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

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/26/02 at 3:56 PM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

>>Part 1:
>>
>
>Works for me.  Whether or not people want to allow them to exist without
>charters is up to them.  Everyone, vote as you wish.

This is condescending.  People can vote as they wish without your permission.

>>Part 2:
>>
>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.

Nonconsolidated Meringue doesn't exist at the moment because the Stock rule got turned off.

>>Part 3:
>>
>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.

There is no interpretation that hasn't already been stretched too far.  This is a hole, and I guarantee someone will try to exploit it.

>>Part 4:
>>
>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.

A member can be forced to be the Presenter of a proposal.  Besides, this is a safety measure now for Part 8.

>>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.

No, future glitches aren't avoided.  They're created, since this is either in conflict with Rule 21 or is obviated by it.  If Rule 21 changes, this will either work against the change or still be obviated.

>>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.

The unit name "units" is used in Rule 21, and there aren't any rules above that one that talk about units.  If any other kind of "unit" is described in the ruleset as an object, it's already in conflict with Rule 21 per Rule 2.  Units exist.  They're here.  I want to use the damn things.

>>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.

It does not require unanimous consent. "The Prez has the last word on all M-Tek actions. E can mandate or veto any action taken by M-Tek as a whole."  That includes charter changes, as has been demonstrated on various occasions.  Yes, it uses the Unanimous Consent method also, but at the moment I can change the charter any time I choose.  Under your version, I can't.

						Glotmorf


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