Re: [spoon-discuss] thoughts on props

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/15/02 at 9:28 AM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

>Proposal 1190/0 If it ain't broke...Well, it's broke now...
>Hmm... I didn't expect this.

What, my saying repeatedly all last nweek that two of my societies would be rendered non-functional thanks to your prop didn't suggest it'd bother me?

>Proposal 1192/0 Giving Societies Their Dues
>Bad.  Some things, such as BAC, or the attribute Dead, were never meant to
>be transferable.  This lets anything you don't want, anything at all, be
>sucked up by a society.  It also lets whoever's in charge suck up anything
>they want.  Plus there's the nasty possession issues when a grid object
>stays on the grid and is at the same time possessed by a society.

I am getting really tired of hearing how societies can victimize their members.  Last nweek's society-wrecking prop passed on the issue that it prevented societies from victimizing their members.

That's why I put in the unanimous consent clause.  How many times do I have to repeat this?  If everyone agrees to it, no one is getting victimized.  No one is going to be hit with any requirement that they didn't actively, consciously sign up for, either because the charter contained that requirement before they joined or because they consented to a change being made to the charter.

So the leader of a society can't "suck up anything they want" unless the members of the society empower em to do exactly that.  And if they DO empower em to do that, whose fault is that?  The rule doesn't force them to give em power over them.

Jesus, guy, you're worse than those liability lawyers who say ladder manufacturers are at fault when people get hurt by *gasp* using a ladder.

>Unassigned /2 The Bigger They Are, The Mucher They Cost
>Aside from the wording changes that are redundant (but useful), this puts
>a
>limit on the content of proposals.  It forces people to use societies just
>to get some props out, and makes some props impossible.  I don't like it.
>If we're gonna have a limit, we should cap it off at 5 or so, and base it
>off something like the number of words in it.  I can change 10 rules with
>10
>words.

And we can't have that, can we?  We can't have people actually working together to instigate major change.  Because it's far more beneficial to the game, the ballot and Dave for there to possibly exist 50 different proposals, each changing 10 rules apiece, possibly at cross-purposes to one another.

>Unasssigned /1 More Raw Materials
>It's my prop, I've said enough about it.  Just pointing out that with it,
>WBE works again, mining works again, and we have 4 resources to play
>around
>with.  Dangit, I want tunneling; the grid just is too confusing and other
>rules incompatible.

This proposal doesn't affect WBE, since WBE can't possess units.  The recycling centers aren't the issue, because people can recycle now.  But at the moment the units will just be passed to WBE members, since WBE can't possess units.

Changing their name to Resources doesn't help, since WBE can't possess Resources either.  WBE can only possess those things the new version of the society rule permits societies to possess.

And since WBE can't possess Resources, WBE will *still* not be able to perform speeder upgrades.  So it's not true that with this proposal "WBE works again."

						Glotmorf



-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a cyber-anthropologist's blog
http://ix1.1sound.com/ivoryminitower

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