Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Society Tweaking again!

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/16/03 at 10:55 PM Daniel Lepage wrote:

>On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 10:49  PM, Glotmorf wrote:
>
>> On 6/16/03 at 10:39 PM bd wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Monday 16 June 2003 10:28 pm, Daniel Lepage wrote:
>>>> 2. A list of restrictions on its members. Its members may not perform
>>>> any actions that the society forbids them from doing. No Society's
>>>> Charter may outright forbid a member from leaving the society, nor
>>>> may
>>>> it impose unreasonable restrictions on leaving. [[ Whether a
>>>> restriction is unreasonable is left to the Courts, but common sense
>>>> is
>>>> advised - giving back the Speeder given out by the society is
>>>> reasonable, but listing the last ten names in the Siberian Yellow
>>>> Pages
>>>> is not. ]]
>>>
>>> No - players must be able to leave a society *period*. Use some other
>>> mechanism for returning items.
>>
>> Perhaps societal possessions aren't exactly possessed by its members
>> as much as members have an "account" with a society, and societal
>> possessions are either free to be used as needed or assigned to
>> members' accounts.  That way, if a member leaves a society, e forfeits
>> eir account.  It's not as much a question of giving back items as it
>> is not possessing them in the first place.
>>
>> Or this could be a *gasp* standard method.
>
>The restrictions on quitting are not merely intended as a mechanism for
>returning borrowed goods; if that were the case, a better method could
>easily be devised. There are a number of reasons why a society might
>not want to let a member go immediately. Restrictions could include
>returning items, leaving certain Grid regions, setting up some sort of
>Offer to ensure that a given proposal is voted for, giving at least
>three ndays notice before quitting...
>
>If you fear being trapped by a society, remember that you can choose
>not to join any society with restrictions you don't want to meet.
>Remember also that Dave can veto any attempt to establish harsher
>restrictions while you're a member, and that anything too absurd is
>likely to be CFI'd down.

Hm.  I am somewhat motivated to put a rider on this to modify the CFI rule, such that if a society is named plaintiff or defendent the members of the society can't judge the CFI.

We're dancing around the consent issue again.  Granted, Dave can veto anything he thinks is to exploitative, but perhaps he should be able to, not only veto charter changes, but defer recognition of them until some condition of his choosing is met, like most or all of the members stating they agree to it.

BTW...I'm not finding anything that defines recognition of actions.  The rules say actions occur when they hit the public forum, but not that they're ever "recognized".  Did that get lost in some purge?

						Glotmorf

-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a blog study in Social Technology.
http://ix.1sound.com/ivoryminitower

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