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.

Melissia wrote:

Iracundus wrote:Can you quote a specific passage from a specific book, with page number reference, that shows the use of Thrones elsewhere other than the Calixis sector?

No, as I'm too lazy to look through thousands of pages of books just to prove a point (I don't have an e-book version, or I'd just search through them that way). However, Cain make frequent references to the term Thrones for money. And for reference, the Calixis sector is in the Segmentum Obscurus, and Cain makes a reference in Cain's Last Stand about them being across the galaxy from the Black Crusade on Cadia. Furthermore, we also know that at one of the Cain books take place near Tau Space (again practically on the opposite side of the galaxy from Segmentum Obscurus, on the far side of Segmentum Ultima).

No quote, then no such evidence. If you make a point, the onus of proof is on the one making it. Saying it is "somewhere" in a series of books is no different from someone making a claim about 40K and then asking the audience to go look in every 40K related publication ever made for it. It is not the audience's responsibility to find proof to support the claimant's statement. If you claim there are "frequent references" by Cain then it shouldn't be that much of an effort to prove it. Without specific concrete evidence, it might be just as likely the person made it up, misinterpreted or misremembered.

Meanwhile, Lynata HAS produced a quote demonstrating Throne Gelt to be used as a currency in the Calixis Sector. Therefore right now there is more evidence supporting it as just a sector currency and not any universal currency.

Also Lynata does make a good point in that names themselves do not necessarily mean currencies are identical. Canada, Australia, and the United States both call their currencies the "dollar" yet they are different currencies. Even if some other sector on the other end of the galaxy calls its currency the Throne, it remains to be shown that these are the same as the Calixis Sector's Thrones.

Throne Gelt are also mentioned in Nemesis. It doesn't really matter much, since you have 'Imperial Credit Units' in the Munitorum manual, and credits are mentioned in various novels (Ben Counter's Crimson Tears, Hammer of Daemons, ADB's Blood Reaver and Helsreach, etc.) The William King novels use 'ducats' ( like in Wolfblade.) Whatever 'throne gelt' is it can go by many names and still mean the same thing. Throne /= dollar. Throne is inclusive of all forms of currency used throughout the Imperium, including dollars. Throne gelt are more a general unit of measurement for (I suspect) administrative purposes, much as Regiments are. It has more in common with a metre or a kilogram in that context than it does with currency. It is used to measure the wealth of a given world for trade and taxation purposes (If world X produces promethium in return for food and manfucatured goods, how much of either can they get for a given quantity of fuel?)

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:Joey, I appreciate your devotion to the ideals of 20th Century Chicago-school capitalism, but get over it man. It's science fiction about a massive, unwieldy galactic empire with a distant central government stuck in a never-ending war, and you're concerned about comparisons to the Soviet Union going under because it couldn't make enough quality washing machines to keep people happy?

Think of it like this. Even today we have over-production and under-employment as commonplace issues in industrialized societies. These are dangerous deflationary forces. Too little money in too few hands chasing too many products. Now look at the effect war spending has on economies. It's the purest form of government stimulus: waste. You pay someone to build a bomb, then you pay someone else to drop it on other people/things. Surplus population is killed off, the end product is destroyed, but wages are high, and the economy is booming. Deflationary spiral averted.

So when the Imperium says "Raise 10 Regiments and produce 10,000 armored vehicles per year or we destroy you", you just do it. If you think that means the Imperium is screwed up and backwards, then welcome to 40k.

Classic 40k answer! IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE REAL

Iracundus wrote:No quote, then no such evidence. If you make a point, the onus of proof is on the one making it. Saying it is "somewhere" in a series of books is no different from someone making a claim about 40K and then asking the audience to go look in every 40K related publication ever made for it. It is not the audience's responsibility to find proof to support the claimant's statement. If you claim there are "frequent references" by Cain then it shouldn't be that much of an effort to prove it. Without specific concrete evidence, it might be just as likely the person made it up, misinterpreted or misremembered.

Meanwhile, Lynata HAS produced a quote demonstrating Throne Gelt to be used as a currency in the Calixis Sector. Therefore right now there is more evidence supporting it as just a sector currency and not any universal currency.

Also Lynata does make a good point in that names themselves do not necessarily mean currencies are identical. Canada, Australia, and the United States both call their currencies the "dollar" yet they are different currencies. Even if some other sector on the other end of the galaxy calls its currency the Throne, it remains to be shown that these are the same as the Calixis Sector's Thrones.

I promise you, no one on this forum is interested in holding up to your standards of academic rigor. This is a bullshitting session about army men.

However, I do think it's a good point that having the same name doesn't imply that it is an identical currency. 'Throne money' is a pretty generic term for an Imperial currency.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Throne Gelt are also mentioned in Nemesis. It doesn't really matter much, since you have 'Imperial Credit Units' in the Munitorum manual, and credits are mentioned in various novels (Ben Counter's Crimson Tears, Hammer of Daemons, ADB's Blood Reaver and Helsreach, etc.) The William King novels use 'ducats' ( like in Wolfblade.) Whatever 'throne gelt' is it can go by many names and still mean the same thing. Throne /= dollar. Throne is inclusive of all forms of currency used throughout the Imperium, including dollars. Throne gelt are more a general unit of measurement for (I suspect) administrative purposes, much as Regiments are. It has more in common with a metre or a kilogram in that context than it does with currency. It is used to measure the wealth of a given world for trade and taxation purposes (If world X produces promethium in return for food and manfucatured goods, how much of either can they get for a given quantity of fuel?)

Once again, quotes and citations for the above claims about Throne Gelt, Imperial Credit Units, etc... from these books? Also, is it clearly stated they are Imperial currencies and not just the local planetary or sector currency? This thread was about the existence of an Imperium wide currency. No one has genuinely argued local planets or sectors don't have their currencies, which could be what some of those mentioned above may be.

Again, where is the evidence for claiming "Throne Gelt" is inclusive of all forms of currency. You claim Thrones are not equivalent to the dollar situation. What is the evidence for making such a statement? Why can't there be Calixis Thrones that are separate from Ultramar Thrones or Cadian Thrones? Why is the use of Throne not the same situation as the use of the word "dollar" for different currencies in the world today?

So far in this thread people have kept making statements but haven't produced concrete specific proof of the above. Simply repeating something doesn't make it true, and can simply lead to the propagation of inaccurate details about the 40K setting.. Lynata has produced a quote that at least in the Calixis Sector, Throne Gelt is a currency secured against the actual resources gathered by the Imperial tithe (in Calixis). That is not the same as saying it is inclusive of all other currencies in the Imperium or that it is some sort of universal currency.

If people are going to debate a point, evidence has to be involved, not merely stating opinions or going by vague fallible memory. One backs up a position by bringing forth proof, and other positions do likewise for their own positions. Objecting to producing evidence only becomes suggestive that there perhaps may not be such evidence in the first place. Having evidence is what enables the official 40K "facts" produced by GW, in so far as there can be facts about a fictional setting, to be determined and separated from fan fiction. If someone tried to claim something like bolters really firing laser beams instead of bolter shells, being able to produce evidence to the contrary is what disproves such claims. It is no different for determination of whether or not there is a unified. currency for the entire Imperium.

Iracundus wrote:If someone tried to claim something like bolters really firing laser beams instead of bolter shells, being able to produce evidence to the contrary is what disproves such claims.

And even were such "evidence" to exist, it'd not mean anything for the franchise as a whole.
Else we'd have to get accustomed to Space Marines regularly going into battle carrying multilasers by now, just to bring forth the most prominent example of deviating author interpretation.

In short, simply go by whatever suits your perception of the setting best. It's how all the novel writers do it.

Iracundus wrote:No quote, then no such evidence.

Yeah, the problem with your little rant is that I honestly don't care what you think anyway. I told you the books that they were in, which is still more effort than you've bothered to put in to the conversation. If you want to claim that these books do not exist, hey, that's your prerogative. Not my problem. Your view of the lore is cool too. I prefer mine.

You know, you should really sig this Lynata.

Iracundus, your posts were spot on and very informative at first but they devolved into an exercise in pedantry.

Hyd wrote:You know, you should really sig this Lynata.

Iracundus, your posts were spot on and very informative at first but they devolved into an exercise in pedantry.

It's not pedantry to ask others to prove the evidence they claim exists. I have seen all too many cases of people claiming they read something somewhere or "remembered" only for actual searches of the evidence to show no such thing was ever written, or that it was misinterpreted entirely, hence why a quote is better than simple off hand remarks of "I remember". Human memory is fallible.

Simply naming an existing body of work isn't the same thing as actually citing something. A person can say Marines are really two headed snakes with bolters firing laser beams, as "proven by the Cain novels or the 40K Codexes of the past editions" but refusing to give the page numbers or quote. Does that mean it is suddenly true? The first reactions of people would probably be "That's ridiculous, prove it" or "That's not right and this is the reason why..." In other words, people would use the exact same principle of either requesting evidence as proof or using evidence to disprove a claim.

Sure players can do anything they want in their own personal universe and that is fine, but then that isn't the 40K universe any more. The 40K universe exists as a coherent shared setting because there are certain established details by GW that are held in common by players and readers. To make a claim about what things are in 40K, in this case some people claiming a universal currency, is no different from the above mentioned more ridiculous claim about Marines, and can be viewed potentially as equally ludicrous. If there is no proof then it is essentially no different from fan fiction.

Iracundus wrote:It's not pedantry to ask others to prove the evidence they claim exists.

It is when you aren't really doing it yourself.

Melissia wrote:

Iracundus wrote:It's not pedantry to ask others to prove the evidence they claim exists.

It is when you aren't really doing it yourself.

The quote by Lynata is already verbatim evidence that has been mentioned. It states the Throne Gelt is a unit of currency in the Calixis Sector. Nothing is said about it being an Imperial currency. To make the claim it is anything more than a Calixis Sector currency is what requires proof by those making such a claim. The onus of proof is on the one making the claim.

The analgous situation is:

"The Canadian dollar is the unit of currency in Canada."

Such a statement does not allow one to conclude it is the world currency. Nor does one operate as if it were true until proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on the side that makes a positive claim.

Again, you haven't actually provided anything yourself. You're just leaching off he efforts of others.

I provided sources. Ignore it if you want, but they're still there even if you want to deny it. Kinda like how I deny that there is a white dwarf sisters codex. Because really, that would just be sad, half-assed, and pathetic, and the world is not such a horrible place that such a thing could exist.

Actually Iracundus, you have been provided with sources. You have bee told that it is used in the Cain books in numerous corners of the Galaxy. You just don't have an exact page number or paragraph, because noone wants to go and look it up. If you reference something, in science for example, you just say what paper you got the information from. You don't say it was paragraph x of page y. The source has been provided and the person who wants to check it out can go and find it in the source material. The source of the information has been provided. You can accept that Melissa isn't lying to you and get on with it, or you can get reading. The onus is firmly on you.

Castiel wrote:Actually Iracundus, you have been provided with sources. You have bee told that it is used in the Cain books in numerous corners of the Galaxy. You just don't have an exact page number or paragraph, because noone wants to go and look it up. If you reference something, in science for example, you just say what paper you got the information from. You don't say it was paragraph x of page y. The source has been provided and the person who wants to check it out can go and find it in the source material. The source of the information has been provided. You can accept that Melissa isn't lying to you and get on with it, or you can get reading. The onus is firmly on you.

In science you ARE expected to cite page numbers and specific volume or book. It is not a valid reference to simply say somewhere in one of the Journals of Neuroscience it says something. Article title or chapter title and page and volume numbers are all mandatory parts of an academic citation. Read some academic papers sometime to see. That is equivalent to what is being asked for here. It is not sufficient to say some series of publications say this without providing page numbers or specific novel even

Nemesis, page 281


The region of space they are in is in Segmentum ultima. If you're going to gt nitpicky about that I can't help you because I'm not going to quote the whole damn book at you.

Crimson Tears PAge 501 (from the soul Drinkers Omnibus)


Imperial Munitorum manual, page 28


Helsreach, Page 323


Blood Reaver, page 20


Hammer of Daemons, page 396



Oh yes in ravenor we get 'Crowns' in the Scarus sector.

Ravenor, Page 224
[spoiler]
Some traders bought dead meat and salted or froze it for shipment to the cheap food-marts down sub.

Others bought live and shipped it - sometimes in stasis - to more discerning clients on the wealthier hive worlds of Angelus. Some bought low quality in bulk, others high quality animals, individually chosen and purchased. Some came for the mechanicallyrecovered meat products of the rendering plant, others for phosphate dung. A ten tonne demi-pach might fetch twenty crowns a tonne, get turned into thirty thousand meat patties to be sold at half a crown a time in the food-stalls of a hive’s slum-hab. A sixty kilo shorthorn might fetch five times as much, because it was destined to sell as a prime imported delicacy in the up-hive restaurants of Eustis Majoris and Caxton at fifty crowns a pop.

Iracundus wrote:

Castiel wrote:Actually Iracundus, you have been provided with sources. You have bee told that it is used in the Cain books in numerous corners of the Galaxy. You just don't have an exact page number or paragraph, because noone wants to go and look it up. If you reference something, in science for example, you just say what paper you got the information from. You don't say it was paragraph x of page y. The source has been provided and the person who wants to check it out can go and find it in the source material. The source of the information has been provided. You can accept that Melissa isn't lying to you and get on with it, or you can get reading. The onus is firmly on you.

In science you ARE expected to cite page numbers and specific volume or book. It is not a valid reference to simply say somewhere in one of the Journals of Neuroscience it says something. Article title or chapter title and page and volume numbers are all mandatory parts of an academic citation. Read some academic papers sometime to see. That is equivalent to what is being asked for here. It is not sufficient to say some series of publications say this without providing page numbers or specific novel even

You tell a university student to read some papers? Really? If you reference from a journal page numbers are required, and that is probably a more accurate comparison for this, but you don't give pages when referencing a paper.

And moving away from your academic hang ups, this isn't science. Its a question about the background of a wargame on a friendly forum. Melissa was just saying what she had seen and was sharing it to be helpful. I doubt she was lying to you for gaks and giggles. you are just being deliberatly stubborn and unreasonable about it. You've been told where it is, if it bothers you that much then you'd better start reading, because noone else cares enough to read the books again just to satisfy you.

I was digging around and I found a few more notes:

Deathwatch core rules page 139


Rogue Trader: Core rules page 113


At this point I think the point of the discussion got lost in fixating over names (and I am as guilty of this too probably) - It isn't so much that the Throne Gelt/Throne is the universal currency (or at least that SHOULD BE THE POITN) rather its the sector currency for Calixis and possibly others, and it seems to reflect an attempt at standardizing all the local currencies into something that tries to make sense (evaluating and measuring tithes. Throne Gelt is the local unit of measure. Elsewhere it may be credits, ducats, dollars, yen, belly button lint, whatever.) The piont isn't so much in the name in that there is an attempt to measure the value of tithes and other wealth from various worlds and sectors in some meaningful and consistent way. This may or may not be a 'Imperial' currency, but I think again that is beside the point because it's getting into all the semantics again and if it goes there it's going to get bogged down.

Iracundus wrote:In science you ARE expected to cite page numbers and specific volume or book.

<-- This poster here is a chemistry major, by the way...


Specific volume/book, yes.

I have the omnibus. It is all one book. Therefor I DID cite a specific book, "Ciaphas Cain, Hero of the Imperium" (IE the Cain books), collected as an omnibus. I also mentioned Cain's Last Stand specifically.

As for page numbers? No, most of the time that isn't required, at least not for in-paragraph citations such as that one. As I didn't provide an exact quote, any direct ALA APA style citations (which I wasn't using, as this is a casual conversation, not a scholastic paper) would go in the works cited page at the back with the in-text merely having a reference to the works cited (such as in this case [Mitchell 1], which would referring to the Omnibus as the first source by Sandy Mitchell which I cited in my paper). And even then, the requirements of page number varies between citation styles. And even then, all of that is for scholastic papers.

I'm just sitting here shooting the breeze, talking about an awesome hobby, not writing an essay. Even if I was writing an essay, I sure as hell wouldn't write it on fiction, I'm a chemistry major, not an English major.

Just posting an image macro in place of any actual thoughts of your own is considered spam on this forum. -Mannahin

Pretty much like us most countries have different currency like £ or $ i think it would be the same for imperial planets.

The problem with applying the whole 'science' thing in 40K isn't that you can't do it - there is just a limit to how much 'science' or scientific method you can apply, and that is because of the evidence/data set you have to deal with. In real life, with science and the scientific method you make observations, form theories, test those theories, and then make revisions based on the tests. In a fictional universe like 40K, you can make observations (in a manner of speaking) and form theories, but its hard (if not impossible) to actually 'test' them. What makes it worse is that with 40K, the bulk of your evidence is textual and dialogue - not only is that open to interpretation (does vaporize mean 'turn to steam' or 'blow apart violently?') but with things like dialogue the veracity of your statement is dependent upon the knowledge/honesty/intelligence of the character (some stuff is obviously mythology, or hearsay, or Propoganda. Case in point. The way Xenos races are portrayed in the Uplifting Primers - should we take all of that at 100% literal face value even though there is plenty of other evidence to contradict it? )

I'm not saying 40K runs on bugs Bunny Looney-toons style physics, or that you can't try and make sense of 40K to some extent. But I am saying that you can't be too pedantic about it either, because not only do you irritate other people, but you need some sort of concensus (or at least the willingness of others to believe or humor you) for such conclusions to have any validity because at best all you will have is a theory or be able to make guesses/speculation about how things work. That's just how it is.

Connor MacLeod wrote:at best all you will have is a theory or be able to make guesses/speculation about how things work. That's just how it is.

This is true of all things.

Connor MacLeod wrote:The problem with applying the whole 'science' thing in 40K isn't that you can't do it - there is just a limit to how much 'science' or scientific method you can apply, and that is because of the evidence/data set you have to deal with. In real life, with science and the scientific method you make observations, form theories, test those theories, and then make revisions based on the tests. In a fictional universe like 40K, you can make observations (in a manner of speaking) and form theories, but its hard (if not impossible) to actually 'test' them. What makes it worse is that with 40K, the bulk of your evidence is textual and dialogue - not only is that open to interpretation (does vaporize mean 'turn to steam' or 'blow apart violently?') but with things like dialogue the veracity of your statement is dependent upon the knowledge/honesty/intelligence of the character (some stuff is obviously mythology, or hearsay, or Propoganda. Case in point. The way Xenos races are portrayed in the Uplifting Primers - should we take all of that at 100% literal face value even though there is plenty of other evidence to contradict it? )

I'm not saying 40K runs on bugs Bunny Looney-toons style physics, or that you can't try and make sense of 40K to some extent. But I am saying that you can't be too pedantic about it either, because not only do you irritate other people, but you need some sort of concensus (or at least the willingness of others to believe or humor you) for such conclusions to have any validity because at best all you will have is a theory or be able to make guesses/speculation about how things work. That's just how it is.

You appear to be trying to argue nothing makes sense and we shouldn't try to do anything more. We DO know certain things about 40K however and that is when information is given from a 3rd person omniscient point of view. For any fictional universe, that is the only source of fact because there is no independently observable reality. That is why such citations have more validity than an in-character piece like the Uplifting Primer, which exists as propaganda. Even if it were not and meant to be a serious 40K publication, it would be fallible since it is in-universe. The Adeptus Mechanicus report for example in the old Necron Codex referred to an earlier "proof" that gauss weapons were impossible yet the Necrons use them. For there to be any consensus and the existence of a coherent shared universe, there has to be a fixed set of facts. That is why for example the necessity to cite pieces of information, so that it doesn't become a jumbled mess of everyone saying their own thing and the setting collapsing into nonsense. Forums are filled with misinformation (such as people claiming the 13th Crusade was a Chaos defeat despite the official result), precisely because people don't provide proof for their statements and others accept blindly what is said. Without citation, people end up passing off their fan theories as official fact (Outsider as Hive Mind anyone?), put spins on official information that may not actually be what is written, and so on. Sure, we don't know everything, but there is a great deal we do know and which can be deduced and discussed when referencing the sources. There is a lot of disparate information scattered around and synthesis is only possible if one actually examines the fragments. Of course one can speculate based on the official sources, but what is important is to delineate where the official sources end and where the speculation begins. When people fear to provide proof for their positions, it usually indicates there is no proof. The excuse of "they can't be bothered" is a copout akin to typing in poor grammar with misspellings everywhere. If they don't care enough to write a proper post or provide support for their arguments, they shouldn't expect people to care what they say or take the time to read their posts.

Of course a person is free to have have their own personal universe where bolters fire lasers and the Heresy never happened and the Emperor still walks among men, but that isn't the 40K universe anymore. The divergence is sufficient to render it a personal fan universe, not the consensual 40K universe. They can say "In my universe, Horus won the Heresy," but they wouldn't be able to say "In the 40K universe Horus won the Heresy". In 40K, we know Horus lost the Heresy. We know Huron turned renegade. Individual in-character POV can be erroneous or have their own interpretations of events, but from the omniscient narrator we know what is "fact" in 40K. An omniscient narrator need not reveal everything, but what they reveal is true. Before anyone tries to argue such a narrator is non-existent, the fact we know what lies at the center of the Rock is proof. Codex Angels of Death gives information on this that no character in 40K, save perhaps the Emperor, can possibly know. Other such cases where the sum total of reader knowledge far exceeds that of any one in-character POV also shows the existence of out-universe narration. The exact events of the War in Heaven are unknown to everyone except Necrons, and they in turn don't know everything there is to know about the intricacies of other races, yet we as readers are capable of knowing all of this simultaneously. As the IP holder, GW's publications ultimately determine what happens in the 40K universe. It of course doesn't mean that GW in itself as a company of people in the real world is infallible or doesn't have contradictions, but if GW should turn around one day and reveal that really Horus DID win the Heresy, then it would be fact (retconned fact but still fact) for the 40K universe.

For a citation to be valid, readers have to be able to find it. It is not the reader's responsibility to find the author's evidence for him. The author has to show the evidence for his arguments to the reader, not for the reader to try and disprove the author's point else have it be accepted as true by default. That is the fallacy of asking for negative proof. Pagination is a necessity when citing and discussing specific topics or passages from a book, and not the entire book as a whole. One does not simply cite Dante's "Divine Comedy" as such, if you are talking about a specific scene. If you are discussing overarching themes of the entire story or the entire plot as a whole, then you don't need pagination. However in this case, we are discussing a specific issue: currency, not Cain's other experiences.

As for your earlier post, the quotes you provided proves the point: The Throne Gelt is but one of a number of sector and Segmentum currencies. That itself shows that there is no unified currency when the best is a Segmentum level of accounting. You argue that it is just a measure against the Imperial tithe, but what else is a currency really other than a measure of value? The Australian dollar, Canadian dollar, US dollar, are all units of measure of a society's productivity and value (though not secured against a material good anymore), yet they are not identical even though they all represent a subset of Earth's productivity. Segmentum Obscurus can call something a Throne, and Ultima Segmentum can call something an Imperial credit, and they might both be secured against the tithe but that doesn't mean they are directly exchangeable without conversion, anymore than kg and lb are directly interchangeable. Being able to exchange one for the other is no more than a foreign exchange transaction, and not the equivalent of being able to spend your Imperial credit anywhere in the human galaxy and have it be accepted as legal tender. That is what a unified currency would mean.

Iracundus wrote: blah blah blah wall of text

Your post neatly illustrates the point: No one cares enough to educate you on the issue. No one cares whether you believe their points or not.

A new player seeking information might care whether they are being fed misinformation or some fan's made up stuff or whether it is actually accurate background from GW. Your exaltation of ignorance and belittling of proof does not do you any credit. No one is forcing you to read anything. Questioning the evidence base behind a claim is more than just for one person's benefit. It allows any other reader of the thread if they so wish to also decide whether there is any basis for any claims.

As for Connor, he has provided quotes and material on which to form a basis of discussion. His cited quote from Dark Heresy mentions the higher level of some sort of Segmentum accounting or unit of currency, which is a step higher than the sector level I had considered the highest. However even then it doesn't necessarily mean Imperials of one Segmentum can travel freely within their Segmentum spending the same currency. A Segmentum currency may only be for high level institutional transactions. A real life historical example would be Imperial China and letters of credit or gold, which was used for major transactions by rich merchants and government bodies only, with the everyday person transacting in copper coins and silver instead.

Iracundus, just stop. Your are just proving yourself to be stubborn and not achieving anything. A new player seeking the information could go and find it in the book mentioned. The sources of the information have been provided, thus it can be looked up. Now stop throwing your toys out the pram because you don't have the exact page numbers. Do a bit of research yourself and look them up yourself, we're not going to do the legwork for you.

Castiel wrote:Iracundus, just stop. Your are just proving yourself to be stubborn and not achieving anything. A new player seeking the information could go and find it in the book mentioned. The sources of the information have been provided, thus it can be looked up. Now stop throwing your toys out the pram because you don't have the exact page numbers. Do a bit of research yourself and look them up yourself, we're not going to do the legwork for you.

As already mentioned, authors in academic citations are expected to provide the information for readers to find the passages or information referenced, when it is not the whole book that is being discussed. Citing a single book of hundreds or thousands of pages is not a citation when in reference to specific details within the book. A new player is not going to be able to find the information without a proper citation. The sources of information have NOT been provided thus far, which is the whole point. If one makes reference to a specific section of a book, pagination is necessary. That is why APA citation style for example requires chapter titles in things like edited books. Simply saying "the Bible" or "the New England Journal of Medicine" is not providing a source when it is that vague. It is sloppy citation that would be thrown out if it were to be used in a paper. Like so many other people you seem to mistake the onus of research as being on the reader. It is the claimant that has to provide the source for the reader, so that the reader can find precisely where it appeared to check author claims. It is not the reader's responsibility to do so. Go try asking a journal editor and peer reviewer/reader to go do your research and find your page numbers for you and see how far that gets you.

In this thread, Connor has done so, and discussion proceeds. This kind of kneejerk visceral reaction to being asked for proof is irrational and does nothing to further the discussion. If a position is sound, or at least has some basis, citing it properly like Connor and Lynata have done shouldn't be hard at all. In doing so, sometimes people might find that perhaps they have misremembered their sources. It has happened to others and to me as well. A delayed source citation due to current source unavailability is also a far different thing from outright refusal to provide evidence.

tl;dr don't care. Let's get back to talking about money instead of your misconceptions about citations in common conversations.

Just ignore him.

In order to have any kind of economy at all (which the Imperium does have) you must have some kind of unit of account and exchange. Otherwise, it's impossible to compare unlike things; for instance, if an agri-world and a civilized world are at the same tithe level, with the agri-world providing their tithes in grain products and the hive world providing theirs in manpower, there has to be a basis for comparison between grain products and soldiers. That's an exchange rate. The obvious and most efficient way to compare exchange rates is to use a standard unit to which everything else can be compared; with a unit of exchange, you can determine the 'price' of everything fairly easily, while without it every single good has to have one exchange rate in terms of every other good, which is just unnecessarily complicated. In the Imperium, the unit of exchange appears to be called 'Throne Gelt', 'credits', 'Imperial Credit Units', or some similar thing. My interpretation (please note; I am NOT claiming this as canon or 'fact', simply as my reading of what scant facts have been presented) is that this is the unit which the Administratum uses to measure received tithes and allocate resources internally, and is thus universal (or at least as universal as anything is in the Imperium); it is probably tied to some specific good (which one doesn't really matter) at a fixed rate, and then everything else can be defined in relation to it. It might also simply be a fiat currency; that would be more unstable, but it has historically been the choice of dictatorial governments, which the Imperium certainly is.

In either case, that doesn't mean that there can't be lots of other currencies. It's said in several places that the Administratum really doesn't care about the economy of any given world so long as they pay their tithes; that being so, it's very likely that most worlds have their own local currency, possibly multiple. In some cases, heavily commercial sectors or trade routes might have not only currencies on each world, but also a currency used within their sector or region, as WELL as using Throne Gelt/ICUs. Remember, monetary trade is just a simplification of barter; money is an abstract representation of goods and services. It doesn't actually matter how many different "monies" there are, except insofar as it requires more prices to exist.

In a digital economy you don't even have to incur much by way of transfer costs, since you can conduct all your business in Gelt and only transform them into local currency if you need that particular currency for some reason; maybe the bookies at the arena will only accept payment in the local currency for your gambling debt, or a fruit-seller in the market doesn't have any credit-readers and so you have to pay in physical coins. In all other cases you can stick with the universal currency; price conversions can be done quite easily and rapidly with a very basic cogitator, and you can always be confident that the Administratum's unit of account will be accepted, because every world is tied at least tenuously to the Administratum.