Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] "Fix" fix...er, fix

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

> From: "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On 10/26/02 at 4:25 PM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:
>
> >>From: "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>On 10/26/02 at 4:04 PM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:
> >>
> >> >>From: "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >>To the end of the proposal entitled "If It Ain't Broke, Don't...Oh,
> >>Never
> >> >>Mind", add the following:
> >> >>
> >> >>Part 8:
> >> >>
> >> >>In Rule 578, after the paragraph that ends with "Players may transfer 
> a
> >> >>positive amount of eir Bandwidth to any Society that is not a
> >> >>Corporation.", add the following paragraph:
> >> >>
> >> >>A Society may charge nweekly Dues from its members in the form of
> >>Points,
> >> >>BNS, units and/or Bandwidth to be transferred to the Society.  The
> >>amount
> >> >>of the Dues shall be the same for all members.  Dues are 
> automatically
> >> >>transferred from members to the Society at the beginning of each 
> nweek.
> >> >>
> >> >>[[ This at least leaves M-Tek more or less operational. ]]
> >> >>
> >> >>						Glotmorf
> >> >
> >> >But then you would have the Societies forcing people to do stuff all
> >over
> >> >again.  And if someone ruled a society, they could charge the charter 
> to
> >> >require huge amounts, a la Wonko's Slaves.  So you would then need to
> >>have
> >> >a
> >> >bunch of funky rules allowing people to have a choice yet still allow
> >> >events
> >> >to happen.  I'm voting a definite no.
> >> >
> >> >Orc In A Spacesuit
> >> >is against sucking the blood out of defenseless players.
> >>
> >>This is dependent upon your proposal passing. Your proposal says changes
> >>don't apply until the following nweek.  That gives players the chance to
> >>leave before the changes take effect.  So no one can sneak up on any
> >>"defenseless players" with a Dues requirement.  And with my On Leave
> >change
> >>that you dismissed, no one can sneak up on any On Leave players either.
> >>
> >>						Glotmorf
> >
> >It was dismissed for valid reasons.  Having multiple versions of charters
> >simultaneously in effect can cause all sorts of problems.  That's a load
> >of
> >CFI's we don't need.
>
> Dude...*your rule* says there's never "multiple versions of charters 
> simultaneously in effect".  There's only the current one, and the changes 
> that get applied in the following nweek and which in the meantime aren't in 
> effect.  Being On Leave, per my change, just means a player's not affected 
> by whatever the current charter is if it's different from what it was when 
> e went On Leave.
>
> And my change is dependent on your rule.
>
> 						Glotmorf

And what exactly is 'affected by' meaning?  Is e no longer a member?  This 
is just too damn ambiguous and potentially disaterous.

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

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