[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 38 BALLOT

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

> From: "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Proposal 1407/1: From some other beginning's end (Orc In a Spacesuit)
>
> No.  Excessively harsh, and somehow feels fragile.

Just curious:  Fragile how?  I'm not going to campaign for a vote change or 
anything; I'm just wondering why it seems that way.

> > Proposal 1422/3: Unlikely Icecapades (Orc In a Spacesuit)
>
> Shelve.  I think the use of the word "possessed" in this proposal is 
> meaningless or redundant, as there doesn't appear to be a definition in the 
> rules for it except as implied: "among the items one is carrying".  Did the 
> proposer perhaps mean "owned"?

No, I did not.  I'll refer you to Rule 301.B.3.  The reason I use "possessed 
or carried" rather than just a single term is that some places the rules use 
"possessed", other places they use "carried".

> > Proposal 1427/0: Forfeiture: New and Improved! (Orc In a Spacesuit)
>
> Shelve.  I think this is a bit excessive for what it does, but mostly I'm 
> still waiting for clarification on whether ceasing to be a former player 
> might result in any stat restoration.

Yes, that is an issue that should be resolved, and I'll do so if the prop is 
shelved.  However, I would like to point out that as things are right now, 
nothing says a player loses eir charm or inventory on forfeiting, nor lose 
them or have them reset upon rejoining.  Heck, right now, they don't even 
cease to be players if you interpert the rules conservatively.

> > Proposal 1428/0: I'm Not Too Old to Work! (M-Tek)
>
> Yes.
>
> >Proposal 1429/0: Re-tilling Olive Harvesting (M-Tek)
>
> Yes.
>
> >Proposal 1430/0: Stop orc slurring, for a price (bd)
>
> No.  I understand Mr. in a Spacesuit isn't planning to vote Yes on it.  
> Besides, I'd rather see the slurring rule tightened.
>
> >Proposal 1431/2: If It IS Broke, Fix It! (Glotmorf)
>
> Yes.
>
> >Proposal 1432/1: Ehem, no, I think I'd like to just stay here (Orc In a
> >Spacesuit)
>
> Yes.
>
> >Proposal 1433/0: Tweaking Justice (Orc In a Spacesuit)
>
> Shelve.  I think the last change is unnecessary.  The first change is 
> interesting.  The second change makes me think we should swap in alternate 
> Upper House members should an appellate judge quit or go on leave in the 
> middle of a judgment.

I personally agree that the last change is unnecessary; however, Dave 
appears to prefer things be done that way, at least as far as I can tell 
from what he's said about me changing what ruling I agree on for this recent 
CFI.  Which reminds me, the judges are in deadlock; Dave, you get to rule on 
this one.
The first change I have felt necessary for some time; as it stands now, 
ruling are just personal opinions with no effect, except for the Will of 
Dave.
Your suggested revising of the second change would make that rule all 
complicated.
> > Proposal 1434/0: You gotta do things yourself (Orc In a Spacesuit)
>
> Item 1: No.  This won't stop the phenomenon you're trying to stop; it'll 
> just make it more work for everyone involved.

I'm not quite sure I understand.  Activity changes come as a result of 
votes, and activity changes affect things like garbage collection.  If only 
votes the actual player actually made are counted, then it will be a better 
measure of Activity.
I'm not trying to stop anything other than players getting credit for being 
active when they're not.

> Item 2: Shelve.  Take out the "proxy" stuff.  That has genuine value, 
> especially if you're touting automation scripts as an alternative to 
> society membership requirements.

If a player wants to give a proxy to a society, e can do it manually; or, e 
can set eir script to "If an M-Tek position is issued for any proposal on a 
current ballot, and I have not yet voted on that proposal, I cast a vote on 
that proposal identical to the M-Tek position on that proposal."
Anything more than that would be giving societies power I don't think they 
should have.  Heck, I don't think they should have near the power they would 
have if this passes, but that gets more into personal opinion, and I try to 
keep that out of proposals I see as a fix.

> Item 3: No.  With privilege comes responsibility.  This takes away any 
> requirement that a member of society obey its rules or be responsible for 
> anything.

Right now, a member doesn't have to obey the rules or be responsible for 
anything, so what you say does not make sense.  At all.  Any member can 
leave rather than obeying any rule or upholding any responsibility.  And if 
this passes, a society can kick out a member who breaks a rule or fails a 
responsibility, or inflict other punishment it might be capable of (removal 
of position, denial of salary...).
Either way, net result is
Member Disobeys -> Member no longer a Member.

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