On 6/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
> I *do*
>think that the existence of partnerships is damaging to the game.
How so? There are certainly a couple of problems with giving partnerships
the same status as natural persons, but we've implemented restrictions
accordingly. I don't see a problem with the existence or (second-class)
personhood of partnerships.
If partnerships were composed of non-player entities, e.g. if Wal-Mart
were to register, then I don't think there would be a problem. But in
practice the partnerships are constructed by players, resulting in
uneven representation of the natural players. This goes beyond just
Agoran decisions and dependent actions. Partnerships can still:
* Participate in matters of Agoran Consent. Agoran consent is a
specialized form of dependent action, so I assume this is just an
oversight.
* Hold office. This creates an obvious loophole around Rule 1450,
easily fixed using partnership bases. It also presents complications
for enforcement of penalties in cases of officer misconduct, due to
the possibility of scams as well as the fact that each agreement is
different (and some may not even be public, e.g. Second System
Effect).
* Serve as judges. This is a big one for me, because it results in an
uneven distribution of
judicial assignments among the natural players that gives some players
a greater say in the judicial system, as well as a greater share of
the VC rewards for judging on time. Appeals do this as well, but
those are assigned based upon player-approved official positions, not
upon arbitrary agreements.
* Abuse VCs. A player who controls a partnership can use the
partnership's VCs to raise eir own voting limit, and eir own VCs to
raise the partnership's voting limit, at a cost of 1 VC per vote. A
player outside of a partnership must resort to actual diplomacy to
achieve the same efficiency, or else just pay 2 VCs per vote, as Rule
2126 intends.
* Appeal judgments. With partnerships, we suddenly need only two
players to create an appeal instead of the traditional three.
* Serve on a partner's thesis committee.
At most points in Agora's history there would be more, but the ruleset
is pretty minimalist right now. About the only things partnerships
can do that I *don't* object to are submitting proposals, calling for
judgment, winning the game, and deregistering. And it's only in
principle that I don't object to partnerships winning the game; they
shouldn't become Speaker as a result.
-root
