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

["William Berard" <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/4/07, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> 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.



I agree with that. As far as the faction rules in B nomic are concerned,
their purpose in the current state of the rules seem to allow players to
merge their voting power. Partnerships as described in this proposal would
effectively give players taking part in them an extra bit of voting power,
which in my opinion in unfair to players whishing to remain independant.

Just because Agora choose to give what was a successful scam some formal
structure, effectively regulating it, because of its own history, does not
mean we have to do the same. I do not see why voting power should not be
equally distributed.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss