root wrote:
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.
Don't over-fix the problem. For instance, if the Speaker is a
partnership and the CotC is a natural-person member of that
partnership, then the CotC should only be blocked from controlling
the partnership for the purpose of judging appeals to which the
CotC is individually assigned. Or individually barred. This
seems a good candidate for generalization, possibly by re-defining
transitive executorship.
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).
This is not limited to officer misconduct.
* 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.
Why don't the other natural players form their own partnerships
to compensate?
> And it's only in
principle that I don't object to partnerships winning the game; they
shouldn't become Speaker as a result.
Why not?
