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

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/20/02 at 4:28 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> 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.
>
>It must contain a Club-Defining charter; however, nowhere does it say that
>that Charter is ever used for anything. The best interpretation I can come
>up for that is that, while the Club is free to have that Charter, it's not
>part of the ruleset. So you've created a Charter for a club called M-Tek,
>but it's not a rule. Meanwhile, you never actually called for the existence
>of the Club, you just wrote its Charter. So yet again, there is no M-Tek.

It says at the bottom of the Charter Prop rule that the members of the Club must obey the rules in the Charter.  Isn't that using the Charter?

>> 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 you're saying that you don't want there to be many clubs except generic
>"a bunch of pooled bandwidth" ones?
>
>> Would people have voted for the Charter Prop rule if Clubs could be
>created
>> with no vote required?
>
>No. And they shouldn't have voted for it if Clubs could be created with
>only
>a 1/3 majority vote required.
>
>
>Alright, could you explain to me exactly what you want Clubs to be? Your
>interpretation implies that Clubs should, in general, be nothing more than
>the generic 'group of people who can make proposals' sort of thing. I'd
>think there would be much more potential for being interesting in something
>that could actually *matter* than something that simply sits there and does
>nothing. I'm imagining little subgames and such, like the Fantasy Rules
>commitee of Nomic World. That sort of thing. What do you want out of Clubs?
>
>--
>Wonko

What I want Clubs to be isn't germaine here.  You can come up with any Club you want, with whatever rules you want, in a proposal, and as long as the proposal gets a majority vote you've got yerself a Club.

My arguments have to do with Charter Props, which are only a single way of forming a Club.  They are specifically meant to create, as you put it, pooled bandwidth clubs.  I wanted to create a pooled bandwidth club.  I did.  I'm happy.

And now you've made your own Club.  It wasn't with a Charter Prop, but that's okay, since you got a majority vote.  Be happy. :)

						Glotmorf