Murphy wrote:
While leaving both contracts in effect.
But "both" contracts would only be one person, so they couldn't
both register.
Even given that those M people might agree to create additional
partnerships out of proper subsets, thus forming a bloc of 2^M-1
voters (including the natural persons)? Granted, this is Not
Easy, either.
I'm not sure why this is a problem... assuming no-one enters a
partnership that is not in their interest, each partnership
at the limit gets 1/K of a vote where K is the number of natural
people in the partnership... things stay balanced. In reality,
people will form common interest groups when an alliance arises
and gain a shared vote that way. Really no biggie!
In fact, the simple, unregulated approach, where "person" is just
defined as "any unique set of one or more natural persons who
have agreed to form a partnership" is less powerful and more
elegant than Groups. Groups got extra powers, group votes, etc.,
that were more than a single "person" (eg partnership) would have.
By keeping persons and partnerships as the "same", granting extra
powers to partnerships would automatically confer them onto
individual players as well.
I don't mind that your first proposal be put to the vote... I
just wanted to point out that it wasn't so much a scam as really
trying to implement/define contract rules.
The second proposal, though, adds regulations without any game
benefits... it regulates partnerships into something that no one
would feel the need to join, so why bother?
-Goethe
