spoon-discuss: Re: rules naming specific players

[Rob Speer <squeekybobo@xxxxxxxxx>]

<< 1. It must refer to rules, not proposals

Imagine we have a rule X that says: "Name is known as
You-Know-Who." Name did not object to the creation of
this rule, because he doesn't mind being known as
You-Know-Who.

However, now someone can make the following proposal:
"Amend rule X by adding 'and must Randal once each
nweek'". This proposal neither names a specific
player, nor does it use any terms which indirectly
refer to one player, so it can be passed without
Name's consent.
>>

This shows that it must refer to rules AND proposals.
If it only applied to rules, a proposal could be made
to take away all of Name's points and divide them
among the other players.

<< 2. It must also limit indirect references

Otherwise, with the above rule X, the use of
You-Know-Who in another rule would be perfectly legal,
even if Name does not agree.
>>
This is covered by my clause about indirect
references.

<<
3. No consent should be required from Officers

An Officer is not a "specific player". He has accepted
the requirements of the office before, and he can
resign at any time.
>>

But should he be forced to resign if Randalling has
suddenly been added to his office's requirements
without his consent?

<< 4. No consent should be required from the
Administrator, however...

This is a *real* problem.

Imagine we make a small change to the debt system
(e.g. my CFJ if ruled "TRUE" and and a proposal is
made to make debts real objects). This affects the
offices of the banker and of the tax collector. This
affects the Administrator, since he is responsible for
the duties of an Officer who resigned. The
Administrator is defined in R208 which names a
specific player (Joel). Due to the indirect reference,
Joel must consent to the rule change.
>>

In a way, everyone is affected by every rule. Thus my
proposal only deals with people who are mentioned in a
rule, not affected by it.

<< However, if no consent is required, a rule like
"The Administrator must Randal" would be legal. >>

Exactly.


<< 5. Consent should be given explicitly

You can't assume someone agrees simply because he
didn't vote "No". What if he did not submit a vote at
all? I think consent should be assumed only if a
player submits a vote, and it is either Abstain ("I
don't care") or Yes ("Yea! I *want* to Randal!"). >>

Good idea. I`ll fix that.

On a somewhat related note, if Joel would tell us what
Randalling is, I might vote for "Repeal R350". 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! http://auctions.yahoo.com/