Re: [spoon-discuss] societies and corporations discussion

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To begin with, a couple separate notes, now that I've already gone and deleted that part out of the reply...:P

Regarding "encouraging" the Administrator: It occurs to me that encouragement isn't the same as empowerment; the Administrator may be encouraged to do something the rules don't exactly let him do.  Perhaps you'd like to use the word "empowered" rather than "encouraged"?  It's less of a do-nothing, and, if requiring the Administrator to do things is what you're trying to avoid, it avoids that.

Regarding Corporations: What happens if the Owner disappears?  Quits the game, quits the Corporation, what-have-you?

On 10/21/02 at 9:38 PM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

>> >> >A. Definition
>> >> >In this rule, an Independent Entity is the Administrator or a Player
>> >> >In this rule, a Dependent Entity is a Gremlin, Society or
>Corporation.
>> >> >In this rule, an Entity is either of the two above.
>> >> >A Society is a group of one or more entities known as Members of the
>> >> >Society.
>>
>>The last sentence needs something more.  Perhaps something that says
>>entities become members of a society via the methods described in this
>>rule.
>
>That seems a bit redundant.  I mean, if the rule later says entities join
>when X conditions are met, why state "hey, we're gonna do this" earlier?

I dunno...I get a "chicken and egg" feel from the sentence.  It's probably just a matter of wording.  How about replacing "entities known as" with "entities, which are referred to as"?

>> >> >E. Resources
>> >> >
>> >> >A Society may have the properties Bandwidth, Points, and/or BNS, if
>>such
>> >> >is
>> >> >stated in the charter of that Society.  Any Entity that has any of
>>these
>> >> >may
>> >> >transfer any positive amount to any Society that has that property.
>>The
>> >> >default values for these properties is 0.
>> >>
>> >>Why limit pooled resources to these?  This knocks out WBE, which
>>requires
>> >>pooled units, and anything else a given society might want to share,
>>such
>> >>as proxy votes, grid objects, airspeeders, style points, etc.
>> >
>> >WBE Specific:  Yes, WBE is temporarily messed up, but then it already is
>> >(in
>> >the point of view of most of the players).  The uber, which I spent all
>> >night working on, addresses this quite nicely, and a minor change to the
>> >rule __Wealthy Bastard Enterprises__ could give WBE the additional
>> >property
>> >Raw Materials. (Although a edit using the current ruleset would require
>> >more
>> >than the simple sentence "WBE has the property Raw Materials" in order
>to
>> >get everything working right).
>>
>>I'll see your nonexistent prop, and I'll raise you a nonexistent prop: If
>>Technologies can get implemented (and I'm still not clear on what was
>>disliked about it the last time), various entities, probably at the
>society
>>level, will need to be able to possess raw materials.  This is not just a
>>WBE need.  Even if Technologies doesn't pass, raw materials are now
>>generally defined, and someone will want to make use of them.
>
>Just make Technologies give Corporations the Property "Raw Materials", and
>write a short paragraph detailing when a Corporation's Raw Materials is
>increased or decreased.

Properties don't cut it.  See below.

>And if you want M-Tek to be able to do things a Corporation can, make a
>new
>Corporation, with M-Tek as the owner.  Board of trustees or whatever.  Or
>have me make M-Tek a Corporation and create a new Society for you that
>owns
>it.

What if I don't want M-Tek to do what Corporations can?  What if I just want to share raw materials amongst M-Tek members?  What if I want to be, say, the Luigi of units, and let people borrow units from me and repay with interest, and I set up a society to do this?  I could do this today; I can't do it under your prop.

Besides, at the moment Corporations can't do anything.

>> >The Rest:  The way I see it, things like balls of wax are physical, and
>> >need
>> >to _be somewhere_.  I have a half-written Warehouse and Factories prop
>> >that
>> >would cover this.
>>
>>Then impose the restriction when you have an alternative already in
>place.
>>Don't take away existing features now on the premise of replacing them
>with
>>something later, when it cannot be known for certain that later will in
>>fact come.
>
>I forgot to say the big reason for doing this is that the current methods
>are buggy, as a society currently has Resource Pools, but what the hell
>are
>Resources?  And is it a number, like points, or a collection of objects,
>like athames?

Well, until you switched off Rule 6, we had the dictionary as a fallback to find out what resources were.  It is my opinion that we still have the dictionary, but it'll take a CFI.

>I'm trying to simplify here, and adding Resources is not
>too
>hard if you want to.

If I have to do more work to accomplish what I can accomplish now, that's not simplified.

>> > Societies having proxy votes, and just votes, is a big
>> >mess that we really don't need.  Sure, we could find a use for it, but
>> >it's
>> >not worth it in my opinion.  Just get all the members to vote using the
>> >public rules, if they don't already want to support the socity's stuff.
>>
>>Of course it can be done using public rules.  All of it can be done using
>>public rules.  But why reinvent the wheel with every single charter?
>
>Because different Societies may want different wheels, or none at all.
>Flexibility is power.

Standard methods are optional, not mandatory.  Societies can have whatever wheels they want now.  And new standard methods can be created if need be.

>> >>Plus, this loses the restriction that the charter must state how said
>> >>resources are transferred to and from the pool.  Nor does it say what
>> >>hapens to those resources if the society disappears.
>> >
>> >The way I wrote it, there are no 'pools'; there are just properties
>which
>> >are a part of the Society.  If a Society ceases to exist, it's parts
>>cease
>> >to exist too.  And the bit about 'unless something says otherwise' is
>> >redundant; just have that something specify the otherwise happens first.
>> >As
>> >for transfer - I did write that Entities can transfer Points and BNS to
>> >other entities, and societies are entities, and specified a special case
>> >for
>> >bandwidth.  Right below this.
>>
>>The problem with "properties" is that it doesn't say societies are
>actually
>>able to possess things.  And there's still confusion with the local-scope
>>definition of Entity.
>
>That's right; the society actually possess nothing.  The Society itself is
>not a physical, tangible thing, so has no business holding anything.  It
>has
>the Properties of BNS, Points, and Bandwidth, which are numbers.

Well, those properties don't do any good, then, since BNS and Points are both now defined as objects by Rule 21, and can only be manipulated by entities capable of possessing them.  And an entity can't do anything with objects it doesn't possess.

>> >> >F. Society Proposals (Chutzpah 2)
>> >>
>> >>This is cumbersome.  This means if a society is to make a proposal, it
>> >must
>> >>have bandwidth, which presumably must be explicitly given it by its
>> >>members.  This takes out the automatic bandwidth-sharing mechanisms
>that
>> >>currently make club propping convenient.
>> >
>> >'This is cumbersome'?  For who?  The person trying to get extra
>bandwidth
>> >from other members, or the Admin who suddenly doesn't have to go through
>> >and
>> >check each player's bandwidth at multiple instance of time?
>>
>>Both, actually.  If stuff has to be given by players to the society
>before
>>the society can perform actions, that's more actions the Administrator
>has
>>to manually process.  I'm not entirely sure Dave's manually checking
>>players' bandwidth now; I believe he has that automated.
>
>E has to check if the members have enough bandwidth, which is some math,
>and
>spread it out.  Due to the relative newness of Societies and how much they
>change, I doubt e has scripts that reduce it to a few commands.

Newness?  Societies have been around for almost an nyear.  And as far as I know, he has just about everything in scripts now.

>Plus,
>with
>the old method, players have to figure out bandwidth to see if they can
>still make a proposal if the Roster hasn't been updated since the last
>prop.

We have to do that now, even without club props.  Sometimes I forget how many proposals I've submitted in an nweek.

>> >Well, you pick the one best person.  It's more 'realistic' [[yeah
>right]]
>> >that one person actually make it, and e does it.  And why should having
>a
>> >society (which creates a lot more work for Dave) confer special
>>advantages
>> >other players don't?
>>
>>First off, anyone can make a society, so there's nothing inherently
>unfair
>>about having one.  You can combine a drunk and a guy with four broken
>>limbs, and have two players that can make at least two unslurred
>proposals
>>and share the points from them.  I have continually failed to understand
>>why people bemoan M-Tek's existence rather than make their own version of
>>it.
>
>Yes, but then people will just create tons of societies, which is not what
>I
>want this game to be about.  I feel that Societies should be primarily
>about
>enhancing the game, and only nominally confer benefits to eir
>members/leaders.  Corporations are more profit-driven.

Tons of societies wouldn't accomplish anything.  The whole point of a society is to pool the efforts of quantities of entities, and there's just so many different combinations of entities possible, especially if you count those that work together well.  Therefore, players aren't going to create tons of societies, because it wouldn't do them any good.

On the other hand, if you have something called a Society that does one thing and something an awful lot like a Society but different called a Corporation that does another thing, that means you'd have to create at least one of each if you want to do both things, rather than having one entity that does both things.  Your proposal may result in fewer Societies per se, but it may well result in more entities overall.

>>But the original purpose of block voting was meant to be a restriction of
>>sorts on society proposing.  Society proposing is a powerful tool, so
>>anyone who's going to do it should be very aware of what he's doing if
>he's
>>going to be involved with it.
>
>I don't see how that's a restriction.  Somebody may want to be in a
>Society
>without being sucked into politics.

Impossible by definition.  A society is a group of entities.  Unless one is applying to House Grem, politics are kind of inherent.

And if a Society really wants to do block voting without doing club props, it can be done now via the Society's charter.

>> >>There may be a very good reason for creating a society with general
>> >>criteria for membership, without naming particular members, and without
>> >the
>> >>proposer necessarily being a member.  The Upper House is one such.
>> >
>> >Yes, but a prop (including the one creating the society) can immidiately
>> >change that.  And it's the simplest (read: least Dave-headache-inducing)
>> >way
>> >to do it, as far as I can tell.
>>
>>That makes for additional steps that have to be followed.  Why take away
>>the capacity to create a functional society in one step on the assumption
>>that it can be done in two or three?
>
>The uses of immidately having different members seems rare, and with my
>method only requires a single extra sentence or two.  This is by far the
>simplest and least buggy/ambiguous way to do it.  If you are going to
>force
>someone into a society, you *should* be the one making an extra sentence
>or
>two.

The existing rules say no one can be forced into a society.  No one was forced into the Upper House; anyone could (and can) leave it at will.

>The point of seperating societies and corporations for simplicity.  I
>think
>every society ever created, except M-Tek, has been pretty much one side of
>the line or the other.

One side of what line or the other?  Societies have been around for nweeks, and Corporations popped up, what, Sunday?  M-Tek has no special status outlined in the rules, unlike vSOI and WBE.  M-Tek does not do any business with the outside world, unlike vSOI and WBE.  What line is M-Tek supposed to be straddling?

>And the prop does make there be less to keep track
>of, as it prohibits a lot of things that Corporations and Societies
>_generally_ wouldn't do anyway, so we don't have to deal with those maybes.

It also prohibits things Corporations and Societies might do.  What was that about "flexibility is power"?

>should I change it to "include, but are not limitied to,"?  The inclusion
>is
>just a restatement of part of what already exists in the rules, and defers
>to all rules, so I don't see a problem, but I'll change it.

I'd just as soon stay with M-Tek's current charter.  Is there some compelling reason it needs to be changed?

And I thought Invitation Lists were only significant when a Society was created.  So why would I want to add people to one, when M-Tek already exists?

						Glotmorf


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