Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: Mine.

[andy_harrison <andy_harrison@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dan Waldron wrote:
> 
> >
> > What part of my original proposal did you find unreasonable?
> 
> None of it.  I did feel that it was a little bit too restrictive about
> what could be done with trades, and that some of those restricitons could
> have been left up to other rules.  I felt that a less-restricted proposal
> might have a better chance of passing, and I saw an opportunity to tie it
> in with some other things I was working on, such as the game as an agent
> and able to own property, and my corrupt voting system.
> 
> Poulenc

My revised proposal looked like this:

"An Object is an entity that is owned by an Agent. Agents may gain
ownership or lose ownership of Objects only in the manner defined in the
Ruleset. Agents may only own a positive integral number of a specific
type of Object, unless it is otherwise specified elsewhere in the
Ruleset.

The Officer of Bean Counting (OBC) is an Elected Officer. The OBC is
responsible for keeping track of the number of each Object currently
owned by each Agent.

An Agent may trade Objects with another Agent by posting the details of
their trade to a public forum. All Agents involved in the trade must
publicly agree to the trade. The OBC shall within reasonable time
recognise the result of the trade."

I would probably split it into three rules, but I hadn't decided. As far
as I can see, the differences between this and what you proposed are:

1. I haven't got anything about the Game itself owning Objects, or that
the Players are Objects. You could quite easily add this in a seperate
proposal. (There is nothing to stop an Agent also being an Object)

2. I hadn't yet specified any actual Objects. I was waiting till the
first proposal passed till I did that. I was going to make points
Objects as you have, but I hadn't thought about doing the same with
votes.

3. In my version, there is a trade involving at least two Agents. In
yours there is only a transfer of ownership from one Agent to an other.
I see this as a major difference cos I think it has to be specified in
terms of a trade. If agents just transfer objects then there is no way
of making the return-transfer binding. I'll try to put that a bit more
clearly: If we agree that I'll give you my object X for your object Y,
and you post to the public forum "I transfer ownership of my object Y to
The Kid" and then I don't transfer X to you, then there isn't anything
you can do.

4. The OBC. Someone has to keep track of all these Objects, and I it
fits better with the rest of the game if the trades are formally
recognised.


--
The Kid