Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5564-5568
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5564 D0 2rootRepeal Partnerships AGAINST If I may ask, why do you support retaining a construct that is only useful for running scams? I don't believe that partnerships are only useful for running scams, although I do think that some reform is necessary to make it harder to use them to run scams. Quite frankly, having them run scams against other contracts doesn't bother me too much; I think the Bank of Agora thing could have been fixed by inserting first-class in one place, and if a contract isn't written to be robust it probably *should* be exploited.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5564-5568
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5564 D0 2rootRepeal Partnerships AGAINST If I may ask, why do you support retaining a construct that is only useful for running scams? Consider the AFO and its participation in the AAA and voting. Although partnerships are very useful for running scams, they are not solely useful for that purpose. In fact, consider also deregistered players playing through partnerships, which lets them violate the 30-day limit or an EXILE, at the cost of losing many capabilities of a real player and having to cooperate with their partners. I still think Groups wouldn't be such a bad idea. But not repealing the things altogether (which, IIRC you proposed before, when partnerships had just been created).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5564-5568
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also vote 4x(denounce Wooble) on every proposal. ehird Wait, no. I vote 4x(denounce root) on every proposal. Ineffective, unless you also retract your earlier votes. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5564-5568
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also vote 4x(denounce Wooble) on every proposal. ehird Wait, no. I vote 4x(denounce root) on every proposal. Ineffective, unless you also retract your earlier votes. Okay, I changed my mind. Wait, no is sufficiently clear in context to retract the quoted votes. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5564-5568
root wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also vote 4x(denounce Wooble) on every proposal. ehird Wait, no. I vote 4x(denounce root) on every proposal. Ineffective, unless you also retract your earlier votes. Okay, I changed my mind. Wait, no is sufficiently clear in context to retract the quoted votes. Are you also treating it as retracting ehird's unquoted votes?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5564-5568
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you also treating it as retracting ehird's unquoted votes? No. I also didn't feel particularly compelled to point that out. I retract my votes FOR proposals 5556, 5558, and 5564, and I vote PRESENT on each of those proposals. Does it seem odd to anybody else that the net effect of denouncing another player's vote on a democratic proposal is to damage that proposal's VI, regardless of which way the denounced player actually voted on it? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5564-5568
root wrote: Does it seem odd to anybody else that the net effect of denouncing another player's vote on a democratic proposal is to damage that proposal's VI, regardless of which way the denounced player actually voted on it? I can't answer that yet, because I haven't figured out the motivation for denouncing someone (I just threw it in for parallelism). The motivation for endorsing someone is presumably I don't really care about this proposal, but rather than voting PRESENT, I'll log-roll toward player endorsed with the assumption of some future payback.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5564-5568
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5564 D0 2rootRepeal Partnerships AGAINST If I may ask, why do you support retaining a construct that is only useful for running scams? -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5564-5568
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AGAINST (I still think partnerships have viable uses (such as the Bank of Agora). I would however support restricting the ability to create large quantities of partnerships in a short period of time) The Bank of Agora is useful, but the only reason it needs to be a player is so that it can generically hold assets. There are other ways of accomplishing the same effect. -root
