Re: [spoon-discuss] a different society fix

["Orc In A Spacesuit" <orcinaspacesuit@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: 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.

If a rule specifies that a memberless society exists, this makes sure that a 
paradox isn't created.

> > 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.

Standard Methods are a bit, um, stodgy.  No offence.  Plus, I hope to make 
lots of actions be permitted by societies (and other entities) in the rules 
later, and expect others may too.  Defining an action and defining a very 
similar Standard Method would be very inefficient.

> > 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.

I'll change it.

> > 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.

BNS is not a dimension.  Score is not a dimension.  I wanted brevity.  That 
is why I use 'property'.  As for actually giving them the dimensions, they 
did not have them before; also, I feel that the 'charm' etc of a society is 
the charm of its members; if it's members are respeceted, so is the society; 
if the society acts mischieviously, its members appear mischievious.

> > 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.

However, if someone creates a society and does other things based on the 
society's creation, they may be quite unhappy if it ends up not being 
created, especially if the actions they take give away eir plans (like the 
Bomb Gnome Speeder Throw I orchestrated earlier, or any of the attempts at 
game breaking some members take regularly).

> > 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?

I think that's implicit in the word 'create'.

> > 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.

The versions of all 3 of us have problems.  This hopefully rectifies the 
problems and misunderstandings of the current version.

Respectfully,
Orc In A Spacesuit

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

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