Orc In A Spacesuit on 17 Nov 2002 00:11:02 -0000


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

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

From: 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.
Yeah, I kinda agree. So maybe say 'players and societies' each time instead of entities, to be clear. Oh well. To fix the problem completly would require a revision to most of the ruleset. Maybe I should get back to that...
>>>> 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.
I don't feel like having the possibility of things being stuck in the possession of societies. But maybe that's just me. 


>>>> '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.
Except that you specifically say "to any entity which can possess points". Yeah, there's a provision that settles what happens when points are given some points, but they don't actually have the points. Therefore, societies are not empowered to give points to other entities. 


>>>>> 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.
*sigh*. Charters cannot force members to do anything. All they can do is encourage and react. They are not law until themselves. Just like a rule in B Nomic that said "All Players must give Dave $5 (or else <stuff>)" would not be binding in a court of law in just about any country. If I didn't pay up, I may suffer in-game, and may even be forced to forfiet, but complying would always be optional. And it works. That's the way societies are with the current rules, and how they would remain with this proposal. 


>>>> 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.


And see my response for points as well.


>>>> 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.


So you are sacking Corporations, for now.  Ok.

[[part that's responded to in another post snipped]]

Cordially,
Orc In A Spacesuit

_________________________________________________________________
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