat on the surface of the planet any different from naval battles occurring in orbit above it? What about open combat on one of the planets in an Secessionist Empire, with the other worlds being the next in line for conquest?

Your model here is just as subject to that awful thing you hate (personal opinion) as mine. Probably moreso, because it would be a lot harder to reach an agreement on what constitutes 'open combat' than to decide on what a campaign is. Because 'campaign' has a much more concrete definition.

I have encouraged a discussion on what might constitute an ongoing campaign by the Imperium's standards. I've put forward my idea of what it might be because that is what you do in discussion's about hypothetical scenarios.

And your model gives no conclusions and no definitions of what constitutes an ongoing campaign. All it does is throw the definition back into one person's hands and they can end up concluding whatever they like, such as for example the Black Templar's Crusade constituting an ongoing campaign.

I don't think that the Black Templar's Crusade is an ongoing campaign. You were the one that said this.

You keep claiming that I am imposing my own personal standard as Word of God, when in fact I have posited a possible definiton. I haven't said it was flawless and not to be challenged, but I have made logical arguments to support why I think it is appropriate. I have also pointed out why I think your definition is inappropriate.

You have not pointed out any of the sort. You have only made the statement of my model being simple so therefore it's inappropriate in a sweeping declarative fashion, with no reasoning other than you say it's inappropriate. That is not reasoning at all. Nobody gave you the right or power to declare things inappropriate or appropriate. That's your model relying on you to dictate what is or is not. There is no rhyme or reason in your model other than it relies on one person making declarations that things are this way or things are not this way. Such a model is inherently unreliable because there is no guarantee whatsoever that any other person would make the same declarations.

Yes, I said your model was simple. Yes, I said some of your definitions and requirements were inappropriate. But then I added the magical words Because after it.

Can you see it now? Should I go back through my posts and make them larger, so you can see the reasons I give? Would you even read them then?

Probably not.

Actually, you are the only one who has made such an arbitrary definition of what a campaign is. This argument doesn't follow. As part of their Crusade, the Black Templars could launch a campaign against an Ork-held world. The campaign might end in disaster, with every Templar killed to the last. The Templars might then conduct a second campaign, this time successfully cleansing the world of orks. The first campaign still ended in failure.

It can just as easily be defined that the second attempt was just a continuation of the first attempt in the same way that a city does not fall to the first wave, doesn't mean it didn't fall to the first attack.

It could only be easily said if you had absolutely no idea what a campaign actually was. That's like saying that if a Space Marine fights an Ork in a one-on-one duel and gets killed, but another Space Marine challenges the Ork and this one wins, that original Space Marine still won because that second duel was simply a continuation of the first duel. You could only say something like that with any seriousness if you were entirely ignorant of what the term 'duel' meant.

As to the nature of the crusade as a whole, even if we use your definition that states the whole thing is just one long campaign, we can't say that the Crusade has ended in either success or failure because it hasn't ended (and likely won't end until the last Templar or Xenos/heretic is dead).

And it produces the ridiculous conclusion that nobody has ever won against the Templars since the campaign is ongoing. And if their campaign is eternal, then nobody can ever win against the Templars because the campaign is ongoing. Again there is this reliance on "ongoing campaign" with no definition of that other than what you say it is. I notice your complete silence on this, which is the logical end result of this line of reasoning, because a person using your model can define "ongoing campaign" however they like.

No, it can lead to the conclusion that no one has beaten THE Templar Crusade. But, like I said, that's only if we rely on the conclusion you provided (which like everything else you've posted is a bit of a stretch at best).

So anyone who challenges your position is clearly deluded and thinks they have the authority of God? Nice to know.

When all you do is simply brush aside other positions as "inappropriate", then you have no reasoning other than trying to be an "authority". You don't have that authority to just sweep aside counterpoints or other models with unsupported declarations. Your model relies on vague terms and conveniently the person that defines them happens to be you, or whoever is using the model.

Oh look, I can use this again.

"Yes, I said your model was simple. Yes, I said some of your definitions and requirements were inappropriate. But then I added the magical words Because after it.

Can you see it now? Should I go back through my posts and make them larger, so you can see the reasons I give? Would you even read them then?"

For definition 1 through to 3 to apply, I would have to have claimed that my opinion on the matter was the only one that should be considered. It's a little insulting for you to claim that is the case.

That has been the model you have been using, that only your opinion matters. Only you make the determinations of what constitutes an ongoing campaign, and you end up saying what is safe or reasonable to infer. Only your personal opinion and decisions get applied. There is no objective reference other than you making such "decisions".

And such a model is flawed because anyone else can use that same model and make completely opposite decisions with as little backing. And there is no ability to replicate conclusions with such a model when it is based on such arbitrary rulings on the part of whoever is making them.

So go on then, give me an example where people come to completely unsatisfactory conclusions given my model.

Because I would think your arbitrary decision to simply have a cut-off date and any Secessionist Empire that survives up to the present day 'wins' isn't any better at all.

You seem to have the idea that if you repeatedly ignore someone's argument and instead argue against what they haven't said you "win" the discussion. I have seen better attempts at this than yours.

Not too "good" for this thread or this debate anymore? I thought you were "tired" and were going to try and bow out.

I need sleep, and have university work to do. It's depressing how much time has already been wasted on you.

I haven't been the one ignoring it. I have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your argument while you have been completely unable to defend other than just waving your hand and claiming the opposing model is "inappropriate" as if you were a judge empowered to make such decisions. Address that underlying point. Your model is reliant on so-called "reasonable conclusions", vague undefined "practical acknowledgement", "safe inferences", and "ongoing effort/campaign" with no definition of these other than the whim of the person using the model declaring what is or is not reasonable to conclude. The definitions of these vague fuzzy terms is left up to the person implementing the model and hence they can declare whatever they want constitutes reasonable.

Such a model is completely unworkable and produces essentially the same results as "I think this is reasonable so it is the case. I think your stuff is unreasonable so therefore it's wrong." There is no reasoning or logic there other than using a personal opinion to make judgments.

Wait, you mean I get to use this again?

"Yes, I said your model was simple. Yes, I said some of your definitions and requirements were inappropriate. But then I added the magical words Because after it.

Can you see it now? Should I go back through my posts and make them larger, so you can see the reasons I give? Would you even read them then?"

Kaldor wrote:
Does it really matter? They remain lost. Either the Imperium never bothered to reclaim them, or it tried and failed. It may try in the future, but we have no way of knowing how that will pan out.

The issue here is the text clearly shows a sequence of events, of worlds seceding and then saying worlds were lost forever. What is the problem however is he has been trying to invent other reasons of loss other than successful secession, when there is no evidence given of any other method of loss, yet the text does already mention the existence of one method, that of secession.

This is a barefaced lie. I have repeatedly stated that this is not the argument that I have been making. I have not said the the secessions weren't successful, I have contested your claim that the secessions were successful because they repeatedly beat back Imperial attempts to retake them and the Imperium decided to give up on them.

Now not only are your 'arguments' full of gak, other posters can see it as well.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
Actually, I would say that if there was fighting in space or spaceships beginning a ground invasion, that would mean the secession is every bit as contested as there being actual troops on the ground. WWII didn't start when the first Allied troops entered Germany, after all.

The situation never said fighting in space. You claimed if there were Imperial ships in space in orbit or in any form of en route that it would not count. You are retrospectively adding more qualifiers and shifting your position.

I have said a 1 year old secessionist is not successful because there is no way the Imperium could have reacted in that single year. A 4,000 year old secession means the Imperium has had plenty of time to react and fail or succeed in quashing the rebellion. You do understand that establishing independence is a process right?

I'll come back to the US Revolution example. The secession of the revolution was, and will always be, successful because the US managed to establish its independence from the British Empire. If the British Empire was, today, to re-emerge and retake the USA that does not mean that the initial secession of the US from Britain was any less successful. Pay attention to what I am doing here. I'm not only saying that you're wrong, I'm giving you reasons why you are wrong. I have been doing this throughout the entire thread.

You cannot know and claim for sure the Imperium would not have had time to react. The systems of a subsector are under a year's travel from each other on average if FFG and BFG are anything to go by. You cannot know for certain what has happened or can happen within a year a priori. Again you are arbitrarily making up assumptions and treating them as fact.

The thread was never about "initial" secession. It was about whether there has been successful secession, period. Yet again you have made up this new term "initial secession" as the thread has progressed. If the UK took over the USA in 100 years, then an observer in 100 years would say YES the USA secession failed. It is no different than an observer in 999.M41 looking back at Vraks and saying it failed or it succeeded based on who still controlled Vraks at that point in time.

Address the topic of the thread, not invent new terms and phrases and then conveniently defining them to suit your own purposes.

You keep acting like I'm throwing my personal opinion around like it's word of god. Stop doing that.

And you really don't understand the difference between mustering for and conducting a campaign? No, of course you do. You just pretend you don't so you can pretend to shoot down my argument.

You just tried to throw around your own personal opinion above. You are using only your definition of what constitutes an ongoing campaign and have just resorted to ad hominem yet again in an attempt to divert from the true issue: Your definition of a campaign is completely personal and arbitrary. Yet again nothing is addressed about what your model produces if someone chooses a different definition. Repeatedly you keep acting as if your definition is the only definition, the only "reasonable' one, that anyone can reach. It is not. Your opinion is not the only opinion. Your argument is simplicity itself to shoot down because it has no reasoning other than you declaring "This constitutes a campaign." Sorry, it only constitutes a campaign to you. Nobody else is obliged to agree with the definition. If they choose not to and use their own personal definition, your model falls apart.

So why is the fact that there is actual combat on the surface of the planet any different from naval battles occurring in orbit above it? What about open combat on one of the planets in an Secessionist Empire, with the other worlds being the next in line for conquest?

Your model here is just as subject to that awful thing you hate (personal opinion) as mine. Probably moreso, because it would be a lot harder to reach an agreement on what constitutes 'open combat' than to decide on what a campaign is. Because 'campaign' has a much more concrete definition.

You again have changed the initial scenario. You were questioning whether a planet with Imperial ships moving overhead would count as having succeeded if that was the last moment of 999.M41. The answer would be yes, because there as not been any open combat and there is no certainty that there necessarily would be as they could receive an urgent Astropath message to go somewhere else the very next moment.

"Open combat" is not subject to personal opinion. If there is weapon fire and/or close combat between opposing armed military forces, and if casualties are being inflicted as a result then that is open combat. All readers would reach the same decision there if they were aware of a physical exchange of fire and resulting casualties. No personal value judgments or subjective rulings needed.

Your claim of campaign having a "concrete" definition is laughable because to this moment, you have not been able to provide one. All you have provided have been individual statements of declarations of what YOU declare to be a campaign. No rules, no objective clarifications, no objective criteria. What is "pragmatically acknowledging that they don't have the resources to reconquer the secessionists, or that the resources are better spent elsewhere" defined as? Not given anywhere. Trying again in 100 years might be an acknowledgement of not having the resources to one person. Deciding to try again in 1,000 years might qualify to another. Deciding to try in 10,000 years or 100,000 years? It might even be backed up with such a declaration of commitment of resources in the future. Does that then count or not count? Such undefined terms are useless and your model relies on you, the person using it, to define such terms. A model where the definitions for the same terms can vary drastically depending on the user has no utility a workable universal model. Any model that ultimately depends only on what one person declares to be true, is not a model.

My model is easily expandable to multi-planet states. If the declared political unit lays claim to multiple planets, then it is contested if any of its planets should be contested. And any of its planets are contested if there is open combat upon them at the time of observation. Again, rules that leave no ambiguity up to the personal whims of a particular person.

I have encouraged a discussion on what might constitute an ongoing campaign by the Imperium's standards. I've put forward my idea of what it might be because that is what you do in discussion's about hypothetical scenarios.

And your model gives no conclusions and no definitions of what constitutes an ongoing campaign. All it does is throw the definition back into one person's hands and they can end up concluding whatever they like, such as for example the Black Templar's Crusade constituting an ongoing campaign.

I don't think that the Black Templar's Crusade is an ongoing campaign. You were the one that said this.

If you're willing to cut the crap, because honestly much of your argument is addressing imaginary points that I haven't even made, then this model here might be worth something to work on.

Iracundus wrote:
A revised model for any other readers:

1. A secessionist political unit is determined to have succeeded as of a particular point in time in the timeline if as of that point in time, it holds its claimed planetary territory completely with no areas being contested by the Imperium. If by that point in the timeline, the secessionist political unit has been destroyed or its territory is entirely under the control of the Imperium, it is deemed to have failed. If any parts of the territory claimed by the secessionist political unit are contested, the secessionist political unit as a whole is contested.

Contested is a subjective term. I thought you hated those? Or is it only alright when you're the one making authoritarian decisions?

2. If there should be open combat between forces of a secessionist regime and the Imperium, then the planet on which combat occurred is considered contested. Open combat being defined as the exchange of weapon fire or the occurrence of close combat between the formal military forces of the two sides and resulting in casualties on either side.

Open combat is, again, subjective. Does that mean actual, physical combat? Does this mean that the actual, physical combat must be occuring non-stop. What about sieges? What about the time where battlelines are being drawn, or forces are being moved to outmaneuver the enemy? What if one of these planet's falls to the Imperium and the Navy is in transit to the next secessionist world in the same empire?

3. Control of a planet or territory by either the Imperium or a secessionist political unit is defined as having the uncontested physical ability AND authority as the established government to extract resources from the planet, whether that be through taxation or direct resource exploitation. Hence this along with rule 2, rules out issues of insurgencies, governments in exile, criminal families or any other organizations other than formal governmental institutions claiming control.

This one is a pretty good definition of having 'control' of a planet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iracundus wrote:

The thread was never about "initial" secession. It was about whether there has been successful secession, period. Yet again you have made up this new term "initial secession" as the thread has progressed. If the UK took over the USA in 100 years, then an observer in 100 years would say YES the USA secession failed. It is no different than an observer in 999.M41 looking back at Vraks and saying it failed or it succeeded based on who still controlled Vraks at that point in time.

That observer would be wrong then. Why? Because the success a particular action (like secession) isn't defined by whether or not it survives into the present day. If someone breaks a world record in 2009, they have succeeded in breaking the world record. In someone then beats their record in 20011 it does not mean that they failed to break the world record just because their record did not survive into the present.

Also by your standards if Britain (different from the UK) took over the US tommorrow, the observer could make the same statement. The passage of 100 years is not required by your arbitrary standards.

Hazardous Harry wrote:If you're willing to cut the crap, because honestly much of your argument is addressing imaginary points that I haven't even made, then this model here might be worth something to work on.

I have been addressing the issue of garbage because that has been what your model has consisted of, garbage with fuzzy definitions dictated by the whim of whoever is using it at that particular time.

Iracundus wrote:
A revised model for any other readers:

1. A secessionist political unit is determined to have succeeded as of a particular point in time in the timeline if as of that point in time, it holds its claimed planetary territory completely with no areas being contested by the Imperium. If by that point in the timeline, the secessionist political unit has been destroyed or its territory is entirely under the control of the Imperium, it is deemed to have failed. If any parts of the territory claimed by the secessionist political unit are contested, the secessionist political unit as a whole is contested.

Contested is a subjective term. I thought you hated those? Or is it only alright when you're the one making authoritarian decisions?

Not in the least as it is defined a single line below. Read a post before responding.

2. If there should be open combat between forces of a secessionist regime and the Imperium, then the planet on which combat occurred is considered contested. Open combat being defined as the exchange of weapon fire or the occurrence of close combat between the formal military forces of the two sides and resulting in casualties on either side.

Open combat is, again, subjective. Does that mean actual, physical combat? Does this mean that the actual, physical combat must be occuring non-stop. What about sieges? What about the time where battlelines are being drawn, or forces are being moved to outmaneuver the enemy? What if one of these planet's falls to the Imperium and the Navy is in transit to the next secessionist world in the same empire?

Practice reading. The open combat is already defined. Yes it means actual physical combat and says as much through the use of weapon fire or close combat. So no, blaring propaganda and raining leaflets as psychological combat doesn't count. If it isn't stated, it isn't meant. There is no requirement of duration listed. It rules out battlelines being drawn on the planet if not a shot has been fired or no close combat has occurred. You are searching for loopholes and just finding situations already excluded by the rule.

But the thing is you see even if there are minor loopholes, the rules can be amended in a new version of the model such that the terms are defined for all to use as a standard. A model can be always revised to be more comprehensive. However any given revision of the model can be run as is with the rules. There is no requirement for individual rulings or personal definitions by the user of the model. That is the key difference between my model and yours. The user does not define things on the fly during use. It is already defined ahead of time. Any 2 users of the same version of the model, given the same data, should be able to reach the same conclusion reliably.

Rule 1 can easily be amended to:
1. A secessionist political unit is determined to have succeeded as of a particular point in time in the timeline if as of that point in time, it holds its claimed planetary territory completely with no areas being contested by the Imperium. If by that point in the timeline, the secessionist political unit has been destroyed or its territory is entirely under the control of the Imperium, it is deemed to have failed. If any parts of the territory claimed by the secessionist political unit are contested or under Imperial control, the secessionist political unit as a whole is contested.

Rule 2 to:
If there should be have been any open combat between forces of a secessionist regime and the Imperium since the introduction of an opposing force to the planet surface, and so long as there are still opposing formal military forces of both sides on the planet at the time of observation, then the planet is contested. Open combat is defined as the exchange of weapon fire or the occurrence of close combat, resulting in casualties to either side.

Such neatly nixes both of your issues of duration or transiting from one world to another.

[

That observer would be wrong then. Why? Because the success a particular action (like secession) isn't defined by whether or not it survives into the present day.

Only under YOUR definition of secession. Again you keep assuming that YOUR definitions are somehow universal or that everyone would reach your same definition, and then just declaring others wrong.

The question: Did the secession of the Confederate States from the United States succeed? The answer: No, because they were subsequently forced back into the United States.

Your use of world records is an inaccurate analogy because a world record exists at all times. One replacing the old one is not the same as one political entity being extinguished entirely and ceasing to exist.

"Did the US secede successfully from the UK?"
As of this moment, the answer is Yes
If tomorrow the UK took over, the answer given tomorrow would be No.
If tomorrow there is fighting still, the answer would be that things are still contested.

The continuous existence of the political entity of the United States would have ceased in a takeover. The secession has only been successful if that entity has continued existence at the time of observation, if it has succeeded in maintaining its separation from the entity seceded from. That is the very definition of seceding, "to withdraw formally to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union, a religious organization, etc." An entity has not successfully withdrawn if it has ended back in political union at the time of observation.

Most worlds of the Imperium cannot conceive of its size, the vastness of space it covers, or the mind-bogglingly huge amounts of resources it produces and consumes. For most such worlds, the Imperium is simply a concept, not something rooted in fact or evidence.

These are the sorts of worlds that attempt to become independent, simply because they do not know what it is they're getting themselves into. Of these worlds, the ones that aren't joining Chaos or the Tau or some other Xeno empire, life as an independent state is relatively short-lived, and almost always ends in fire and death. Sometimes, it ends by another, popular uprising, and returns to the Imperium having put their former renegade leaders to death.

There's no free-agent, independent worlds floating around out there that were part of the post-Heresy Imperium that have been refound and, again, cast off their Imperial shackles and remained free and untainted.

Psienesis wrote:
There's no free-agent, independent worlds floating around out there that were part of the post-Heresy Imperium that have been refound and, again, cast off their Imperial shackles and remained free and untainted.

As shown by the 2nd edition IG Codex quote, there are such worlds that have been reclaimed and then also lost again permanently.

Can you back up your statement with any textual evidence? Absence of evidence or mention is not evidence of absence.

Seceding from the Imperium works... Until the Administratum realizes your tithes are a couple hundred years overdue and they send a few regiments of IG to bring you back into the fold.

Although falling out of the context of Secession, i did follow up on a previous poster's comment about a story where the Imperium leave.

And not due to any particular imminent threat, ie: Chaos/Tyranids/Orks are coming...

Apparently a protocol does exist for being kicked out of the Imperium.

From Planetkill - Mortal Fuel

(and may the great Mod Gods not smite me for quoting the holy texts )

I, Governor Horsl Kaizen, speak for the Adeptus Terra. For this world before us designated 129 Tai D, known as Bahani, I hereby declare all tithe treatises void and debts extant cancelled and declare this world as orbis cassi - no further worth.

I, Commander Tomias Ward, first officer of the Emperor's warship Relentless speak for Battlefeet Bethesba. For this world before us designated 129 Tai D, I hereby declare this world as orbis contegnum. We entrust the defense of this world back to its people. May they stand strong and faithful in the new age of His Service.

..........

The message itself was complex, it had taken days to prepare with the necessary encryptions, authorisations, and passwords, but its essence was simple: You are no longer part of the Imperium.

The planet would be excised from the Administratum's great volumes of the Emperor's Worlds; if it were attacked, the Imperium would not listen to its cries for help. Trade and transport routes would be redefined, no longer would the merchant fleets that Bahani relied upon for its food venture there.

The 12 million inhabitants of Bahani, the indentured workers insufficiently valuable to take away, did not know it but their doom had come. Their machinery would break down and they would freeze in the nights and bake in the day. Food stores would be exhausted and they would inevitably fight amongst themselves and kill to hold those few areas were something could still be grown. Their numbers would be devestated, the civilization they had built would be extinguished and the few who survived would fall prety to marauding Xenos and monsters who lurked in the dark.

That sounds more like an Exterminatus taking place over a very protracted period of time, rather than a single, explosive instant.

Sounds to me like the Adeptus Terra decided that the planet was more valuable than its people, but they didn't want to (or could not, at the time) devote the military power to retaking it... so they recaptured it by playing the long game, and let them starve themselves to death.

I'm sure it will be re-colonized in the next 1,000 years or so.

Is there any fluff regarding non-IoM humans who have gained technological superiority without the help of the IoM?

The Interex, a pre-Imperium human systems-empire. Of them, and all their works, there remains nothing but dust.

As shown by the 2nd edition IG Codex quote, there are such worlds that have been reclaimed and then also lost again permanently.

Can you back up your statement with any textual evidence? Absence of evidence or mention is not evidence of absence.

Define "permanently" in a setting where we are frozen in time, provided glimpses only to the far-distant past and never to the future of next week in the galaxy at large.

Iracundus wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:If you're willing to cut the crap, because honestly much of your argument is addressing imaginary points that I haven't even made, then this model here might be worth something to work on.

I have been addressing the issue of garbage because that has been what your model has consisted of, garbage with fuzzy definitions dictated by the whim of whoever is using it at that particular time.

This statement is hilarious given the following.

Iracundus wrote:
A revised model for any other readers:

1. A secessionist political unit is determined to have succeeded as of a particular point in time in the timeline if as of that point in time, it holds its claimed planetary territory completely with no areas being contested by the Imperium. If by that point in the timeline, the secessionist political unit has been destroyed or its territory is entirely under the control of the Imperium, it is deemed to have failed. If any parts of the territory claimed by the secessionist political unit are contested, the secessionist political unit as a whole is contested.

Contested is a subjective term. I thought you hated those? Or is it only alright when you're the one making authoritarian decisions?

Not in the least as it is defined a single line below. Read a post before responding.

Yes, defined by you. Anyone else could come to their own conclusion as to what contested means by themselves. Only a few posts ago you were accusing me of stating opinions and definitions as if they were word-of-god, and now you have brought your own personal opinions and labbelled them as authoritative facts.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is hypocrisy at its finest!

2. If there should be open combat between forces of a secessionist regime and the Imperium, then the planet on which combat occurred is considered contested. Open combat being defined as the exchange of weapon fire or the occurrence of close combat between the formal military forces of the two sides and resulting in casualties on either side.

Open combat is, again, subjective. Does that mean actual, physical combat? Does this mean that the actual, physical combat must be occuring non-stop. What about sieges? What about the time where battlelines are being drawn, or forces are being moved to outmaneuver the enemy? What if one of these planet's falls to the Imperium and the Navy is in transit to the next secessionist world in the same empire?

Practice reading. The open combat is already defined. Yes it means actual physical combat and says as much through the use of weapon fire or close combat. So no, blaring propaganda and raining leaflets as psychological combat doesn't count. If it isn't stated, it isn't meant. There is no requirement of duration listed. It rules out battlelines being drawn on the planet if not a shot has been fired or no close combat has occurred. You are searching for loopholes and just finding situations already excluded by the rule.

Again, these are your arbitrary decisions (You know? The ones you hate and were attacking me about?) and are completely up to a person's subjective opinion.

But the thing is you see even if there are minor loopholes, the rules can be amended in a new version of the model such that the terms are defined for all to use as a standard. A model can be always revised to be more comprehensive. However any given revision of the model can be run as is with the rules. There is no requirement for individual rulings or personal definitions by the user of the model. That is the key difference between my model and yours. The user does not define things on the fly during use. It is already defined ahead of time. Any 2 users of the same version of the model, given the same data, should be able to reach the same conclusion reliably.

So you handwave away any criticisms by simply saying "Well, I'll fix that later." You say that there is no requirement for individual rulings or personal defintions, but you are the one providing these arbitrary definitions yourself. Again, the hypocrisy of your post is staggering.

Rule 1 can easily be amended to:
1. A secessionist political unit is determined to have succeeded as of a particular point in time in the timeline if as of that point in time, it holds its claimed planetary territory completely with no areas being contested by the Imperium. If by that point in the timeline, the secessionist political unit has been destroyed or its territory is entirely under the control of the Imperium, it is deemed to have failed. If any parts of the territory claimed by the secessionist political unit are contested or under Imperial control, the secessionist political unit as a whole is contested.

Rule 2 to:
If there should be have been any open combat between forces of a secessionist regime and the Imperium since the introduction of an opposing force to the planet surface, and so long as there are still opposing formal military forces of both sides on the planet at the time of observation, then the planet is contested. Open combat is defined as the exchange of weapon fire or the occurrence of close combat, resulting in casualties to either side.

Such neatly nixes both of your issues of duration or transiting from one world to another.

But why should we care about your own personal definition of open combat? Someone else might easily come to the conclusion that open combat is when two parties are engaging in hostilities, regardless of whether any actual shots are being fired at any given point.

It also doesn't account for raiding parties and special operations, which does fit your definition of open combat, but doesn't actually challenge the ruling bodies ability to govern the planet to a large degree.

That observer would be wrong then. Why? Because the success a particular action (like secession) isn't defined by whether or not it survives into the present day.

Only under YOUR definition of secession. Again you keep assuming that YOUR definitions are somehow universal or that everyone would reach your same definition, and then just declaring others wrong.

Read this post. Then go back and read the rest of your post again. This is EXACTLY what you yourself are doing.

The question: Did the secession of the Confederate States from the United States succeed? The answer: No, because they were subsequently forced back into the United States.

Your use of world records is an inaccurate analogy because a world record exists at all times. One replacing the old one is not the same as one political entity being extinguished entirely and ceasing to exist.

"Did the US secede successfully from the UK?"
As of this moment, the answer is Yes
If tomorrow the UK took over, the answer given tomorrow would be No.
If tomorrow there is fighting still, the answer would be that things are still contested.

The continuous existence of the political entity of the United States would have ceased in a takeover. The secession has only been successful if that entity has continued existence at the time of observation, if it has succeeded in maintaining its separation from the entity seceded from. That is the very definition of seceding, "to withdraw formally to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union, a religious organization, etc." An entity has not successfully withdrawn if it has ended back in political union at the time of observation.

"Only under YOUR definition of secession. Again you keep assuming that YOUR definitions are somehow universal or that everyone would reach your same definition, and then just declaring others wrong."

No, keep trying. This is actually getting to the point where it's entertaining.

Plenty of times. The sabbat worlds crusade is still being waged and many chaos stronghold dot the galaxy.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/thumb/2/22/Chaos_marines_engagements.jpg/721px-

Since there seems to be a lack of basic reading comprehension, I will explain matters as simply as possible to try to make things clear:

The difference between the models is the reliance on the user, having to make determinations of the definition of each term, at the time of using the model to evaluate a given secessionist situation.

My model does not have this requirement as the terms are pre-defined. People can quibble over the definitions and the definitions can be refined further with each iteration, but that is an issue of initial definition. What is the fundamental benefit is that for 2 users given the same version of the model and rules, can evaluate the same situation and consistently reach the same conclusion. The individual user at no point has to exercise any subjective judgment about the definition of each term or make any arbitrary Word of God declarations of what a given term encompasses. Just as a police officer does not on the spot determine what crimes are felonies, as they have already been pre-determined by the existing body of law, any individual user of my model can reliably reach replicable conclusions. Any model that relies on the individual judgment of the user in defining the very terms that are the foundation for forming a conclusion could yield a different set of results for every user depending on how they formulate their definitions of each term. Give 10 different people my model to use, with the same version of the rules, and they should reach the same conclusion about any given situation, if they are given the same data and set in the same point in the timeline.

This is what is different from the unusable alternative model which has no clear cut definitions about what any of its terms mean, and still ultimately reliant on the user attempting to use that model to define the terms for themselves at the moment of use, such as whatever constitutes a "campaign" or whatever a "practical acknowledgement" of inability to recover is. Police officers do not individually define what crimes constitute a felony each time, resulting in potentially multiple officers having their own personal definitions for what is a felony. A felony is defined beforehand and this definition is implemented universally for all police officers within a given jurisdiction, police officers then assess a situation based on what they know of those definitions. The lack of such pre-existing clear cut definitions in this alternative model and the requirement of individuals to define for themselves each time they use it, means 10 different people trying to use this model can end up with 10 different definitions of what constitutes a campaign and therefore result in inconsistent determinations of a situation, such as whether a secessionist regime has succeeded, failed, or is contested.

Psienesis wrote:
Define "permanently" in a setting where we are frozen in time, provided glimpses only to the far-distant past and never to the future of next week in the galaxy at large.

Permanently is indefinitely up to the present moment. The timeline hasn't always been frozen. That is a modern myth by those that have never seen the timeline move forward.

Those worlds conquered by Macharius that were lost have remained lost up to the present, and it has been several centuries. Given the lack of textual information, we cannot definitively conclude the Imperium has re-drawn its borders to exclude them or formally refused to attempt reclaiming them. Could GW mean the Imperium will never recover them even in the future? Perhaps. GW has the power to extend the timeline and could also be argued to have the ability to see or decide the future of 40K, since they own the IP, but they are not required to reveal the future to outsiders. An omniscient narrator in a novel theoretically has full knowledge of the state of affairs of the universe, but it does not mean the narrator needs to be reveal everything to the reader, and so the reader's knowledge can still be limited to the extent of whatever is revealed.