"No, you are overlooking the risks of armed men seizing a freighter. The freighter captains have to be certain that armed groups they allow on their freighters are background checked,..."


Well, that certainly answer my point. I know I certainly overlooked that possability. I sure that were I a Freghter Master the first time I looked at a group armed guys saying they take care of my ship I'd be thinking, "Uh, yeah right." but from my desk chair it's something I didn't consider (my PoV being that of the honest security guys trying to save a buck).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 04:38 pm: Edit

SPP: Would you say that security companies never contract with Freighters to move personnel in exchange for security services?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 06:29 pm: Edit

Interesting...

I had thought that the Federation had an open / free economy that was a type of "free market economy" in a classical sense.

To say that I am surprised by this change is an understatement.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 09:49 pm: Edit

No, it's a free market in the classical sense...big companies can offer money-back garrenttees and so get the bulk of the action.

If David Crews Security is a Billion credit a year company with a garrenttee that if their personnel are involed in helping pirates steal your cargo and/or vessel then they will provide you with a cheque for the amount of the cargo and/or ship.
And if a bunch of guys at a bar offer their services for free; room, food and travel.
It's still likely that the big corporation will be hired because although it might cost an arm and leg, it's a more sound investment.

The freighter might pay less to the security company that would like a security unit to be shipped and a free trader running on a tight budget might exchange transportation for protection but these would be the exception and not the rule.

Also there is a the value of word of mouth.
If another free trader captain who is a trusted friend of the captain says;" Oh, yes I had that freelance security team on my ship and they were honest and loyal men." The background checks might be overlooked.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 11:13 pm: Edit

MJC:

We discussed this ENDLESSLY on the Weary Donkey vs Love Ewe thread...

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 09:38 am: Edit

I'm just saying, "free market" is a serious oxymoron.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 11:31 am: Edit

MCJ, no sorry, it is not a free market.

Free market means open access to all... not just big companies, but small ones, sole proprietorships, partnerships & everything else.

When you and Petrick limit access to the market place for individuals skilled labor (or even unskilled labor!) you limit choices... which is another way of saying limited supply. Limited suplly in periods of rising demand means highter prices.

High prices means that Federation registered freighters must charge more than Kzinti, Gorn or klingon hulls charge, which puts the Federation ships at an economic disadvantage (which again, the background doesnt seem to support. the Federation is said to be the most agressive race in the game when it comes to economics... and agressive pricing is a characteristic of competitive economic systems.

The back ground scenarios indicate that the Orions could get pirates on board ships when needed (or at the very least, those scenarions where the agent was successful in getting onboard.)

the Petrick labor policy as he has stated it means that GURPS Prime directive has just taken a major hit in the back ground as well, since now that meants the only ways criminals (orions pirates or any other group intending to get personnel on board a starship) must compromise the security system of all institutions, the Federation star fleet, the Federation Express Company, Federation Merchant marine, the ship insurance companies, (and any other "reputable compaines") ...everything must be compromised since the back ground indicates that the Orions were able to get sabatours, spies and operatives onboard ships star bases, battlestations, merchant freighters, etc.

look at the various scenarios that have been part of the game for years, do you think Kosnett wanted his ship disabled in scenario SH1.0?

Steve Petrick:

There are a number of scenarios (like SH1.0) that call for a spy or agent to be onboard ships, bases (I dont recall any scenarios, off hand, where such agents were on a planet or PDU, but I'd guess that if they could get on board a ship, the could get on the base as well).

What is the value of using reputable companies as a security measure to insure the reliability of boarding parties when Even the vaunted Federation cant keep foreign agents off Star Fleet ships?

Or, are you suggesting that the policy of using "reputable compaines" is a superior system to what all the major and minor races use to staff their warships?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 11:58 am: Edit

I think the idea of a security team being aboard the cargo vessel is already addressed in a fashion.

The APT and FT each have 2 BP; the various small armed freighters have 4 BP and large armed freighters have 6 BP. In module R11 the three new armed skids, convoy command skid, and police skid each have 2 BP.

The write up of (R1.68U) in module R11 states the type II defense skids were used by some corporations to get lower insurance rates; by independant freighters on higher risk missions. The 2 BP would appear to be the "private security" force being discussed.

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 12:02 pm: Edit

Joseph: It could be argued as such, but tt's not really a given though.

What I proposed was a kind of unit that wasn't quite a marine unit, but could give a boarding party a hard time.

Picture a fire fight between a U.S. marine fireteam and a Blackwater security team.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 01:29 pm: Edit

George,

I think I understand what you are getting at. The game scale for BP combat doesn't at present appear to be able to account for such a unit.

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Joseph; quite possibly. But what do you think about a negative die modifier for a Private BP verse a military one? Say a -1 or -2 on the boarding table for the Private Security guys.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 02:56 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

If you can cite proof that people are hiring ARMED SECURITY PERSONNEL without background checks today and running the risks that the very people they hire may be the crooks they are trying to defend against, I will acknowledge that maybe the labor practices are unfair. But people with fairly large investments (like say the COST OF A FREIGHTER) do not hire random gunmen, and that is what you are talking about.

"Free Market" does not support random gangs of armed men offering themselves as security.

I already addressed that a group of adventurers might be afforded the means of getting to another planet by hiring on to a freighter that is sufficiently down on its luck that it might take the risk, but that is an exception, not a rule.

Todays' economy supports a number of large and small security companies. Most cities have at least one (there is one in Amarillo that I know of, for example). These companies usually provide two kinds of personnel: Those that just sort of keep watch, and the "armed" variety. The armed variety cost more, and are certified. And they are the type you want on a freighter wary of pirate attack.

As to the scenarios you cited, they do not support what you want. Nothing says the spies were members of the security team in the ones I recall. They are simply spies, and might have been passengers (certainly in the case of "diplomatic disaster" the spy could well have been a passenger).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 04:02 pm: Edit

What "I" want (and note I am not making a demand, more of a request) is nothing less than Freedom.

Fredom to hire out ones services to employers willing and able to hire them.

It strikes me that your term "Reputable Company" is restrictive.

If the United States had such a restriction, there would have been no opportunity for new companies to enter the market place.

Things like Apple Computer, or hewlett Packard, that started in the garages of their owners, built their first products, and exploded into the market where they delivered quality equipment and services at the expense of "reputable companies".

Or take Federal Express.

Thats a good example.

A college student wrote up a business plan with the idea of an improved overnight delivery service.

his "Educated and reputable" college business professor awarded the project a C (IIRC from the case study I read 10 years ago) and stated that the idea was unworkable and flawed.

Today, Federal Express is one of the largest and most reputable players in the business for next day delivery... it literally changed the way business had been done all around the world.

Or take Ford, one man with the drive, energy and intelligence transformed the business of automobile manufacturing, changing from 1 car at a time production to mass production of a standardized design (the customer can have any color they want so long as that color is black.)

You see, "Reputable companies" dont start out that way... they succeed in the business place by providing services and satisfying their customers.

By limiting freighters merchants to "only" certified employees of "reputable companies" you limit the ability of start up campanies to enter the market. (no one would hire thier employess because they are not a "Steve Petrick recognized Reputable Company").

what you are doing, in a sense, is granting a monopoly to the secuirty companies to provide certified guards for such duties.

A monopoly that literally cedes to them a closed market, and which allows the members of that "Racket" the right to set the prices for their services... knowing that no competitor is allowed into the business because they cant pass the "reputable company" test.

Great work if you can get it... and I could see such a system being in place for Klingons or even the Romulans (assuming they even need them given the Romulans "house structure").

But I question your decision to require "only" reputable companies for such services in the Federation.

Look at it from GURPS PD pov.

The players own their ship (or at worst have a mortage on it, ala Traveler system) and they are conducting "business" that requires them to hire additional employees for the ship.

Under the "Steve Petrick Policy", the security boarding parties are certified and warranted free from any crimminal taint or corruption.

that means, then if the boarding parties try to take the ship, the certification process is corrupt, the "reputable company" that provied the security personnel is corrupt, or the guards were suborned after being hired. (expecially if there is a hijack attempt instore for the adventure).

Infact, any suspect employee on a starship must have impecable credentials, otherwise he shouldnt be on the ship in the first place (siting the COST OF A FREIGHTER).

Its your call to make, but I for one feel that it is not correct.

For one thing it violates the "WBFB concept" (*Warm Bodies for Billing, the consultants creed.)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 04:45 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

I cannot agree for the reasons previously noted.

There is a major difference between "armed men" and normal passengers.

If you can find someone you do not know with something of value to guard who will hire you on a contract that you can live off of as an armed guard for a period of at least two months, and can live that way for a year (accepting additional contracts for at least two months), showing at least that you "broke even" (are financially as well off as you are right now), I will concede your point. If you make enough the first two months that you have a full year's pay at your current level, you do not have to accept any other contracts, but you must survive for a year only accepting contracts as an Armed Guard from people you do not know.

To be fair, you can accept additional contracts for non-armed guard duties (like say Stevedore), and any funds you earn on that will be in addition. But you must prove that you are able to survive for a year selling your gun (i.e., offering services as an armed guard).

Note: You cannot because anyone who needs an armed guard is going to go to an existing security company as noted.

Your free Enterprise is that you get to choose which security company you want to work for, or you get to start your own. People are not going to be hiring a stranger with a gun to guard their valuables from being seized by other strangers.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 06:48 pm: Edit

I think the place "private security" might come into being would be post GW when workboats and fortune seekers mutiple (explorer-prospectors mentioned in R11).

The current BP combat rules don't handle the differences between marine BPs, miltia, and ex-military WB crews. Something between Gurps PD and SFB would need to be developed (don't even know if there is a market to pay for producing this). I am also not suggesting SFB style squad leader.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 07:18 pm: Edit

Free market means the purchaser is free to choose to buy or not to buy, not that every company has equal access through artifical enforcement of laws that make price the only measure.

To illistrate my point.
My brother David once bought a carving knief from "the two dollar shop" and spent the princely sum of $2.
The handle broke away from the blade after two weeks.
He then bought another carving knief from "the two dollar shop" and it again lasted just one fortnight before the handle broke away from the blade.
Net result, I'll spend $40 buying my first carving knief from a well known company (like Wiltshire ) and it'll probably last me 15 years (like the shortest lived of the knieves our family has bought from that company (David left the handle of that one on the stove hotplate)).
By my measure, that'll put me ahead by $742 over that fifteen year period.

Up-front price is not the only consideration when making a business dissission.

When Henry Ford introduced the production line he had a name for it.
"Armament method" because the production line concept had be used by the springfield rifle company during the US civil war to manufacture the springfield rifle.
Apple started after "the other two Steves" quit their jobs...they had been working for IBM.
A lot of what is claimed to be whole new invention is in fact working on an extention of what has gone before.

On Orion spys.
The Orion spy has a network he opperates in. He has access to forgers and gadget makers and inteligence networks and spymasters and money.
How does the small, one man trader compete with such a massive structure trying to steal his ship!?!...by trusting in a company that has a large enough structure to put up a pretty good defense and big enough bank account to pay out when they get suckered in.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 07:24 pm: Edit

Don't you just hate it when you find really good link but you've already posted.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 07:42 pm: Edit

Jeff:

Has anyone ever told you about the old saying;" Money talks"!?!
There will probably never be a wholly free market because money generates access to the law makers and that means you'll never have a law stopping money from having access to the law makers.

You know, I find myself laughing from time to time when Americans on the "news hour with Jim Lerher" talk about how cool it would be to have "unfettered capitalism".
It's a strange choice of words. My great grandfather was a fetler. The only other thing I can think of that is fettered are the rails of the traintracks that trains run on and if they weren't nailed down to the sleepers; people would get killed.
The truth is unfettered capitalism becomes armed robbery. The company makes a capital investment and buys a gun. The company points that gun at a vict...err potential customer and makes the highest possible money transfere ("give me all your money...now") in the shortest possible period of opperating time and for the lest possible expendature of money (ie they don't have to buy new bullets unless they really really have to ).
If capitalism were truely unfettered then armed robbery would be quite legal.
It's good to have laws that limit what can and can not be done in order to move money from one person's possession to another's, because people have been known to be killed over money. It's good to have a "mostly free market".

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 09:18 pm: Edit

"Picture a fire fight between a U.S. marine fireteam and a Blackwater security team."

Umm, if we exclude OUTSIDE troops (ie the Marines can call in Air Support/ Reinforcements/ IF) then the Blackwater guys MIGHT very well win.

1) The Blackwater guys are certainly veterans. Most are COMBAT veterans. Lots of Marine LCPLs aren't. LOTS of Blackwater guys are SF veterans. Personally, I'd put my "private security guards" up against a regular Army of Marine Squad in a minute. They were Royal Marines, SAS, and such veterans...

2) Certainly the Blackwater guys might have better equipment. For instance USMC still issues Beretta 92s to regualr troops. The Blackwater guys will have Sig 226s.

BLACKWATER is NOT a good example (nor is Aegis, Control Risks, Triple Canopy, Dilignece, etc.)

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 09:25 pm: Edit

As fot providing color to the "civilian guard" there are a LOT of things you can do:

1) Civilian guards cannot perform hit and runs (wrong equipment).\
2) Civilaon guards cannot transport at combat rates.
3) Civilian guards are the size of militia.
4) Civilian guards squads are at half strength in ground combat (wrong training and stuff)
5) Civilian guards fight as poor crew
6) Civilian guards have a -1 in combat...

Choose the one that works and be done with it in your scenaroio rules...

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 12:31 am: Edit

Just on #2, I'll think you'll find that "non combat rates".

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 10:51 am: Edit

Michael C. Grafton:

You could wrap up #1, #2, #3, and #4 by just saying they are militia.

Militia cannot perform hit-and-run raids.
Militia cannot be transported into a combat situation (I am guessing that is what you meant).
Militia is, of course, the size of militia.
Militia, despite being double the size of a normal boarding party, fights as if it is only a single boarding party.

The only things not normally applied to militia are your last two items, and the one would be applied if they were in fact from a ship with a poor crew, so the question is how much worse they would be if the ship had poor crew.

I think if anyone wants to invent some kind of weaker boarding party they need to check the existing rules for boarding parties, including militia. Review (D7.0), (D15.0), (D16.0), and also look at the rules for crew quality (G21.0) and also for the effects of Legendary Officers (G22.0).

As an example, I would suspect that civilian boarding parties would not be as good at preventing or allowing a self-destruction event to occur as a marine party.

By Ken Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 02:02 pm: Edit

If I understand correctly, the rule would look like this:

(D15.851) CIVILIAN GUARDS have less training than standard boarding parties and are hired only for guard duty on freighters or similar units. While they are the size of a normal boarding party, they are treated as Militia. They refuse "suicide missions", so will not transport into combat or do Hit and Run raids. They use the following rules: (D15.833) and (G21.141). If Purchased using Commander's Options, they cost 0.4 BPV. They can only be purchased by Civilian Units.

Note: I arrived at the 0.4 BPV price by applying the -20% of a poor crew to a standard boarding party.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 02:15 pm: Edit

SPP: I concede the discussion.

It appears that you have your interpretation and I see no way to convince you that you are making a mistake.

MJC:

Wrong.

Your answer above indicates that you do not understand what you are discussing.

MJC posted: quote: "Free market means the purchaser is free to choose to buy or not to buy, not that every company has equal access through artifical enforcement of laws that make price the only measure."

Answer:

Wrong.

Completely, totally and utterly false.

first, you are describing DEMAND not a free market.

a market can only exist when there are both sellers (representing Supply) and buyers (representing demand).

Lets take this into parts.

the portion of the post that you started with, "Free market means the purchaser"

Nope, first error in the post is that a market can not exist with only a single purchaser.

It takes two sides to agree to a value of a commodity or service.

A market with only sellers is excess supply. A market with only purchasers is "pent up demand".

The next portion of your post, the "is free to choose to buy or not to buy", is equally false in that no transaction (no sale) means that there was no exchange of value, the buyers and sellers could not or would not agree to an equitable exchange. if there was no transaction, then the market did not function.

I should also point out that a 'true' free market, there would be multiple sellers and many buyers competing with each other.

if seller A wanted too much money for product 1, then seller B might be / would be willing to sell his supply of product 1 at a lower price than seller A was asking for \-2(and seller C might be willing to accept even less than what Seller B agreed to, and so on.}

The next portion of MJC comments includes; quote: "not that every company has equal access through artifical enforcement of laws that make price the only measure."

Answer:

Artificial enforcement of laws is a constraint on the system, and negates the ability of the market to function.

Further, as I stated above, a market must have two sides to exist, buyers and sellers representing supply and demand.

Free markets refers to access by BOTH sellers and buyers.

When you limit access to the market, you eliminate the ability of the market to function at its best efficiency.

Often, controls work to limit choices, either limiting the supply of product available or limiting the ability of buyers to buy at the price or quantity levels they desire.

Either way, the result is a price level different than what a true free market would have set for a given commodity.

I should also point out that it is not enforcement of "artificial law" that allows business (and individuals) to sell in the free market, it is THE ABSENCE OF BARRIERS.

And last,. we come to the part that convinces me that you have no understanding of the topic.

MJC posted: "that make price the only measure."

The point of a market is to arrive at a value of a given product, be it a barter market in the stone age trading vennison for stone carved wheels, or the worlds various options markets for crude oil priced by the barrel (at the going rate quoted in USD, EURO, Yen or whatever).

The whole point of a market is to arrive at a equitable price (the seller wishing as high a price as possible, the buyer hoping to get a low price.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

I had to reject your theory because you consistently refused to address the reality. No matter how many times it was raised. Parties of ARMED MEN are a very different thing than every example you gave. There is no instance (as you attempted to cite) of parties of armed men THAT DID NOT BELONG TO EXISTING SECURITY COMPANIES (Blackwater, Aegis, Executive Outcomes, etc.) (emphasis) being "hired" for security duties in Iraq or Afghanistan guarding ANYTHING that truly needed to be guarded by armed men. There ARE many NGOs that hire "Local Security", but that is not really local security, it is "bribes" paid to the local gangs in hopes that they will not simply steal everything the NGOs are trying to bring in (and that often does not work).

You might research how various security firms get their starts and how they provide armed security personnel.

But ARMED PERSONNEL EXPECTED TO EMPLOY FORCE IN THE PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY (emphasis) are a major difference than hiring twenty extra guys to help shift cargo.

Starting Fed Ex in defiance of your Professor's prognostication is not the same thing as finding someone who will hire your merry band of armed mercenaries with no references. Such groups of armed security guards generally require background checks, and bonds (insurance) in case they shoot the wrong person.

You can cite free enterprise all you wish, I will continue to counter that with noting that ARMED guards are a different matter than normally hired workers. Starting up a security company is something you can do (there are legal procedures for doing so), and there are as noted two kinds of security guards. The kind that sits at the back of supermarket and watches deliveries to make sure nothing walks off without at least being reported, and the kind that has a gun and is bonded to use it.

But there are no random groups of armed people roaming from town to town, or city to city, looking for someone to hire them to guard something.

Even the "local security" hired by NGOs only provide security in their own "tribal neighborhood", leave that neighborhood and you have to hire security from the tribal area you are entering, and again, that is paying bribes to hopefully not be robbed.

You can keep espousing that this is not the free market you envisioned for the Federation, but the fact is that free markets for gunmen that do not belong to some organization (at least for use by law abiding citizens) do not exist in the United States, or France, or England, or . . . (Yes, I know some Criminal Gangs have armed personnel, but they function more on the basis of the tribal gangs hired by NGOs, and no one hires the Mafia to escort truck convoys in Afghanistan.)