Orc In A Spacesuit on 19 Nov 2002 03:23:03 -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,
>>
>>> By the way, what is the point of this proposal?  If it's just to get
>>> societies working, they already do.  Attempted takeovers through
>>> misinterpertation don't change that. I'm just trying to figure out what 
>>> this prop does for the game; the fact that it replaces the entire rule
>>> rather than adjusting parts makes that difficult. And the more obvious >>> changes (like Point Balance) do not appear to be better than the current 
>>> situation to me.  If I'm not seeing something, please enlighten me.
>>
>> What I don't think you're seeing is the fact that in their current form, 
>> societies don't work worth beans.
>> To list some of the problems:
>
> This is why I posted it to -discuss for the most of the nweek, and only
> proposed it as the deadline loomed. But very well. I can't propose right > now (no bandwidth), but I shall write up a prop that fixes the problems that 
> exist (and are not a result of misinterpertation).

The potential for misinterpretation is a problem in and of itself. Don't
leave anything that could be interpreted differently than you want.
I mean gross misinterpertation, from someone completly missing a part of the rules, or thinking old rules still apply. Such gross misinterpretations could happen with any rule at all. 


>> 3.
>> "Players may transfer a positive amount of eir Bandwidth to any Society
>> that
>> is not a Corporation."
>>
>> Well gee, seems you've got exactly the same problem my earlier fix draft 
>> had
>> - Bandwidth can be given regardless of whether its positive or negative. So >> at the moment, I could give M-Tek 2000 bandwidth. Yes, my bandwidth would >> fall to -2000, but that's okay, 'cos it would go back up to 5 when the next 
>> nweek started.
>
> "Any Positive amount". Having a positive amount to begin with is implied. 

What implies that? 2000 Bandwidth is a positive amount of Bandwidth.
Ok, that's something else that should be adjusted. I doubt it would hold up in a CFI, but let's change it. 


>> 5.
>> "If the properties of a a Society would be changed by the rules as a result >> of voting, and the Society does not have that property, all members of that >> society get that change divided by the number of members in that society 
>> with that property, with the remainder assigned to randomly among those
>> members."
>>
>> So, for example, if a Society were about to recieve the property, "Zen
>> Master of Nomic", and neither it nor any of its members have that property 
>> already, each member of it gains that change ("Zen Master of Nomic")
>> divided
>> by the number of members in the society with that property (0)? What's a 
>> title divided by zero? That paragraph doesn't work at all.
>
> "In this rule, all Dimensions are Properties, and Points and Entropy, if
> they are not Dimensions, are Properties too."
> Zen Master of Nomic is a Title, not a Property. We also have Attributes, > which are not Properties. Properties are only referenced in this one rule, 
> and they are merely a nickname for a few other specific things.

"If any Properties are referenced in this rule, they are identical to the
appropriate Dimensions and/or Attributes in the rest of the ruleset. "
That's also in the rule. So Attributes ARE properties. That's bad.
Umm, no. Only the _very specific things_ which were earlier defined to be properties are properties. Titles is not one of those very specific things. 


>> 6.
>> "If a property is referenced in a rule that the Society does not have but 
>> the Presenter does, the rule looks to the Presenter's property."
>>
>> Along with item 5, I'm strongly opposed to this style of 'fixing' things in 
>> general; that is, saying "anything that would happen if a player did it
>> happens this time too". If you want everything that would happen if a
>> player
>> did it to happen, then change where it says what happens when a player does 
>> it to replace 'player' with 'player or society'.
>> This is about tied with item 2 as the thing I want changed the most in this 
>> rule.
>
> Hmm. Originally, the most 'advantageous' values were used, picked from each > member; advantageous wasn't defined. I made it such that you just picked > one person (who was hopefully somewhat sober and well under eir bandwidth > limit). You do away with such restrictions entirely. If you are protesting > how I made it pick one rather than ambiguously pick the 'best', why don't > you change it back? If you are protesting the entire restrictions thing, > then don't claim it's my change you protest, as I was just trying to keep 
> the old system intact (while making it less buggy).

I am protesting the strategy of using blanket statements where specific
references could be made, as this has a tremendous potential for causing
unseen consequences.
Ah. You are protesting the way it was done before, and not just my adjustment. Ok. 


>> 7.
>> "C.3 Incorporation"
>>
>> Although corporations are a good idea, your 'fix' altered things to point 
>> where there's no longer any point to them - they're now just negatives.
>> When
>> people start making things for corporations, then it will be worthwhile to 
>> have corporations, but at the moment, they just take up space.
>
> Actually, Corporations before my prop were the same - just societies with > limitations. I saw this, and tried to make corporations be the only ones to > have points and BNS, as they were the only ones to engage in commerce, but 
> that didn't make much sense and wasn't recieved well.
> So yes, there's nothing major going for corporations, but that's how it
> already was, plus your prob gets rid of them completly.

Corporations could propose earlier.
*Looks up old rules*. Hmm, yes, they could. But they still just had requirements, and had nothing going for them. And I just don't think that corporations should actually do lawmaking. Lobbying maybe, but we can't really regulate that. Well, if you want that changed, propose it seperately. 


>> 8.
>> "C.4 Positions"
>>
>> This section is entirely unneccessary - societal attributes can be assigned 
>> by the Charter.
>
> Actually, those are only in-society, and while the society is a part of the 
> game, those societal attributes are not actually part of the game.  This
> section makes it so.  At the very least, it doesn't hurt.

It takes up space; the ruleset is obscenely long and confusing as it is.
This little section is neither long nor confusing, and it allows 'minititles' given by societies to be officially recognized, so they can be incorporated in rules and proposals and such without lots of confusion and/or game breaking. 


>>> Proposal 1189/1: Society fixes (Orc In a Spacesuit)
>>
>> No. Neither of the items in this proposal require a proposal to fix them. 
>
> Then how will The Secret Mookies work again? The charter currently tries to 
> give Greg a power (to change the charter), but charters do not have the
> force of rule. If the charter instead said the society itself would change > its charter when Greg said so, then it would work. Just wording changes. > As for WBE's extra positions, so be it. You complained, I responded. Oh 
> well.

The fact that Lord Greg can't change the charter is a flaw in the societies
rule, not in the charter. Fix the source.
The source is your proposal that made a society with wording that no longer works. The result is exactly the same, you just got to say it differently. Going by old rules doesn't work. 


>>> Proposal 1203/2: Patching Up Societies (Wonko)
>>
>> Yes.  It's better than what's currently in existence.
>
> What's currently in existence works, minus BNS.  I already outlined the
> fixes for the current version to make everything extra smooth. This prop 
> introduces a host of new problems, which I have outlined elsewhere.

Giving how ambiguous it is, I would not say that the current version
'works'.
Better than what your prop would produce. If your prop doesn't pass, let's work together on one prop that satisfies both of us. I believe my first rough draft is already up. 


>> Racking up point debt can be controlled by charters,
>
> How? The society can't forcefully require members to pay up; they can just > leave, leaving the debt to be paid by whoever's left. And because no one > wants to pay, they will all leave, and the last one out (who may not have 
> been responsible for most of the debt) has to pay everything.

If you are a member of a society, then you have already agreed to abide by
its charter. So if the charter decides to give you a debt, it's too late to
run, 'cause you already signed on.
BUT SOCIETIES CANNOT GIVE DEBT! People can give points of eir own free will, but they never have to give up a bit of points. Sure, they may be kicked out or whatever, but they can get away scot free. 


Now, if the charter were to change, you
could make the argument that it no longer had to apply to you, as you never
agreed to the new form, but the rules as of when you join bind you until
they change.
Argue based on what? The system is set up so people can never be forced into doing anything they don't want to, so we don't have to deal with this mess. 


>> so
>> the problem of dumping the debt and running is only a problem if you choose 
>> to make yourself vulnerable to it.
>
> It's a problem if you join any almost society; if it deals in points (or may > be able to in the future due to charter change), then you are vulnerable. 
>
> ********
> OOh, new problem found: No BNS. That would mean that WBE wouldn't work. 
> Still.
> ********
See the bit about, "any object that players can possess"? I don't know about 
you, but *I* certainly can possess BNS.
Ah, yes. My bad. I didn't see it in the list of overdone score/charm/stuff sections. 


>> The Point Balance 'mess' is, as far as I
>> can tell, the only way to prevent people from making proposals through
>> societies, then taking the profits if there are any, but leaving the debts 
>> otherwise.
>
> And it fails miserably. The society will likely have a way to distribute a > positive balance, so they can take profits, but societies cannot require eir 
> members to do anything, so people can leave debts.

As long as someone pays the bill, that's fine with me.


So if I set things up so that you pay my bills, that's fine with you?  Ok.

Respectfully,
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