Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: M-Tek

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/15/02 at 4:47 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> Creating a Club is an action.  R631: "Groups, as defined in Rule
>> Five-Seven-Eight, also known as Clubs, can be formed by a Player making a
>> Charter Prop, which is like a normal prop. in that it's added to the
>nweek
>> ballot and voted on."  Thus a Charter Prop makes a change to the
>gamestate by
>> bringing about the existence of a Club.  This doesn't require a change
>to the
>> ruleset, any more than the Gnome Factory has to change the rules every
>time a
>> gnome is generated.
>
>Hmmm... So according to that sentence, the only thing a Charter Prop can do
>is make Groups. Which means that my CFJ would be false - M-Tek was in fact
>created. But nothing else in the charter proposal took effect, as no other
>powers save simply creating clubs are given to CPs - so no rules governing
>M-Tek exist. And M-Tek has no members, and is subsequently terminated as
>per
>r578.
>
>BTW, it also looks like r631 is telling us that r578 is also known as
>Clubs.
>That's kind of confusing...
>--
>Wonko

The "also known as Clubs" bit was thrown in because I wasn't 100% sure that the Societies rule would get changed.  As long as Clubs are defined somewhere as being the same as Societies, I guess it doesn't have to be in r631.

A Charter Prop creates a Club, yes, but it also "must contain a charter that defines the Club."  Which means the nature of the Club being created is defined in the Charter Prop.  The Club, once it exists, has as its properties the nature listed in the Charter Prop.  So the Charter is another change to the gamestate that the Charter Prop makes, or part of the same one, depending on your point of view.

And part of the nature of a Club is that it has at least one member -- the starting member, which in the case of M-Tek would be me.  If I'd specified someone other than me, that player would have to consent to it, otherwise, yes, the club would cease to exist the moment it was created.

Addressing your other message...With the exception of things like the Upper House, Clubs exist primarily for the purposes of their members; if participation in a Club resulted in no change to the gamestate, the members of a Club would not need the permission of the Players for the Club to exist.  However, since Clubs can submit Club Props, which both exploit and affect its members' attributes, I figured the main body of Players should have a chance to deny a Club's existence if it was truly necessary to do so.  In most cases it should never be necessary, because, while the results of Club Props affect players, the effects are still confined to the Club members on a relatively zero-sum basis.

So the provision for 2/3 of the players voting against a club is along the lines of, "I seek your permission, not your blessing."  A Club should only fail to exist if for some reason it's heinous and everyone's against it; otherwise, why the hell not let it be?

Would people have voted for the Charter Prop rule if Clubs could be created with no vote required?

						Glotmorf