On Wed, 19 Nov 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > An Organization is a type of entity. The following changes are secured:
> > > creating, modifying, or destroying an Organization; and causing an
> > > entity to become an Organization or cease to be an Organization. No
> > > entity that existed before the enactment of the first revision of this
> > > rule is an Organization.
> >
> > Have we needed the "no previous entity" clause before? We've brought
> > back common words ("contracts", "points" etc.) without needing this
> > no-retroactive clause.
>
> I was worried about a scam along the lines of "I enact the proposal in
> such a way that the "Organization" classification applies to the Town
> Fountain". I'm not sure that's physically possible, but am not entirely
> sure.
How about "An Organization is a type of entity that has been created as
as an Organization as explicitly described by the rules."
> > The Report should be called the Switchboard.
>
> That doesn't go in the proposal itself, does it?
No, just random comment.
> > > It is IMPOSSIBLE, by any means, to change a Budget switch from a zero to
> > > nonzero value, except with the consent of the player included in the
> > > pair to which that Budget switch applies. This rule takes precedence
> > > over any rule that might make such a change possible.
> >
> > What constitutes "consent" here? The Rights had "explicit, willful"
> > consent. Is this a lower standard? What's the burden, does silence =
> > consent? Can an organization say in its charter "setting a positive
> > budget for this organization is considered consent for later changes"?
> > (defining a precise standard for Consent is an important mousetrap
> > or binding agreement consideration).
>
> I thought about various wordings. One thing I was experimenting with is
> "wilful, and explicit except if the player's doing the switching
> emself", but couldn't word it properly. So I decided to leave it vague
> and wait for the wordings.
How about this:
A "member" of an Organization is a player for which the pair consisting
of that Organization and that player has a nonzero Budget. When a
player becomes a member of an organization, e "joins" that organization.
A player CANNOT join an organization without eir own explicit consent;
this takes precedence over any rule that might make such a change possible.
[This assumes that clear attempts to join will be taken to be consent].
> > > Charter is an Organization switch, tracked by the Secretary, whose legal
> > > values are texts, and with default value "An amendment to this
> > > Organization is Appropriate if and only if all members of this
> > > Organization consent to it.".
> >
> > Again, consent questions. I assume private consent is ok in organizations?
>
> Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. In general, because the Secretary has to
> track this stuff, e needs enough information to know whether the
> amendment actually worked.
Does e? If a member purports to make a change by announcement, and the
Secretary reports it, then another member might CoE it and it could go
to the Courts, who then have to dig into burden of proof. This is how
it worked with Contracts and the Notary IIRC. Even if the default
charter is rarely or never used, the actions that confirm
appropriateness (internal voting, whatever) will often be private.
Maybe, just for the pure default, add "public" to "consent" so the
default is "all out in the open". Though then we run against the
adequate review idea... hmmm, make the default "...is Appropriate iff
it is performed w/o Member Objections"?
> I meant "flip". Using switch language because it's pretty much the only
> thing we have right now for keeping gamestate changes working correctly
> without a load of definitions.
Sure, works if you change it to "flip".
> > > If an Organization's Income is ever lower than 50, that Organization
> > > Collapses, destroying the Organization. Any players who were members of
> > > the Organization immediately before its Income reduced below 50 CANNOT
> > > become (or be caused to become) members of Organizations (regardless of
> > > who actually flips the switch), and cannot create Organizations, for 7
> > > days after the collapse.
> >
> > What's the 7-day limit meant to prevent/control? I see that a general
> > limits on Org creation somewhere would be needed, but not sure on the
> > logic tying it to collapse.
>
> Basically, repeatedly destroying and recreating the same Organization.
> In older versions of the proposal, this would have been massively
> scammable. In this one, it doesn't obviously seem to be, but I didn't
> want to create a bunch of extra work for the Secretary if it turns out
> useful for something.
>
> We can probably just remove this?
I think some limit (just "can't create more than N per week"?). Tying
it to collapse isn't *bad*, I just didn't see why (remnant from past
draft makes sense).
Think that's it for me for now!
-G.
