On 26/8/20 1:41 am, Jeff Zeitlin wrote:
> <snip>
> 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.

At least in GT, the SPA classifies A and B ports as "major" ports and C
and D ports as "minor" ports.  Thus, an upgrade from C to B would
probably cause an extra level of bunfight if J. Random's trying to slip
it past the hierarchy.

> 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!
>
When'd you last read the Malloreon?

I take your point - under your approach, if a port obtains either
outside funding, funds improvements from its own budget, etc, so be it.
Inspector Baldmullet up at the subsector office isn't going to GROW HAIR
about it.