Subject: Re: [DocNomic] Merger Proposal

From: "Tyrethali Ansrath" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 17:48:53 -0400

Jellyfish Plus Influences the World (And please note that, as leader, my 
score is 125, so that should be the doctrine's influence. I only got 110 
points last time I did this, and I'm pretty sure I should have gotten the 
125. But whatever.)

I then accept this merger.

>I propose a merger between Scamsters Anonymous and Jellyfish Plus.
>
>--
>Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 07 Aug 2002 15:00:09 -0400

> points last time I did this, and I'm pretty sure I should have gotten the 

OK, corrected, and then +125 Flock.

> I then accept this merger.

Merger succeeds. The new doctrine is "Scamsters Anonymous - Jellyfish
Plus". Members are Hubert, Jeff Weston, Stefano, Tyrethali. Precepts
are Open, Extremist, Strong-Minded. Leader is Jeff Weston. Flock is
925.

+25 to Tyrethali, +20 to Hubert, Jeff Weston, Stefano.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: "kevandavis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 08:28:46 -0000

> are Open, Extremist, Strong-Minded. Leader is Jeff Weston. Flock 
is

Hmm, this feels a bit unfair - Tyre accepted the merger when the 
Ruleset still stated that Leaders were selected at random (perhaps 
even thinking "I'd better accept this before the rule changes"), so 
should it have been processed under the old system?

I can see the elegance of processing all mailing-list messages in 
strict order (something like "This merger fails because mergers were 
repealed in the meantime" doesn't seem as bad), but I wonder if there 
should be some sort of clause about all game actions being performed 
*under the ruleset that was in effect at the time*. It seems wrong 
that the potential-effects of all pending-Proposals should have to be 
considered when taking any game actions.

(I'm very surprised that the "merging Leaders pretty-much 
automatically get to lead the new Doctrine" Proposal passed, 
incidentally.)

Kevan

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 08 Aug 2002 17:06:54 -0400

> should it have been processed under the old system?

This was not formally stated as a point of order, but I will treat it
as such.

I agree. An oversight; I previously have processed game actions
according to the rules in place at the time of the action. The leader
should have been chosen at random.

> Members are (1) Hubert, (2) Jeff Weston, (3) Stefano, (4) Tyrethali. 

Leader is:

1 random int 1 <= x <= 4:
3

Stefano.

> automatically get to lead the new Doctrine" Proposal passed, 

I'm not wild about it, but my attitude was that under the present
rules, the point-leader can pretty much grab the leadership position
anyway. Granted, Stefano now has a dun in which to take what Leaderly
actions e likes before Jeff seizes the leadership back, but that's not
much of a benefit.

If it were harder for the point-leader to seize power, or easier for
non-point-leaders, then I'd agree the old method was nicer.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:16:36 -0700 (PDT)

> 1 random int 1 <= x <= 4:

I Challenge for Leadership of "Scamsters Anonymous - Jellyfish Plus".

-- 
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 09 Aug 2002 12:44:35 -0400

> I Challenge for Leadership of "Scamsters Anonymous - Jellyfish Plus".

OK, pending.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 12 Aug 2002 10:28:24 -0400

> > I Challenge for Leadership of "Scamsters Anonymous - Jellyfish Plus".

Jeff is the new Leader.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: "Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:28:43 -0700 (PDT)

> +25 to Tyrethali, +20 to Hubert, Jeff Weston, Stefano.

The gamestate page seems incorrect as it does not list "Scamsters 
Anonymous - Jellyfish Plus" as having the Strong-Minded Precept.

-- 
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 30 Aug 2002 09:49:10 -0400

> Anonymous - Jellyfish Plus" as having the Strong-Minded Precept.

OK, thanks.

-- 
- Doc