Orc In A Spacesuit on 26 Oct 2002 20:57:02 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Fixing the "fix" 

From: "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
{{ _If It Ain't Broke, Don't...Oh, Never Mind_
This is an A La Carte prop, dependent upon Proposal 1170. If Proposal 1170 doesn't pass, none of the parts of this proposal have any effect. 

Part 1:

In Rule 578, replace the sentence "If a Society's Charter is not
defined, it is an empty string, and the Society is dictated no actions by
its Charter" with "If a Society's Charter is not defined, or contains no text, the Society ceases to exist".
[[ A society without a charter is pointless. It can't do anything, and the charter can't be modified without a proposal. If one is going to make a proposal to make a society useful, one can make a proposal to make a society. ]]
Works for me. Whether or not people want to allow them to exist without charters is up to them. Everyone, vote as you wish. 


Part 2:
In Rule 578, replace the sentence "If a Society ever has no Members, it ceases to exist, unless another Rule or the Society's Charter states otherwise" with "If a Society ever has no Members, it ceases to exist, unless a Rule states otherwise".
[[ A society without members is pointless unless it's in support of a rule that needs that society to exist. It should not be possible for a player to create a society with no members if the game doesn't require it. ]]
The way I saw it, things like Nonconsolidated Meruinge could be adapted to this model of Corporations, and Stocks reworked somewhat of course. These companies might not have members. Of course, we can still make exceptions in the rule; I just thought this would be simpler. Everyone, vote as you wish. 


Part 3:
In Rule 578, remove the sentence "Actions in this rule are not the only actions that societies may take."
[[ This, under Permissibility of the Unprohibited, would serve to regulate societies being able to take any action. Any action at all. And the Default Case would defer to it. ]]
I think you are stretching that interpertation a bit far. But I just included that for extra clarity, so it doesn't matter. Everyone, vote as you wish. 


Part 4:
To the end of the paragraph in Rule 578 that reads "A Society may modify its Charter during the first 5 ndays of an nweek, if all of its members are Independent Entities. Such changes do not take effect until the end of the nweek." add "If a member of a society is On Leave at the time the change takes effect, that member is not affected by the change until e comes Off Leave; further, within one nday of em coming Off Leave, e must declare whether e wishes to leave the Society rather than be affected by the change."
[[ Safety measure, so that players On Leave aren't exploited by a Society they belong to. Being made the Presenter of a club prop comes to mind. ]]
Completly unnecessary. A member cannot be 'exploited'; e can never be forced into anything. The society playing nice with off-leave members is up to the society. I oppose this because it doesn't add real value, and can cause lots of bookkeeping headaches and/or rule bugs due to multiple versions of charters applying at the same time. 


Part 5:
In Rule 578, remove the sentence "Any Entity that has Points or BNS may transfer any positive amount of eir Points or BNS to any other Entity that has Points or BNS, respectively." 

[[ Redundant with Rule 21. ]]
Yes, but here I am explictly stating entities, and stateing what entities are in this rule. With this in place, future glitches are avoided. I oppose this change. 


Part 6:

In Rule 578:
- replace the sentence "All Societies have the Properties Entropy, Points, and BNS" with "All Societies have the Properties Entropy, Points, BNS and units".
- replace the sentence "Any Entity that has Points and/or BNS may transfer any positive amount of those to any other Entity that has the tranferred property" with "Any Entity that has Points, BNS and/or units may transfer any positive amount of those to any other Entity that has the tranferred property".
[[ I still think societies should be able to collectively possess whatever the hell they want, and that therefore the above is still inadequate, but at least this will finally make speeder upgrades possible, assuming p1170 actually for some reason passes. ]]
I don't like the unit name "units". Do a search for that word in the rules, and look at all the potential bugs you find. I'll abstain; if enough people think it'll work, I won't stop them. 


Part 7:
At the end of the paragraph in Rule 578 that reads "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." add "A society can only be created by a proposal if the proposal explicitly provides a non-empty charter and either a non-empty list of initial members or criteria for determining the initial members."
[[ Societies without charters or members are pointless, and may cause unforseen problems. Just because one can change the gamestate with a proposal doesn't mean one should be able to break the game. ]] 

Part 8:

In the M-Tek charter, remove the text "other than modifying its Charter".
[[ Barring the Bureaucratic Deadlock rule, M-Tek can currently change its own Charter by the Prez's say-so. I don't understand why this should change.
I included that specifically to comply with the current M-Tek charter. Right now it requires unanimous consent, so I put a unanimous consent requirement for changing the charter.
As it is, if p1170 actually for some reason passes, M-Tek will probably disband. When I invited Iain to be a member, I'd offered em the chance to remain a player without having to worry about Forced Leave and Garbage Collection, even if e didn't do anything, in exchange for use of eir idle bandwidth. If, under Orc's "fix", I can't figure out how to empower M-Tek to collect said bandwidth with no action required on Iain's part, M-Tek can't propose unless I pay my own bandwidth. And while I have the deepest respect for Iain, I don't really want to support em at my expense. ]] 

}}
I'm still going to vote against p1170. It makes bad changes, it removes fixes introduced by other proposals, and it complicates the ruleset with localized terminology. If for some reason it actually passes, at least the above will reduce some of the damage.
Bad changes? It fixes lots of problems and potential problems, and the only 'bad' thing it does is temporarily disable the horribly badly worded units, which you fix with this prop. Removes fixes? What fixes? Do you mean Monarchy and stuff? I present more complete fixes, and am not breaking the stuff fixed. Localized terminology: yes, it does that, but it's like nicknames if you want to see it that way, just like other nicknames. I provided lots of seguers or whatever to ensure translation works both ways. Reduce damage? There would have to be damage in the first place. And contrary to the belief of many over the millenia, change does not always mean damage. Some of what you are proposing here is good; a lot of addresses thing that should be a matter of preference to the players. I will probably vote yes for some parts.
I ask that you consider my comments as I have considered yours, so that the game may benefit as a result. 

Orc In A Spacesuit
is glad some of these specifics are getting out so that people can voice eir opinion on matters of preference. 

_________________________________________________________________
Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.  Join now! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp 

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