Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Bnomic-private] Scam: Bandwidth

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Orc In A Spacesuit,

>> Entity is defined partially be standard english, where it refers to any
>> single body, being, or object, and partially by game convention, where it
>> generally refers to objects that take actions in and of themselves; either
>> would work with this prop, the classification of something as an entitiy is
>> a matter for the justice system, or for a definitions rule.
> 
> The problem is, right now, the definitions of some things are too loose.

CFI them if you disagree with someone else.


>> Exactly the same thing happens as if the player had given the object to
>> another player.
> 
> Sez who?  According to the rules, the object remains in the same location,
> and still remains fully manipulatable on the grid.  And that still leaves
> the issue of instant object teleportation through society abuse.

The way it's currently phrased, Grid Objects CAN'T be given to societies.
Other objects that players can pass around (like points) can legally be
given, but you're not allowed to give Grid Objects to other players, and
therefore not to societies. I'd hoped to see a new proposal addressing that
once societies in general work.

>> 
>> 'b2b'?
> 
> Business-To-Business.  And it's still out the window.

It's not out the window. It's like how players can 'recieve points' without
a specified source; the points are just created, and the society's balances
changes accordingly.

>>> Leaving the last one out holding the bag.
>> 
>> Yes.
> 
> I don't like this.

Someone's gotta pay the bill. If you don't like it, then only join societies
whose charters distribute things well.

>> Or dump it on the last one gone again. I think I'll do that.
> 
> You miss my point.  Societies could keep giving out charm indefinitly, even
> when the society's charm goes below 0.

If the have negative Charm, then they have no points of charm, although they
do have points of negative charm. You can't give out what you don't have.

>> Actually, this draft doesn't sack corporations, because I forgot to specify
>> that the society thing was a replacement for the current version, but I
>> don't think corporations should be here anyway. They should be defined in a
>> separate rule, and I plan on proposing that next nweek (along with
>> warehouses if you don't plan on proposing them). I first want to get a
>> basic
>> structure set up and give people some time to pick at it and find the holes
>> before complicated things that we don't use get put in.
> 
> Which is why I want the prop revised to adddress these issues.

No, what I'm saying is that I don't want to address everything at once. I
think we should get Societies to the point where everyone agrees on how they
work, and they do what we want, and THEN we can add things like corporations
and warehouses. First the basic structure.

-- 
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss