Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #160
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Tuesday, October 14 1997     Volume 02 : Number 160

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 
From: 
Subject: [none]

------------------------------

Date: 
From: 
Subject: [none]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:56:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RFC : Organization/Institution reform

ThinMan wrote:
> I _like_ player-sanctioned organizations.  Even if generic organizations
> are nuked, player-sanctioned organizations currently serve as a template
> covering both Political Parties and Churches.  (How would you start a
> new Church under the proposed rule?)  I am unclear on why generic
> organizations are a problem, however, or at least unclear on how any
> problem that may exist with generic organizations is solved by getting
> rid of them.  I could still use a Church as a tax shelter, for instance.
> I could attempt to utilize Malenkai's loophole through the creation of
> a Political Party.  These require some degree of cooperation from
> other players, but that can usually be arranged.

I agree with ThinMan.  Making institutions be unique organizations is
good; tearing down Mohammed's organization structure is bad --
particularly if you don't rebuild some of the necessary torn-down parts
[specific objections deleted].

In fact, I'd like to go further by adding an Org power called an Altar
to make churches/cults work more like other types of orgs.  I don't have
the proposal to do this written up, but I'm tossing the idea out for
consideration.

/dev/joe

------------------------------

End of acka-research-digest V2 #160
***********************************