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

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/26/02 at 4:42 PM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

>>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.

Ambiguous, as opposed to, "Actions in this rule are not the only actions that societies may take"?  Or "A Society may State things"?  Or the existence of a society with no charter and no members?

The entirety of p1170 is ambiguous and potentially disasterous.  I'm just struggling here to maintain some semblance of existing functionality.

						Glotmorf


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