On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I post the following Buy Ticket:
> Action: Transfer 20 VP to Pavitra.
> Cost: 19 VP.
> Target: comex.
>
> [This will raise your VP to 50 temporarily, giving you another two
> months to get it there in a more stable fashion. In addition, you have
> a week to pay me back, which you may find useful.]
>
>
> Also, with the majority consent of the other parties, I intend to
> amend the Vote Market agreement as follows:
> {
> Append a new paragraph, numbered 13, reading:
> 13. Upon the creation of this paragraph, 23 VP are created in the
> possession of the Reformed Bank of Agora, and then this paragraph is
> deleted.
>
> After the above-created paragraph is deleted, append the sentence "VP
> CANNOT be created by any other means." to paragraph 7.
>
I like this part.
> Amend paragraph 8 to read:
> 8. Any first-class party with 50 or more VP, or any party that is not
> a first-class person, can cease to be bound by the Vote Market
> agreement by announcement. Upon such an announcement, if e is a
> first-class person, 50 VP held by em are destroyed. Regardless of
> whether e is a first-class person, any remaining VP are transferred to
> the Broker. A party CANNOT cease to be party to this agreement by any
> other means. Regardless of the above, a party CANNOT cease to be bound
> by this agreement if e has an unfulfilled obligation imposed upon em
> by this agreement.
>
> Append a new paragraph, numbered 13, reading:
> 13. VP CANNOT be destroyed by any means except as specified in
> paragraph 8 of this contract. Whenever they would be destroyed by any
> other means, the VP to be destroyed are instead transferred to the
> Broker. The Broker CANNOT cease to be bound by this agreement while e
> is the Broker.
> }
>
> [The intent is that the total number of VP in existence should always
> equal 50 times the number of first-class parties.]
>
I agree with keeping the Vote Market a zero-sum economy. However, I'd
rather not see excess VP transferred to me, instead why not let the
leaving player keep their extra VP? Worst case we can add a provision
to allow those excess VP to be re-distributed into the market with a
majority consent vote or something (in the case that the player went
inactive).
BobTHJ
