On Mon, 1 Apr 2013, Wes Contreras wrote: > On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > If we don't want them in general, we'd need to make sure that the > > rules explicitly forbid anyone but a first-class person from being > > defined as a person. > > We find the concept of Second-Class Persons to be useful, and agree > that Player-hood should be restricted to First-Class Persons. It's > only Second-Class Players that we find baffling, and that create > seemingly unnecessary complications in the Rules. The history makes > sense, and it was probably necessary at the time, but the tighter > definition of person-hood would seem to address the same potential > problems in a more elegant way. No reason to have two solutions for > the same problem, after all. At least not when one of them makes our > brain hurt.
You'll get no arguments from me on this score. I think the "second-class player" stayed around because, when the CFJ found that a second-class person could register, many first-class players (naturally!) rushed and formed partnerships so they that everyone could have a puppet or three - balance of power, you know. Having got our new toys, we (collectively) wanted to play with them for a while instead of outright banning them. Of course, one by one more restrictions were put on second-class players (can't Support/Object, can't Judge, limited registration rights, can't vote...) until now they're fairly useless IMO. Slave golems have been used for ownership scams, criminal scams, and currency scams. Anything genuinely "useful" in there? -G.
