Re: [s-d] [s-b] Sane Partnerships

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 3, 2007, at 9:34 PM, Mike McGann wrote:

> Can anyone tell me what the reasoning or purpose is for having
> partnerships and/or factions?

Partnerships are more of a logical amusement than anything else.  
They're fun for a little while, but I think the arguments are getting  
a bit old by now.

Factions, formerly known as Clubs, and Societies before that, are  
groups of players bound by some formal contract. The main thing we  
wanted them for, at least at first, was for formally managing mutual  
resources. For example, one common theme long ago was to create  
subgame societies; any player could join by paying points to the  
society, and the members would play some subgame, completely  
independently of the main game, with rewards being paid out by the  
society from the society's own treasury. This was useful because it  
made the subgame administration completely independent of the main  
game, which meant we could play subgames without imposing more work on  
the Administrator.

Whether they're really necessary for this is unclear.

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