Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Well, damn, here's a thought...

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/19/02 at 11:06 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> On 9/19/02 at 10:32 PM Baron von Skippy wrote:
>>
>>>>> I pay the Witch Gremlin to Curse Wonko, thus making it impossible for
>>> him
>>>>> to
>>>>> do any voting... here's the rationale.
>>>>>
>>>>> 256.B.2:
>>>>> If the Witch Gremlin is Active, any player who has not done so already
>>>>> that
>>>>> nweek may pay (10 + 5d3) points to the Gremlin Fund to make the Witch
>>>>> Gremlin Curse a player. As long as a player is Cursed, e may not vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> 946.C.2.5:
>>>>> Each shareholder of a player can cast shareholder votes, one per share
>>>>> owned
>>>>> of the player's stock, on each ballot issue, to determine how the
>player
>>>>> will vote on that issue; a shareholder vote must be one of the valid
>>> vote
>>>>> types for a ballot issue. The votes a player casts as eir ballot votes
>>>> are
>>>>> used to determine eir shareholder votes for that issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> I interpret this as meaning that the Witch Gremlin can block Wonko's
>>>>> Shareholder votes as well as eir regular Votes. Which gives me a
>window
>>>>> for
>>>>> today's proposal:
>>>>>
>>>>> {{
>>>>> __Wonko: 5, Game: 1__
>>>>>
>>>>> Delete subsection C.2.5 of Rule 946.
>>>>> Give 946.C.2.6 the serial number 946.C.2.5.
>>>>> }}
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, if Wonko had gone Public, I could have bought a majority and
>>>>> controlled
>>>>> all of his Shareholder votes too... ah well. Someone else would have
>>>>> out-bought me.
>>>>
>>>> Bad baron.  No biscuit.
>>>>
>>>> The only way someone can buy a majority of someone else's stock is if
>the
>>>> someone else puts a majority of eir stock up for purchase.  There may
>be
>>>> other ways in the future, but that's it for now.  R946.C.2.5 isn't a
>>>> problem if there aren't any player stocks that existed prior to this
>>> nweek.
>>>>
>>>> Glotmorf
>>>>
>>> -I think Wonko found the hole there. He bought those stocks before they
>>> were
>>> regulated like that. I don't think anyone should be able to tell someone
>>> how
>>> to vote anyway, not like that. You don't, however, think that my logic
>is
>>> bad on the Witch point? That's far more important.-
>>
>> The Witch point I'll heartily agree with.
>>
>> The rule exists for a reason.  If you're selling pieces of yourself, the
>> people who are buying you should expect to get something for their money.
>> That includes a certain amount of say in how you conduct your business,
>since
>> you represent an investment to them.  Certainly they'd want to have some
>say
>> in what happens to you the entity after you the player fail to operate
>you.
>>
>> That's the whole point of the going public thang.  If anyone's gonna let
>> someone else control you, it should be you.  So no one should be able to
>get a
>> majority interest in you unless you let them.
>>
>> My latest CFI should take care of it.  The idea behind it is that we've
>got
>> these things now called player stocks, and we've got a procedure for
>creating
>> and destroying them.  If what Wonko claims are player stocks weren't
>created
>> via this procedure, they obviously don't fall under our definition of
>player
>> stocks, and therefore aren't player stocks.  Yes, there was a definition
>for
>> something called player stocks before, but that definition is gone now,
>so
>> what might have been player stocks at an earlier time aren't player
>stocks
>> now, since player stocks are defined totally differently.
>
>They were player stocks before your rule passed. The fact that they've been
>slightly revised doesn't destroy them. Otherwise, for example, every time
>you proposed a change to DimShips, all DimShips should have been scrapped
>first. And every time the Grid changes, the entire thing should be
>destroyed
>and recreated. That would be quite absurd. Think about what all you're
>reinterpreting before you reinterpret things, Glotmorf.

Certain things about dimships changed on an incremental basis, but the fundamental definition of them never changed.  At no time was the method for creating them, for example, altered from spending 100 points, and BAM, there it was.

On the other hand, the very definition of player stocks changed, which would suggest that player stocks as defined in r946/2 are not the same as player stocks as defined in r946/3.  Therefore, either player stocks as defined in r946/2 no longer exist, or they are things that don't apply to the rules set down in r936/3.

						Glotmorf


_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss