Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Fun with Factions

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/26/07, Peter Cooper Jr. <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   So, here's my attempt to codify agreements in such as way that they
>   don't break things too much. The idea is that a Player can be a part
>   of only one Faction at a time, so that should stop people from being
>   a part of a bazillion groups at once.

There should be a better way to handle this than limiting Players to
one Faction at a time. This seems somewhat restrictive, especially
considering an agreement in the fashion of Primo Corporation, where a
given party has only a small fraction of the controlling interest in
the agreement.

>       An Agreement recognized by B Nomic is one that is between two or
>       more External Forces called Parties that explicitly describes:
>
>       * The parties to the Agreement.
>
>       * How it is possible to change which parties are part of the
>         agreement, if such changes are in fact possible.
>
>       * How any decisions that may need to be made on the agreement's
>         behalf will be performed, including how and if any changes to
>         the Agreement may occur.

I think this is a good definition

>
>       In addition, an Agreement recognized by B Nomic must:
>
>       * Only have parties that have explicitly consented to being
>         governed by the Agreement, and must allow any such party to
>         leave the Agreement at any time.
>
>       * Have its Agreement publicly available in an easily accessible
>         manner to all Players, such as on a web page.

Also very good

>       * There exists at least one Player of B Nomic who is a party to
>         the Agreement.

Why?

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