spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ #36

[Jeff N Schroeder <jschrodr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

[snip]
>The wording here is unfortunate.  A Bank Motion is defined in rule 317/2
>and is a means by which the Player community have to force the Bank to
>take certain actions, with or without the agreement of the Banker.  If the
>Players feel they don't have enough points, for example, they could order
>the Bank to transfer to every player 10 points.  The Bank, however, is an
>agent just as other agents are and cannot force a player, outside of
>rules-defined mechanisms, to transfer points.
>
>A Motion for Repayment applies to any debt-situation, whether it involves
>the bank or not.  Normally this must be done by the agent to whom the debt
>is owed.  The exception is the Bank, whose Motions For Repayment are
>submitted by the Tax Collector.
>
>The closest a Bank Motion can come to forcing a player to pay eir debt is
>to order the Bank to issue a Motion for Repayment.


The interesting thing about this is that I *am* the Tax Collector and I 
perhaps should have entitled it a Motion for Repayment instead of a Bank 
Motion.  The rules confused me in that respect, so I decided to call it a 
generic bank motion with the understanding that people would know that I 
had the authority to repay all debts and that this authority was what 
mattered as opposed to what the motion was called.  

I understood that under the reading of Rule 317/2, that the Motion 
for Payment was a subset of the group of motions that constitute Bank 
Motions.  The definition of Bank Motions simply define how to process 
this said group of motions.

The statement "If a debt owed the bank is overdue the Tax Collector 
shall, within a reasonable length of time, submit a Motion for 
Payment of that debt on behalf of the bank" states that this is a motion 
on behalf of the bank to force the *bank* to reclaim the unpaid debts.  
This does not involve the Player at all and will simply take the money 
away from the Player and give it to the bank.

I agree that the wording is unfortunate and I guess it is up to the next 
Judge to clarify which reading is the one to be followed.  Does anyone 
think it is odd that each RFJ is given to the person who it directly 
concerns? :) Perhaps the rules should be changed to allow the person making 
the RFJ to prevent a Player of eis choosing from ruling on that matter.

jeff