On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > comex wrote: >> On 6/18/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I submit the following proposal, titled "Repeal Partnerships" (AI=2, II=0): >> >> I wouldn't support repealing partnerships altogether-- for example, >> the AFO provides a nice place for Murphy and I to store crops-- but >> there are definitely some negatives: >> - large numbers of scam partnerships makes a lot of scams possible >> that otherwise would require a very large number of people >> - partnerships like the AFO mean that many scams that would otherwise >> require cooperation can be done by one person (this increases scams' >> potential destructiveness and, to be honest, makes them less >> interesting) >> >> How about: a person can only be part of one partnership at a time, >> partnerships only become eligible to register 24 hours after they >> become public? This would make things a little more sane while >> keeping partnerships in the rules. > I don't really like that. Personally, I'd prefer it if there were a > way to restrict things to /interesting/ partnerships, like the > PerlNomic Partnership, which I don't want to lose.
How about: "Any contract (which meets the requirements) may become a Partnership without 3 objections"? It works for contests, why not partnerships? BobTHJ
