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

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/22/02 at 11:05 PM Baron von Skippy wrote:

>> >> >>Here's the first one: withdraw the proposal about Shareholder
>Voting.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>						Glotmorf
>> >> >>
>> >> >-Why?-
>> >>
>> >>Because shareholder voting has its uses.
>> >-Like what?-
>> >Because it's not an issue now that Wonko has returned all the player
>> >stocks;
>> >anyone selling more than half eir player shares has only emself to
>blame.
>> >-But is anyone that dumb?-
>>
>>That depends. What if someone decides e'd like to risk losing control of
>>emself just to get those last few points to win?  After all, after the
>win,
>>who's got points to buy eir stock?
>-Then they should assign a random proxy. If the rich can buy the votes of
>the poor, that's wrong. That's rule by a few, not democracy.-
>>
>> >Because it's a backup proxy system for people who'd otherwise be on
>>forced
>> >leave.
>> >-Designating a proxy works fine.-
>>
>>Yes, but this makes for proxy by committee.  And/or it's a mechanism of
>>club voting for non-club props.
>-Not if one person owns all the stock, or more than 50 percent of it.-

Please note that one aspect of the shareholder voting subsection allows for shareholder votes to be counted in the absence of the original player, even if said player owns the majority.  So I could have 50 shares of myself, sell each of five people one of them, and be in control of my own vote when I make it; but if I ever don't make it (illness, vacation, ennui) the shareholder vote kicks in.

I gather what you're objecting to is the whole selling-one's-soul aspect.  So okay, rather than killing the subsection altogether, modify it so that the player whose stocks are held by others always gets the priority vote...that e *can't* sell a majority interest in emself.  It goes against my evolution-in-action instinct, but I just think that shareholder voting is too useful to out-and-out kill.

>> >Because you're not good with intelligent actions, so you should do what
>I
>> >say.
>> >-Your logic is flawed. I'm not good with intelligent actions, but you're
>> >not
>> >necessarily the obvious superior. Wonko's broken the game enough. E's
>> >smart.
>> >I'll listen to em for a while.-
>>
>>I won't say that Wonko isn't smart.  I will say that a monkey with a
>monkey
>>wrench can break things too.
>
>-Wonko hardly hits things until they fizzle out. He's a morally loose
>nuclear technician who knows exactly which screws to loosen and which
>wires
>to cross.-

I'm sorry...where is tendency to cause nuclear explosions equated to intelligence?

>> >>And because the proposal is a kneejerk reaction to a situation that the
>> >>rule in question didn't actually cause, which means the rule will get
>> >>killed before it's even been given a chance to be useful.
>> >-It should have died before it had a chance to get abused.-
>>
>>That could have been said about the original stock proposal.  Didn't that
>>pass damn near unanimously?
>
>-Don't remember. Maybe we should put stock away for a bit so the bugs can
>be
>hammered out. Like DimShips, which I still think there's a future for.-

That would involve a non-amputation approach to putting something away.  Just a sec...

						Glotmorf


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