Daniel Lepage on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:16:49 -0500 (CDT)


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

Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] BvS submits p28



On Apr 26, 2005, at 11.04 PM, Alex Truelsen wrote:

Perhaps require that the Chair be a member of the Party?


Hmm... yeah, there's that. I'd never even considered that it would be
otherwise.

You might also note that a player who creates a new Party is automatically a member, though that's implicit in eir becoming Chair if you require the Chair to be a Party member.

Each Political Party is responsible for establishing its own internal
rules regarding the selection of Chairs, modification of its Platform,
requirements for joining (if any), conformity to the Party Line, and
internal positions other than Chair, as well as any other rules the
Party's members wish. No rule may attempt to alter the internal
workings of an individual Party. This paragraph takes precedence over
all other rules that contradict it.

What good is the second-to-last sentence? It seems unlikely that
anybody would do such a thing accidentally, and anyone proposing to do
it intentionally would also presumably alter this rule to make it
legal. In effect you're just making it more irritating for future
players who may come up with an interesting way to do this.

But I don't want people to be able to fiddle with the workings of Parties that aren't theirs. If all this sentence does is make it slightly harder to do so through a proposal, then it's still worth it - if a majority really want that sort of chaos to be possible, then that's how it'll go. Whether or not the loophole someone finds is interesting, if the purpose is to sabotage another group of players, I don't like it. Win through a scam that boosts
you, not that pushes someone else down.

I don't think it makes it harder to do by proposal. It just makes whoever's doing it grumpier. As you said, if a majority really wants to do it, it'll happen anyway; if a majority doesn't want to do it, then it'll fail anyway. You're also assuming that the only reason anyone would want to do this is as a scam; what about a Party that does something stupid in its internal rules and suddenly becomes unable to elect a new Chairman, or some such thing? The members might then resort to a B Nomic proosal in order to bail themselves out.

I'm also wary of sentences like this because I'm one of very few players who have been playing continuously since before the rules reset - everyone who didn't vote for my emergency prop was expelled from the game and then reinstated because I needed to work around a similar clause in rule 33 designed to stop anyone from ever overriding the rule. I hate such clauses, because they very much get in the way when you least expect it.

--
Wonko

"If I ask you to pay attention to the weight of your body pressing on your buttocks as you set reading, you will momentarily stop reading."
	-David G. Myers, _Psychology: Myers in Modules_

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