Orc In A Spacesuit on 16 Nov 2002 22:29:02 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

From: Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Quoth Orc In A Spacesuit,
>Declared Wonko,
>> 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.
I'd rather spend my time playing the rest of the game than issuing/arguing CFI's and spending time wondering what state the game is really in. The better we state things now, the less headaches we have later. 


>> 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.
Ah, my bad. I misinterperted something. However, this still allows for things which I think to be bad; the first that comes to mind is that this would allow the Pink Scarf to be given to a Society. 


>> '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.


I quote:
"A society with a positive Point Balance may give points up to its Point Balance to any entity which can possess points" 

Nowhere is it stated that a society can possess points.


>>> 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.
This isn't a question of distribution. If a society ends up with a huge negative Point Balance, it CAN NOT 'distribute' this negative balance. If everyone suddenly decides to leave, no matter what the charter is, the last person left suddenly is in trouble. And this situation encourages itself; people would jump out of a society in the red just to avoid being the last one out. 


>> 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.


You made a 'fix'.  I'll address the issue there.
>> Actually, this draft doesn't sack corporations, because I forgot to specify 
>> that the society thing was a replacement for the current version,
I don't follow. You are replacing the one societies rule. That one rule currently has the entirety of the Corporations provisions. Your prop's replacement has nothing of corporations in it. Therefore, corporations are sacked. Am I missing something? 


>> 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.
Oh, I fully understand what you are saying. I'm just taking a part of that (that you want the basics of societies working), and adapting it for what I am saying. And I am saying that this prop could use some work.
By the way, what is the point of this proposal? If it's just to get societies working, they already do. Attempted takeovers through misinterpertation don't change that. I'm just trying to figure out what this prop does for the game; the fact that it replaces the entire rule rather than adjusting parts makes that difficult. And the more obvious changes (like Point Balance) do not appear to be better than the current situation to me. If I'm not seeing something, please enlighten me. 

Cordially,
Orc In A Spacesuit

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus 

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