acka-chess Digest Saturday, January 30 1999 Volume 04 : Issue 001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Acka: Chess: Gotta pay to play Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:52:25 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, John Bollinger wrote: > > JT wrote: > >On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, John Bollinger wrote: > >>I hereby give notice that certain Swingerships which used to belong to > >>parties will be caused (by me) to disappear if they are not changed into free > >>swingerships soon. I changed what used to be Vulcan's swingership weeks ago, > >>so everyone has had plenty of time and warning. > > > >And there is a prop in the queue that fixes swingerships. Just because > >you paid when you did not need to is no reason to require everyone else to > >do so. The prop in the queue does not fix anything for Swingership whose parties were dissolved during the week that it's in the queue. > > I am rather against the kind of fix-up provisions that are at the head of > P 4020. If we do something that has unexpected effects then I find it > much more satisfying to play through it than to write a "Let's make it > all better" prop. Now P4020 has more in it than just fixing up swingerships, > and I have voted for it, but I intend to make the fix-up part null if I > can. If I can't, then it is necessary anyway. Now, I freely admit that > there is a fine and indistinct line between LMIAB props and some others, > but I call 'em as I see 'em. There may also be times when LMIAB is > necessary, but this is clearly not one of them. Generally I am not in favor of "fix-it" proposals, however in this specific case there are several, shall we say, mitigating circumstances. First, the proposal does not only fix something that's broken, it also removes the restriction on the number of Free Swingership, and serves as a prelude to another proposal that intends to open up Chess to a larger portion of the population. I intend to keep the name Party Chess, and it will remain there, evidence to the history of Chess. It is interesting that Party Chess has actually become more significant then the Parties that it was created to serve. The same proposal could have been made even if we had not lost the org framework. It can be seen as part of a trend that existed almost since Party Chess was first played, to open up the game for more players. Adding Capital Swingers was one of of doing it, then doing away with both Capital Swingers and the NAP Swinger opened it even more. And there have always been some voices that supported divorcing Chess from Parties all-together. The current shaky status of Party Chess existed for several weeks. At any time people could have tried to take advantage of it to destory what was left of Parties, and forced Swingers to pay for their Swingerships to keep them. No one tried to do it, obviously no one was intent on carrying this through to a logical conclusion. > > > And actually, I don't believe you didpay. You couldn't convert > >your swingership into a free one unless it was a provisional swingership > >and since parties were NOT destroyed (see recent CFJ), they never became > >provisional, and therefore you couldn't perform the conversion. > >Nor in fact could Slakko. > > Naturally the parties still exist (for the time being) but are they still > parties? Hmmm. I have to think about this. Either Parties were destroyed weeks ago, and there all Party Swingership are long gone, or Parties were destroyed just this week, or will before P4020 passes/fails, and then all Party Swingerships have turned Provisional, in which case said proposals can't save them, only A$ can, or Parties were not destroyed, and then, if P4020 passes, they will be transformed into Free Swingerships. ThinMan, would you have preferred a proposal to transform Party Swingerships into Provisional Swingerships? (I'm not retracting the one queue). It might have been better, but I think it have had less of a chance of passing. Niccolo Flychuck > > ThinMan > > ------------------------------ From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger) Subject: Re: Acka: Chess: Gotta pay to play Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 20:57:33 -0500 (EST) Niccolo wrote: [Commentary about the effects of P4020 and longterm trends in Party Chess politics.] [I wrote:] >> Naturally the parties still exist (for the time being) but are they still >> parties? Hmmm. I have to think about this. > >Either Parties were destroyed weeks ago, and there all Party Swingership >are long gone, or Parties were destroyed just this week, or will before >P4020 passes/fails, and then all Party Swingerships have turned >Provisional, in which case said proposals can't save them, only A$ can, or >Parties were not destroyed, and then, if P4020 passes, they will be >transformed into Free Swingerships. My point was that the Swingership rule (11-1 ?) says that a swingerships' party attribute is either the name of a party or the null string. If parties ceased to be parties during the great Org deregulation then, one might argue, rule 11-1 forced party swingerships to become provisional swingerships back then. I think it more reasonable, however, to argue that the rule in question caused the appropriate nonentities to continue to be parties. What happens now, however, is a somewhat more difficult question. >ThinMan, would you have preferred a proposal to transform Party >Swingerships into Provisional Swingerships? Yes. >(I'm not retracting the one queue). It might have been better, but I think >it have had less of a chance of passing. That is probably true. Of course, under the current rules almost every proposal stands a fair chance of passing. Not that either fact makes much difference at this point. ThinMan ------------------------------ End of acka-chess Digest V4 #1 ******************************