On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:16 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 5698 D 1 3.0 comex Power Patent Titles >> AGAINST. Simply upmutating R1922 would not make it any more difficult >> to award the patent titles defined within. For that, you need to >> upmutate R649. Also, I see no reason it needs to be Power 3. If you >> want to make Power-3 prerogatives, then upmutate R2019. > > Well, if prerogatives were Power=3 but not Patent Titles, a scamster > could award eir fellows the Power=3 prerogatives at Power=1 (by giving > them Minister without Portfolio). I suppose that this isn't the end > of the world...
Power 1.5, actually, but I grant that. I'm not saying that I wouldn't support upmutating R649, just that Power 3 seems unnecessary. It only takes Power 2 to award a win (apart from win by proposal, of course), and I have no problem with a Power-2 win having Power-3 rewards, as long as the Power-2 entity can't define the nature of those rewards. Take registration as an analogy. Registration has a Power-3 benefit (the ability to vote on democratic proposals), but that doesn't mean that registration needs to be tightly regulated at power 3 as well. -root
