Re: [spoon-discuss] Draft: Prop: Night of the living Societies

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

> From: bd <bdonlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [[ This prop will basically rip out the entire societies system and
> reimplement it.

And the point of this would be...?

> Yes, there are dues. But they require unanimous consent. So
> there.]]

I still don't see why people want automatic dues.  That's just one more 
place for Dave to look when doing stuff.

But if you are looking to just make dues possible, doing it at the same time 
you do other massive changes is not good.  Make it a seperate prop.

> Destroy all societies...

Hmm.  So you are wanting a complete reset.  I could see the point of perhaps 
giving all societies a clean slate if you were introducing a radical new 
concept, and wanted balance, but I don't see the point here.

> * An entity known as the Founder, that is a Member.

Why must the Founder be a Member?  What if e wants to leave?  What if e 
never wants to be a member in the first place?

> A society's charter may specify additional attributes, but they are ignored 
> in
> all Rules unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Attributes has kinda a grey definition.  And if you are wanting things like 
INH rules, this is not the way to do it.

> If at any time a soceity has no Members, it ceases to exist.
> If at any time a soceity has no Founder, or its Founder is not a member of 
> the
> soceity, and its Charter does not specify a Replacement Founder, the Member
> that has been a Member the longest becomes the Founder.

This is hogwash.  The Founder is the person who made it.  This definition is 
screwy.

> If a society has no charter, its charter is
> set to the following:
> {{
> This society attempts to perform any action that its Founder specifies.
> }}

I don't like this.  If a society has no charter, something weird is going 
on, and the last thing we want to do in that case is make someone have lots 
of power.  What if the society was a complete democracy before something 
happened, and had loads of points?

> If its charter does not
> specify a way to change it, the Founder may change its charter.

Why?  What if we want a charter to be set in stone?

> A.3. Automatic transfers
> The charter of a society may require that a given amount of points, BNS, or
> bandwith be transferred to it from its players, as long as the following
> requirements are met:

So, the society can 'require'.  That would be an action.  If the charter has 
the society do whatever the founder says, then the founder can require 
anything; the unanimous thing only applies to inclusion in the charter.

> * All members must be required to contribute the same amount
> * If the player in question cannot meet the demands, no transfer is
made.

Who is the player in question?  What if the member's another society?  And 
do transfers from other members still take place?

> If a player leaves within 3 ndays of an Automatic
> Transfer, said Transfer is nullified.

And what if the Tranfered points/whatever have already been spent?  This is 
going into the past, which is bad.

> A player may Propose a Soceity at any time before the 7th nday, provided 
> they
> are not the Founder of any soceity.

Why that limitation?

> This is added to the Ballot as a Soceity Proposal. If the
> Soceity Proposal passes, a soceity with the specified name and charter, and 
> with the proposer as Founder, is created.

Why Propose a Society when you can just make a prop that creates a society?  
This would get around the founder limitation, by the way.

> Give bd the title, "Player of the month" [[ Title suggestions welcome ]]

Ok, now I'm wondering if the entire prop is a joke, especially considering 
the subject of the email.  If you are serious, why do you think you deserve 
that title, or any other for that matter?  And why would you include it in 
this prop?

> Ready...Get set...Point out flaws! (bang.)

Well, I've pointed out some specifics, but the biggest flaw I see is that I 
see no purpose to this prop.  It destroys all societies and allows dues; 
that's the only things I can see that some may see as positives, which I 
don't.  Yet another revision to the Societies rule is not what I think we 
need.  Every complete redo of anything in this game seems to introduce bugs; 
let's fix the bugs we got now.

Respectfuly,
Orc In A Spacesuit

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 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