Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Bnomic-private] Scam: Bandwidth

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Orc In A Spacesuit,

>> From: Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Quoth Orc In A Spacesuit,
>>> Declared Wonko,
>>>> Entity is defined partially be standard english, where it refers to any
>>>> single body, being, or object, and partially by game convention, where
>> it
>>>> generally refers to objects that take actions in and of themselves;
>> either
>>>> would work with this prop, the classification of something as an
>> entitiy is
>>>> a matter for the justice system, or for a definitions rule.
>>> 
>>> The problem is, right now, the definitions of some things are too loose.
>> 
>> CFI them if you disagree with someone else.
> 
> I'd rather spend my time playing the rest of the game than issuing/arguing
> CFI's and spending time wondering what state the game is really in.  The
> better we state things now, the less headaches we have later.

My point is that it isn't the place of the society rule to define entities.
At the moment, no clear precedent has ever been set; but there are methods
by which such a precedent could be set, and methods by which the definitions
rule could be altered to nail the definition down. Perhaps if I have some
time later I'll use one of those methods; perhaps someone else will do it
first; perhaps the issue will never come up. But things like that shouldn't
be included in a proposal to fix societies.

>>>> Exactly the same thing happens as if the player had given the object to
>>>> another player.
>>> 
>>> Sez who?  According to the rules, the object remains in the same
>> location,
>>> and still remains fully manipulatable on the grid.  And that still
>> leaves
>>> the issue of instant object teleportation through society abuse.
>> 
>> The way it's currently phrased, Grid Objects CAN'T be given to societies.
>> Other objects that players can pass around (like points) can legally be
>> given, but you're not allowed to give Grid Objects to other players, and
>> therefore not to societies. I'd hoped to see a new proposal addressing that
>> once societies in general work.
> 
> Ah, my bad.  I misinterperted something.  However, this still allows for
> things which I think to be bad; the first that comes to mind is that this
> would allow the Pink Scarf to be given to a Society.

Yes, it could be. Then it would be in the society's possession until
somebody came up with a way for a society to give it back.

>>>> 'b2b'?
>>> Business-To-Business.  And it's still out the window.
>> It's not out the window. It's like how players can 'recieve points' without
>> a specified source; the points are just created, and the society's balances
>> changes accordingly.
> 
> I quote:
> "A society with a positive Point Balance may give points up to its Point
> Balance to any entity which can possess points"
> 
> Nowhere is it stated that a society can possess points.

It doesn't need to have them; it's empowered to award points to other
entities. It's similar to how whichever rule that is gives points to people
when their proposals pass. The rule doesn't have points, but it doesn't need
to - they're created on the spot.

>>>>> Leaving the last one out holding the bag.
>>>> Yes.
>>> I don't like this.
>> Someone's gotta pay the bill. If you don't like it, then only join
>> societies
>> whose charters distribute things well.
> 
> This isn't a question of distribution.  If a society ends up with a huge
> negative Point Balance, it CAN NOT 'distribute' this negative balance.  If
> everyone suddenly decides to leave, no matter what the charter is, the last
> person left suddenly is in trouble.  And this situation encourages itself;
> people would jump out of a society in the red just to avoid being the last
> one out.

Well, let the buyer beware. Don't join societies where this is possible.
Since the society charter is binding on all members, it can force
transferrance of negative points equally as the negs come. If a society's
charter allows negative points to accumulate, then I would advise you to
stay out of it, or be prepared to get zapped.

>>>> Or dump it on the last one gone again. I think I'll do that.
>>> You miss my point.  Societies could keep giving out charm indefinitly,
>> even
>>> when the society's charm goes below 0.
>> If the have negative Charm, then they have no points of charm, although
>> they
>> do have points of negative charm. You can't give out what you don't have.
> 
> You made a 'fix'.  I'll address the issue there.

Alright, but I'm going to include my response here, because it's basically
the same as for points - if you fear it, stay away from it.

>>>> Actually, this draft doesn't sack corporations, because I forgot to
>> specify
>>>> that the society thing was a replacement for the current version,
> 
> I don't follow.  You are replacing the one societies rule.  That one rule
> currently has the entirety of the Corporations provisions.  Your prop's
> replacement has nothing of corporations in it.  Therefore, corporations are
> sacked.  Am I missing something?

In that draft, I'd forgotten to include the, "amend rule ___ to be:" bit; it
would have created a new rule if you hadn't drawn my attention to it.

>>>> but I
>>>> don't think corporations should be here anyway. They should be defined
>> in a
>>>> separate rule, and I plan on proposing that next nweek (along with
>>>> warehouses if you don't plan on proposing them). I first want to get a
>>>> basic
>>>> structure set up and give people some time to pick at it and find the
>> holes
>>>> before complicated things that we don't use get put in.
>>> 
>>> Which is why I want the prop revised to adddress these issues.
>> 
>> No, what I'm saying is that I don't want to address everything at once. I
>> think we should get Societies to the point where everyone agrees on how
>> they
>> work, and they do what we want, and THEN we can add things like
>> corporations
>> and warehouses. First the basic structure.
> 
> Oh, I fully understand what you are saying.  I'm just taking a part of that
> (that you want the basics of societies working), and adapting it for what I
> am saying.  And I am saying that this prop could use some work.

I feel it's considerably better than what we have now.

In response to the last section of your reply, I'm going to put that in a
separate message because there's a lot of it.

-- 
Wonko

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