On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 01:03:05 +1000, Alex Goodwin
<xxxxxx@multitel.com.au> wrote:

>The director wants their port upgraded, subsector says no, director says
>"SOD THIS!" and, forgiveness something something permission, does a
>whole bunch of individually-minor improvements off their own bat and
>budget.  Of course, this really brasses subsector off when they tumble
>to it.

That's more or less one of the things I wrote "Extending the UWP:
Starports" for - the classification establishes the _minimums_ that you can
be sure will be available, and describes what you can generally expect will
be available (but should not absolutely depend on). If you exceed the
minima, or do better than the standard expectations, nobody is going to
tell you that you've done a naughty.

The other thing is that the UWP is _descriptive_ not _prescriptive_ - in
other words, the SPA regional director can tell portmaster Ctholmurgos "We
aren't going to invest SPA funds into upgrading your port", but if the
_world_ decides to do so, or incoming ships contribute voluntarily to a
pullstarter or comefundus, then next survey, there may need to be a
correction to the UWP data - and the portmaster may find that he no longer
qualifies to be the master of that port!

®Traveller is a registered trademark of
Far Future Enterprises, 1977-2020. Use of
the trademark in this notice and in the
referenced materials is not intended to
infringe or devalue the trademark.

--
Jeff Zeitlin, Editor
Freelance Traveller
    The Electronic Fan-Supported Traveller® Resource
xxxxxx@freelancetraveller.com
http://www.freelancetraveller.com

Freelance Traveller extends its thanks to the following
enterprises for hosting services:

onCloud/CyberWeb Enterprises (http://www.oncloud.io)
The Traveller Downport (http://www.downport.com)