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

[Alex Truelsen <dichotomousmind@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/26/05, Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.


It also seems like there shouldn't be single-person Parties. A single-person 
Party is an independent voter with a Platform who has to do extra work every 
nweek. With so few people, though (compared to your average legislature, for 
example), single-member Parties would be a decent size in terms of percent 
of the total vote... eh, I'll figure this out and change the proposal 
tomorrow.

>>> 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.


Or they could all just quit, since there can't be a restriction on them 
quitting their Party, and once there are none left, it vanishes. Once out, 
they can remake it without the problem. Since it costs nothing to make a new 
Party, it would be far less hassle to do it that way than to risk the rest 
of the players shooting down a proposal to fix the Party.

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.


While I understand that, I don't see how this clause could create an 
emergency like that. No Party's internal workings can affect the Game, 
because they're not part of the ruleset, they're an informal bunch of rules 
that the Party members choose to follow until they decide they don't like 
them and leave. And if there was an emergency, then it's one little 
additional clause to a fix prop, to override this clause.

Look, I'll cut the clause because its purpose is to protect Parties from 
being attacked and screwed royally by a coalition of rivals, and I don't 
think that the players of this game would do something so directly nasty as 
that. So the protection is redundant and wouldn't do much if I turn out to 
be wrong - the coalition would remove the protection and do whatever they 
wanted to. Not that it would be worth anything. Parties can be created and 
destroyed far faster than proposals can be passed. So it's all pointless, 
wheee! I'll deal with it tomorrow.

[[BvS]]

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