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

[Alex Truelsen <dichotomousmind@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/27/05, Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> 
> > Also read about zarpint's tax refuge.
> > http://www.bnomic.org/cgi-bin/moin.cgi/ZarpintsTaxShelter
> > Maybe if parties can only exist with one person as a member for only a 
> few days.
> 
> In the days of Societies that sort of thing was almost encouraged. We had 
> a few props that tried to fix it, but they all failed. Most of them relied 
> on making "Stub Societies" powerless - in order to do anything with your 
> Club, you needed at least three members.
> 
> With Parties I don't think it's an issue because they can't do anything 
> yet anyway.

 And (at least in my view of how they work) likely won't ever, really. The 
idea is to say "this is a clearly defined power bloc, and this is another 
one, and (maybe) this is a third. To get a proposal through, you will need 
one or two of these blocs to back you up." I'm not sure what that will do to 
politics in this game. Making them more transparent is good, but it also 
makes them less fluid, although I imagine many proposals won't have parties 
taking stances on them. I would like it best if there were enough groups 
(say, five) that you had to convince several of them to support you on a 
tough proposal, and there would be some trading of favors involved, and... 
y'know, general politicking stuff. But then, odds are there are a dozen 
different ideas about where this should go at the moment, so I'm also 
interested in seeing how people subvert and destroy my happy little setup 
here.
 I mean that in the nicest way, of course.
 [[BvS]]

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