Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] societies 4

["Orc In A Spacesuit" <orcinaspacesuit@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I had comments from the previous version that are still applicable here, so 
> I'm including the interchanges.
>
> On 10/26/02 at 12:02 AM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:
>
> >A. Definition
> >In this rule, Gremlins, and Societies whose members are not all
> >Independent
> >Entities.
>
> This sentence is missing a verb and object.

Oops.  Will fix.  Thanks for the heads-up.

> >F. Resources
> >All Societies have the Properties Entropy, Points, and BNS.
> >All Societies that are not Coroporations have the Property Bandwidth.
> >The default values of these 4 properties is 0.
> >At the beginning of each nweek, the Bandwidth of each Society is set to 
> 0.
> >
> >If a Society has Entropy greater than or equal to the number of Members 
> it
> >has that can have Entropy, one Entropy it has is transferred to each of
> >its
> >Members that can have Entropy.
> >Any Entity that has Points and/or BNS may transfer any positive amount of
> >those to any other Entity that has the tranferred property.
> >Any Entity that has Bandwidth may transfer any positive amount of it to
> >any
> >Society.

> Any society?  Why would a non-member entity transfer bandwidth to a 
> society?

Why not allow it?  I wouldn't either in most conditions, but hey, if someone 
wants to support a club prop if e's not a member, more power to em.

> >If any change to a Property would be assigned to a Society that does not
> >have that Property, all changes are instead divided as evenly as possible
> >among its members that have that Property, with the remainder assigned
> >randomly among them, or as the Adminstrator sees fit among them.
>
> The current default is fractional division, rounded up.  Your proposal 
> results in less given to members than they get now.

The way I have it, if 29 charm is assigned to a society, the total charm 
that all members receive is 29.  It may not be completly even, but it 
doesn't give away extra charm or whatever.

> >G. Creating a Society
> >
> >Once per nweek, a Player may create a Society, giving it a uniquely
> >identifying name.  Unless e specifies otherwise, the creator of a society
> >becomes a member of that Society upon its creation.
> >
> >[[If you want to invite some people into the society at the beginning,
> >just
> >have the Charter specify it'll automatically let those people join, and
> >maybe include a time limit when that part is taken out.]]
> >
> >[[You can still create via proposal.  Societies are a part of the game, 
> so
> >props can affect them.]]
>
> >>Yes, props can affect them, but this removes any control the ruleset has
> >>over how proposals can create societies.  This means anyone can propose 
> a
> >>society that internally makes about as much sense as It.
> >
> >Yes, but people could do that anyway, really.  People still have to vote
> >yes; the only reason people voted yes for It was that they thought It was
> >harmless and no idjits would try stupid crap with it.
>
> No, they can't do that now.  Per Rule 33, the blanket permission of players 
> being able to submit proposals doesn't conflict with the specific 
> restriction of the existing subsection G.  Your proposal takes away the 
> specific restriction.  That will make it possible to create a society with 
> no charter and/or no members.

Well, if someone actually did that, the society would cease to exist 
immidiatly, as it would have no members and no charter provision keeping it 
alive.  Even if it were kept alive, big deal.  But to appease you and plug 
this minor bug, I will change the prop to make it such that if the Charter 
is undefined, it exists but has nothing in it.

> >Society: M-Tek
> >Members: Glotmorf, Squire of Dimness
> >Charter: One and only one Member of M-Tek has the Position "Prez".  M-Tek
> >takes a Managerial Action other than modifying its Charter upon the Prez
> >stating it does, or after 2 ndays of 1/2 of the members of M-Tek state it
> >does if the Prez does not veto the action.
> >M-Tek performs an action upon all of its Members stating it does.
> >If there is no Prez of M-Tek, the member of M-Tek with the highest 
> Entropy
> >becomes the new Prez, if one exists.
> >At the beginning of each nweek's voting period, if M-Tek could have
> >legally
> >submited a proposal that nweek but did not, the Prez must give 5 points 
> to
> >each other member of M-Tek, if possible.
>
> Squire of Dimness is not now and has never been a member of M-Tek.  Iain is 
> the other member.

Oops.  I don't know why I did that.  With the other edits, I'll also make 
you the one and only Wealthy Bastard.

> Other comments:
>
> >>Also, the rule shuts WBE down.  WBE needs to be able to possess units,
> >and
> >>there's nothing in your rule that says it can.
> >
> >I still don't know how the "Raw Materials" "Resources" "Resource Units"
> >"Units" thing works, and I don't care.  It's too much of a mess, and
> >beyond
> >the scope of just getting this prop working.
>
> Then you're rendering the rules that talk about airspeeder upgrades 
> worthless, because they're contingent upon WBE possessing units.  I have 
> been waiting for nearly two nweeks now to give WBE units, as its existing 
> charter allows me to do, so WBE could finally do upgrades.  I was about to 
> after Wonko renounced WBE, but now I have to wait and see if this crap 
> actually passes.

Well, if you want to look at it one way, they never should have been yours.  
If you look at it another, your screwy rule resulted in all the Service 
Malls being destroyed, so another nweek won't matter.  If you look at it 
another, the whole mess is still very confusing.  But I'll check up on the 
rules and see if I can work something in.  But not tonight, as I need sleep.

> >>Societies do not need a total rewrite.  Especially this one.  There is
> >one
> >>proposal by the Administrator that addresses the insta-club problem, and
> >>one by me that lets people quit a society rather than suffer a charter
> >>change.  Your proposal doesn't have that provision, nor the one about
> >>members that are On Leave when the charter is changed.
> >
> >People can leave.  Nothing can restrict them.  All the Society can do is
> >try
> >to take Actions and stuff to do bad things to the leaving member.  One
> >thing
> >it could do is encourage members to throw Bomb Gnomes at the deserter.
>
> You're not getting it.  My fix means if a society charter gets changed to 
> require its members to give points, those members can leave a society 
> rather than giving points, and On Leave players can't be screwed over in 
> their absence.  Your rewrite of the rule doesn't provide those protections. 
>  Those protections are supposed to prevent the whole Wonko's Slaves 
> nonsense that presumably prompted your total rewrite.

You're not getting it.  Players cannot be required to give points or 
anything else by a society.  All a Society can do is say "Here's my list of 
things members must do.  On this list is 'Throw one Bomb Gnome at an Ousted 
player within 10 ndays of em being ousted'.  If any member disobeys any of 
these rules, e is ousted."  Societies are not law.

_________________________________________________________________
Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access. 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

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