> On Sep 2, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 09/02/17 17:37, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> I think we could upgrade Agencies to that they can hold Shinies themselves. >> With that plus proper Powers, they could operate extremely similarly to how >> I believe Organizations are intended to. (And even WITHOUT that, they still >> can, although with a bit less safety because its not as stalwart as "brutha >> choo cant do it, its da LAW" and more like "you get a card if you break this >> rule we made...". Just make an abstract wallet of shinies as a subsection of >> some player's existing wallet) > > In general I'm supportive of making some combo of agencies and organizations, > but there's some problems with this proposed method. Keeping shinies in a > single player's possession defeats all the merits of an escrow scheme: they > can spend them without any issue (unless we add punishments, which I think is > the wrong direction), they can change the agency without others' input (orgs > typcially require member approval), and if they deregister the shinies are > gone. The whole point of using an org as a middleman is that, if the org is > structured correctly, there's no way to cheat people out of the assets it > holds.
Someone - you? - noted that it’s very hard to write an organization charter that’s both fully specified and readable. If we only want escrow, we can have that, I think. One alternative might be to “hard-code” more of the mechanical aspects of Organizations. Every organization bar one has a variation on the “without objection by a member” clause on changing the charter; the flexibility of being able to provide other mechanisms has not, to my knowledge, been used, and could be stripped by promoting that clause to a Rule, or a Regulation. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
