On 6/20/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> * 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.
Sounds complicated.
> * 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?
I'm too lazy to be that proactive about it, nor do I want to get
bogged down in the extra requirements of multiple R1742 agreements
just to keep up with the Joneses.
> 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?
Because, as I alluded to in a previous bullet-point, partnerships in
official positions make me nervous. Just as I would feel nervous if
Microsoft were elected to congress.
-root
