Subject: Commentary on Active Proposals (77 and 86-92)

From: Gallivanting Tripper <s3036845@s...>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:24:17 +1000 (EST)

Proposal 77 - Consequence Precedents - Expeditious

This one is a bit Problematic, because it is contingent on an illegal
proposal (P76) However the re-posted proposal (P78) was adopted so I'd
argue that common sense should prevail and this should be available for
Adoption. Anyway,by setting the idea of precedent for Behaviour
Consequences, it would make the whole Behaviour thang playable, instead of
having to Vote on every single occasion. And it only needs one more FOR
vote to pass....!

Proposal 86 - Operating Grants - Expeditious, but not without Proposal 87!

I have a working draft for a Gaming House that would be completely
non-profit and, dare I say, feed Tax money back into our community. It's
ready to go as soon as this Proposal Passes....

Proposal 87 - No Scamming - Most Expeditious, because without it
unscrupulous Operators could siphon unlimited amounts of Points from the
State. How remiss of me to not check that in the first place....

Proposal 88 - Thumbprint- Highly Expeditious to enable the Guillotine to
actually work

Proposal 89 - Snarfing
I'm not completely sold on the whole Stairmaster idea, so I suspect I'll be
voting AGAINST this, but I can't say that its particularly recalcitrant
though.

Proposal 90 -Incense
Although this will probably speed up the Admin thing, I'll go off on a
tangent to say that the best place for ruleset compilations is probably in
the Files section of the egroups interface, to reduce congestion of the
archive itself. I'm not sure how to legislate this though...

Proposal 91 - Simple Proposition
Good to see the first self-deleting Rule of Socialnomic, but as it's just a
points grab for ruleset complilations which I've already cryptically
criticised, I'll say "recalcitrant".In any case, I'd like to see some
proposals defeated so that you guys will start taking out Insurance!

Proposal 92 - The Dispossessed
Hear hear! Expeditious.

Proposal 93 - B Coli
Cute, but gratuitous. Since I always picture Socialnomic as a refined and
cerebral nomic, I'll censure such silliness as Recalcitrant

---

From: rsholmes@m...
Date: 28 Aug 2000 10:05:23 -0400

> ready to go as soon as this Proposal Passes....

It seems to me that there would be nothing to prevent any player from
setting up N Temporary Institutions (with a dissolution date of, say,
1 Jan 3001) whose sole purposes would be to funnel their Startup
Grants to their owner; to do the same with Operating Grants after
every Tax Man visit; and to launder any trade requests that player
wants to make or accept, thereby evading taxes. [N is the number of
players minus the number of temporary institutions then in existence
(and right now, there are none.)] Having done so, no other player
could ever again establish a temporary institution (until a new player
joins, and/or the Rules are changed.) This strikes me as
recalcitrant.

Comments?

> State. How remiss of me to not check that in the first place....

They still can, just more slowly. I voted for this, because P86 is
completely recalcitrant without it, but I still sniff recalcitrance.

> voting AGAINST this, but I can't say that its particularly recalcitrant

I think Stairmaster needs a rehab if it's to be viable myself (hence
P80, but that evidently wasn't what was wanted...). Still, as long as
it's on the books, I see no reason to oppose improving its language,
making this an expeditious revision.

> cerebral nomic, I'll censure such silliness as Recalcitrant

Um, which VML archive are you reading?? I see Proposal 92 - B Coli,
and no Proposal 93.

I do, however, see what appears to be an illegal [*] vote for Proposal
93 from a G. Tripper.

- Doctroid

[*] "A Rule-Change shall be Voted upon if and only if it was Proposed
in the manner described in this Rule and it has not been Retracted."
Rats. I was hoping it was legal to vote on a Proposal before it was
Proposed, so I could submit a Proposal 93 with assurance that Tripper
had already voted for it...

---

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@l...>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 17:44:14 -0000

> joins, and/or the Rules are changed.) This strikes me as
A most oomny analysis. On which note I should like to call into 
question the charter of our single Institution, SPLA(T), and also 
look askance at Rule 24 itself.

What we have here is the ability to create personal or local Rules .. 
and not just ones that might have small effects, but ones that could 
wreack changes in the, for want of a better term, economic, fabric of 
SocialNomic. And these Institutions are chartered without approval of 
the Players of SocialNomic.

-Oloros, pondering the etymology of the term 'to eighty-six'

---

From: Gallivanting Tripper <s3036845@s...>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 10:49:24 +1100

Dudes! What we have here is cumulative failure to read fine print.....

>> ready to go as soon as this Proposal Passes....

[Doctroid]
>joins, and/or the Rules are changed.) This strikes me as

This would be an excellent scam if it were possible. In fact it is not, as
P86 only allows Startup Grants to be made to Permanent Institutions, of
which each Player can create only One (ever). Furthermore, to stop Point
Funneling, P86 legislates that should a Permanent Institution be Abandoned
by a Vote of Abandonment, the founding player will lose the amount of the
Operating Grant. That pretty much wraps it up.

>completely recalcitrant without it, but I still sniff recalcitrance.

Quite slowly, indeed. Seeing that Players can gain points quite regularly,
it seemed like a good idea to give those most hallowed Permanent Institions
an income as well. But it's hardly likely to be more than 3
points/insitition/week...

[oloros]
wreak changes in the, for want of a better term, economic, fabric of
[end]

Yes, the provenance of Rule 24 is quite open to interpretation, as
discussed previously. Nevertheless I would argue that it doesn't allow
changes in the Economic Fabric as such, because it does not allow currency
to be created or destroyed. What it does allow is for Players to create
"front companies" that will perform transactions automatically without the
need for direct authorisation from that Player. Simple as that -
streamlining of commerce. For example, SPLA(T) will only pay out insurance
if it has enough in the bank, otherwise it will bankrupt and disappear.
Similarly, no-one can buy Triangles off KNPS if no-one has sold it
Triangles in the first place (which is why Doctroid invested 30 points to
enable KNPS to do a bit of business in the first place) Of course,
Permanent Institutions may qualify for Operating Grants, but these come
from the State, and ultimately from out Taxes. So I don't see any economic
short-circuiting.

>I do, however, see what appears to be an illegal [*] vote for Proposal

I saw a Proposal 92 B-Coli, a Proposal 92 - The Disposessed and a Proposal
93- B-Coli in my inbox, from which I inferred that Oloros had posted two
P92s by mistake and reposted B-Coli as 93. But I haven't checked the
archive so I could be completely wrong.

>had already voted for it...
Like I said, I believe that 93 has been submitted already!

---

From: rsholmes@m...
Date: 29 Aug 2000 12:04:44 -0400

> Dudes! What we have here is cumulative failure to read fine print.....

Indeed. My bad. I'd overlooked the word "permanent" in the Operating
Grants proposal, and that greatly reduces the scam potential:
ironically, a temporary institution that did that, if it could, would
survive much longer than a permanent institution that tried it...

> from the State, and ultimately from out Taxes. So I don't see any economic

It should be noted, though, that the KNPS charter does *not* describe
its usual transactions as automatic; in theory (as I read the Rules
and charter) I need to approve and accept them. Or don't I? (My
point transfer for startup *was* automatic, because the Rules provide
for that.)

The one thing that bothers me about these automatic transactions is
that aside from point transfers to institutions, the Rules don't seem
to acknowledge or regulate them... and thus it's not clear whether,
for example, a transaction with KNPS whose points are calculated
incorrectly can be prosecuted as Illegal. In fact, as I said earlier,
since Rule 16 describes Trades as being Player-to-Player transactions,
I'm a little uncomfortable with the use of that mechanism for
Institution transactions -- I'm not at all sure I could defend such a
transaction (with or without correctly calculated points) as Legal if
Accused.

There's also the fact that SPLA(T) and KNPS can be dissolved with a
message to the DML. That bugs me, because the DML is supposed to be
strictly for discussion and until now, posting to the DML has had no
legal repercussions. And it still doesn't, in the sense that the
Rules don't govern such posts. On the other hand, there's nowhere
else to post dissolution messages -- such a message to any of the
other groups would be illegal. But the "legality" of a post to DML
cannot be challenged, because there's no such thing as an illegal post
to DML. Thus the whole Accusations mechanism is at least slightly
crippled with regard to prosecuting anything arising from shutting
down a semi-permanent Institution.

Our whole e-commerce policy needs updating, in other words...

- Doctroid

---

From: Gallivanting Tripper <s3036845@s...>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:16:39 +1100

A quick reply to a minor point.....

>down a semi-permanent Institution.

Although the DML is described as saying that nothing posted to it will
affect the game, that description is woefully incorrect. Here are some
game data that are affected and regulated through the DML
* Player Activity/Inactivity
* The recognition of Debutantes
* Changes in Social Standing through the use of In Words

So I find no problem with Institutions reacting to events in the DML. And
indeed there is no way to shut down an institution through the AML, because
the AML, like the VML and Rules, is tightly constrained about what kinds of
messages can be sent.

Cheers

gT