This is fantastic, although quite large.

Thank you very much! To me, the size “feels right”—it works out to three Sectors per Captain and a few extra. This is about the ratio you want if, for example, we end up creating some kind of “Conquest” system (although, with 13 Captains at the moment, that could get pretty nuts—we’ll see what happens). Plus, with lots of Sectors it’s easier to designate a few of them to be “special” in later rules (e.g. starbases, resource collection points, etc.) without having to crowd them together or settle for fewer.

Actually, I was moreso referring to the image’s dimensions as it seems to have invaded the sidebar. And it should probably be a Wiki page, but this is a good enough start.

I hope we put the map in a wiki page. Although not a major concern, some connections (around Rigel, Monoceros, and Betelgeuse) needlessly overlap, which could be construed as ambiguous.

I think I’ve found the correct option to lay out the map such that Starlanes are drawn unambiguously. (I’m using Graphviz to render it. Sometimes it makes weird placement decisions…) I’ll keep it at this version until this Proposal is resolved, though, just so it doesn’t look I’m changing the map halfway through voting.

but let’s add a distance matrix to this.

I suspect changing the map image halfway through voting, or upon enactment, would be illegal, depending on how literally we were talking “the following diagram”. (Requiring us humans to interpret it as “the diagram depicted at the following URL, which you can only see in the post’s source code” seems unnecessarily technical.)

since I don’t like that it’s hard to follow some of the connections.