Re: [spoon-discuss] a different society fix

[Glotmorf <nomicmorf@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Orc In A Spacesuit <orcinaspacesuit@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Wonko's brought up some valid points about how the
> rule Societies is written 
> now.  I don't think that his prop is the best fix,
> however.  I can't propose 
> without bandwidth, but I can put this on -discuss,
> so you all can think 
> about it.  So here it is:
> 
> I don't propose the following:
> {{__Polishing up Societies__
> In the rule __Societies__:
> 
> Change the sentence "A Society is a group of one or
> more entities who are 
> Members of the Society."
> to
> "A Society is a group of zero or more entities. 
> These entities are the 
> Members of the Society."
> [[This allows for 0-member societies, as specified
> by the rules]]

No.  Societies are collections of members.  Memberless
societies are pointless.

> Change the sentence "Actions in this rule are not
> the only actions that 
> societies may take."
> to
> "Societies may only take actions explictly permitted
> em in the rules."

This borders on not allowing charters any variance in
a society's actions.  This, under my version of the
society rule, would be equivalent to only permitting
standard methods to be used.

> Change the sentence "Players may transfer a positive
> amount of eir Bandwidth 
> to any Society that is not a Corporation."
> to
> "Players may transfer a positive amount of eir
> Bandwidth to any Society that 
> is not a Corporation, provided that the Player's
> Bandwidth remains 
> positive."

No.  I might want to give all my bandwidth to a
society, and zero is not a positive number.

> Change the sentence "In this rule, all Dimensions
> are Properties, and Points 
> and Entropy, if they are not Dimensions, are
> Properties too."
> to
> "In this rule, all Dimensions are Properties, and
> Points, BNS and Entropy, 
> if they are not Dimensions, are Properties too."

I still don't see why properties are necessary.  Just
give societies dimensions, alrady.  Hell, even let
them score wins.

> Change the senctence "Once per nweek, a Player may
> create a Society, giving 
> it a uniquely identifying name."
> to
> "Each Player may, once per nweek, create a Society,
> at which time e must 
> give it a uniquely identifying name.  The given name
> must not misrepresent 
> the gamestate or attempt to do so; if it does, the
> Administrator may Rectify 
> it and all references to it."

If I can't create a society with a particular name, I
would rather fail to create it than have someone else
change it without my consent.

> Change the sentence "Unless e specifies otherwise,
> the creator of a society 
> becomes a member of that Society upon its creation."
> to
> "If e chooses, the creator of a Society may declare
> emself to be a member 
> upon creation, in which case is is the only member
> upon creation; otherwise, 
> the society has no members upon creation."

Does this mean the society exists immediately upon
creation?

> Of course, this whole thing is rendered moot if
> Wonko's prop passes, in 
> which case we'll have a different set of things to
> change.  But here it is, 
> tell we what you think of the prop and that other
> thing at the end.

Maybe Wonko's version of the society rule doesn't need
changing.  Maybe neither did mine.

-- Glotmorf


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss