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

[SkArcher <SkArcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

18/06/2003 03:18:27, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 11:57  AM, bd wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Tuesday 17 June 2003 11:51 am, SkArcher wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> How about making it so the changing of a societies charter is 
>>> *allways* a
>>> valid reason to quit a society? That way charter changes that 
>>> institute too
>>> harsh lock in mechanisms will simply be ineffective.
>>
>> I know - mandate that all charter changes need to be announced 3 ndays 
>> early,
>> and any members can leave at any time during that.
>
>I suppose... I always favored a more "let the buyer beware" method - 
>let people create whatever societies they want, and if you don't trust 
>a given society not to nail you, don't join. If you go ahead and join 
>anyway, and get screwed over for it, well, whose fault is that?

It is more than *changes* to the society charter can be enacted, so that you suddenly become subject to rules 
that were not in evidence beforehand. I would definitely say that an 'opt out' clause should be put into the 
society rules

SkArcher 


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