Orc In A Spacesuit on 7 Nov 2002 17:24:03 -0000


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

[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 25 BALLOT 

From: "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Proposal 1170/4: Societies and Corporations (Orc In a Spacesuit)

No.  This removes much of societies' existing functionality,
WRONG. It allows societies to fufill the same roles as before, and allows for greater ability without having to make lots of extra rules (maybe less extra rules, or even none), but makes it such that Societies can't force their members to do anything; everything's optional (if they want to stay a member/not face the wrath of other members). 


it creates rule redundancies which can complicate future rule changes,
NOT REALLY. Yes, there are redundancies, but they will protect against future rule changes. We all know how changes to props on different sides of the ruleset can have unexpected consequences due to new incompatibility; the redundancies protect against that, and can be easily removed. Heck, even your own prop removes them.
it eliminates restrictions that prevent proposals from accidentally creating unqorkable societies
Unworkable? Not really, and your prop changes this. I abstained on that part. If that's really a problem, that's where to fix it. 


and it's otherwise unnecessary, especially given props 1156 and 1157.
WRONG. It's not just a fix, it's opening the door to future expansion, and reduces some administarial overhead. And what if those props don't pass?
Plus, I dislike how it rewrites the charters of societies the proposer doesn't own.
It only makes changes necessary to keep the society working, sometimes better than before. 


I'm still hearing about how the Uber makes all our props unnecessary.
I said a couple things a couple times, and now you think I'm always saying that all your stuff is unnecessary? I goofed a bit a while back, but all I've done since then is just ask questions and tell you guys about the details, so you can either complain about them or plan for them. 


If I'm going to have to listen to it, I'd like a chance to get paid for it.

Howz about a 1-point-per-post toll?  I'll pay.


>Proposal 1177/0: Disposing of the Idol (Wonko)
No.  Call it a weird sentimental fondness.

Kinda what I thought.


>Proposal 1180/1: If It Ain't Broke, Don't... Oh, Never Mind (Glotmorf)
*cut parts out where Glotmorf gives valid points, which others may share, and the parts won't break the game*
Part 4: Yes. I have no idea what Orc means by "multiple simultaneous charters". All I know is that if I'm going on leave I don't want to have to cancel membership in a society because I'm afraid of what might happen while I'm away. P1156 would take care of this, but if p1170 actually passes it'd wipe that out. 

Multiple simultaneous charters: What if a charter is changed to have:
"If any member loses any points as a result of a proposal the member made failing, this Society gives one point to the Gremlin fund, and that member gets the position 'Lackey' for 5 ndays. Each nweek, each member must do one the following for each Lackey that is Off Leave(other than emself): throw at least one object at the Lackey, deliver a successful Kick in the Ass to that Lackey, or recieve at least one point directly from that Lackey. Any member that does not gains the position Lackey. At the end of each nweek, this Society gives 1 point to the Gremlin Fund for each Lackey among its members."
Now then, what happens when a member proposes and goes On Leave in the same nweek, then that proposal fails? Does the 'affecting' include seeing if eir prop failed? E is a member, so it should, but whether or not that's true isn't really determinant. It's dependent on what the member decides upon getting back. Therefore, does the Society indeed give a point to the Gremlin Fund? What if Gremlin actions are dependent on the point in the Gremlin Fund, what then? Now, then, you could just say 'yes, that counts always' in a CFI or something, but then what of the second part? If the first part is always yes, then so is the second, or at the very least the second is a maybe (if you want to count this as affecting but the first part not), which yet again causes the same proplem. Either the member becomes a Lackey (and your 'protection' scheme fails, and can cause other players to become Lackeys cause you can't throw stuff at On Leave players, etc.), or it's 'affecting', and dependent on whether or not the member chooses not to stay. So yet again, did the Society give a point to the Gremlin Fund at the end of the nweek (if the member stays On Leave for a while). We don't know. The society says it does, so it does, but this change doesn't 'affect' that member, so the game is now in two states: 1, where the point was given, like normal, and 2, where this change didn't happen, made just for the On Leave member, because e wasn't 'affected'. If you know stuff about dimensions and time travel, you can see where this leads...
Part 5: Yes. There have been multiple instances (the grid, for example) where the scattering of rules throughout the ruleset has resulted in inconsistencies, incompatibilities and conflicts when implemented changes weren't comprehensive. Redundancy is good in computer hardware. It's not good in law.
Exaclty why that's in there. If somebody changes rule 21, and unintentionally changes 'entities' to 'players' *cough*lessismore*cough*, then societies will be broken, unable to perform many basic functions. I doubt there will be such a major change to the game that entities won't be able to transfer points and BNS in the near future, but if there is, whoever does it can go modify the sentence or two needed to bring __Societies__ in line. 


Part 6: Yes. Orc would "prefer to not deal with units right now."
Yup. My prefrence. Everybody's got one. I waved mine, you wave yours. Whichever kind gets the most waving wins.
Part 7: Yes. Orc would "prefer not to complicate things." Yet with p1170 e is totally rewriting the Society rule, which would eliminate the safety net that prevents proposals from accidentally (or intentionally) creating inoperable societies.
That's changing the subject. And anyway, 'inoperable' societies won't hurt anything, they are unlikely to be made, and we can get rid of them if we like. But hey, everybody's got their own preference. 


Part 9: Yes.
The Boy Scouts collect dues.

And if you don't pay, they kick you out.

The United Nations collects dues.
And if you don't pay, they put embargoes on you or kick you out or whatever. (In game tie in with an old prop: Send Black Ops Elves after you) 
My daughter's debate team collects dues.
And if she doesn't, the debate team won't have her as a member (as she isn't paying her way of the 'debate team society's operating expenses. 
Under certain circumstances membership should have a price.
Yes. I completly agree. And if people don't pay the price, they can't be a member. So the Charter says "If a member does not give at least 2 points to this society during an nweek, then at the beginning of the next nweek this society Ousts that member."
Societies should have the option of being able to specify those circumstances. 
Yup.  See above.
And I'm really looking forward to peeling back the fingernails of members to get their credit card num...Oh, wait, that can't happen, since members would be able to leave before I mandated that.
But they can't, unless your very game screwing up part above passes. So if this passes, either the game is screwed up anyway, or everyone's going to turn their societies into clones of Wonko's Slaves. 

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail 

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