Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] BvS submits p28

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 26, 2005, at 11.04 PM, Alex Truelsen wrote:

> > Perhaps require that the Chair be a member of the Party?
>
>
> Hmm... yeah, there's that. I'd never even considered that it would be
> otherwise.

You might also note that a player who creates a new Party is 
automatically a member, though that's implicit in eir becoming Chair if 
you require the Chair to be a Party member.

> > > Each Political Party is responsible for establishing its own internal
> > > rules regarding the selection of Chairs, modification of its 
> > > Platform,
> > > requirements for joining (if any), conformity to the Party Line, and
> > > internal positions other than Chair, as well as any other rules the
> > > Party's members wish. No rule may attempt to alter the internal
> > > workings of an individual Party. This paragraph takes precedence over
> > > all other rules that contradict it.
> >
> > What good is the second-to-last sentence? It seems unlikely that
> > anybody would do such a thing accidentally, and anyone proposing to do
> > it intentionally would also presumably alter this rule to make it
> > legal. In effect you're just making it more irritating for future
> > players who may come up with an interesting way to do this.
>
> But I don't want people to be able to fiddle with the workings of 
> Parties
> that aren't theirs. If all this sentence does is make it slightly 
> harder to
> do so through a proposal, then it's still worth it - if a majority 
> really
> want that sort of chaos to be possible, then that's how it'll go. 
> Whether or
> not the loophole someone finds is interesting, if the purpose is to 
> sabotage
> another group of players, I don't like it. Win through a scam that 
> boosts
> you, not that pushes someone else down.

I don't think it makes it harder to do by proposal. It just makes 
whoever's doing it grumpier. As you said, if a majority really wants to 
do it, it'll happen anyway; if a majority doesn't want to do it, then 
it'll fail anyway. You're also assuming that the only reason anyone 
would want to do this is as a scam; what about a Party that does 
something stupid in its internal rules and suddenly becomes unable to 
elect a new Chairman, or some such thing? The members might then resort 
to a B Nomic proosal in order to bail themselves out.

I'm also wary of sentences like this because I'm one of very few 
players who have been playing continuously since before the rules reset 
- everyone who didn't vote for my emergency prop was expelled from the 
game and then reinstated because I needed to work around a similar 
clause in rule 33 designed to stop anyone from ever overriding the 
rule. I hate such clauses, because they very much get in the way when 
you least expect it.

--
Wonko

"If I ask you to pay attention to the weight of your body pressing on 
your buttocks as you set reading, you will momentarily stop reading."
	-David G. Myers, _Psychology: Myers in Modules_

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