From: owner-acka-research-digest@muppetlabs.com (acka-research-digest) To: acka-research-digest@muppetlabs.com Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #172 Reply-To: acka-research@muppetlabs.com Sender: owner-acka-research-digest@muppetlabs.com Errors-To: owner-acka-research-digest@muppetlabs.com Precedence: bulk acka-research-digest Monday, August 3 1998 Volume 03 : Number 172 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 00:21:06 -0400 (EDT) From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: CFD: Poobahs My only comments are ones that have been made previously. Please turn off whatever funky quotes you are using so that 'normal' quotes appear in the text of the messages that you are submitting to the tabulator :) - --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 00:57:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Brandon Ray Subject: Acka test I have tried to fix the problem with my "quote" marks. Will someone please respond to this message and let me know if it is fixed? Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 02:47:16 -0400 (EDT) From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" Subject: Re: Acka: CFD: Poobahs Initially, I ignored this proposal because I didn't like the concept and was going to vote against it anyway. But after having seen about 4 or 5 versions fly across my screen, I'm thinking that maybe it isn't so bad, provided it is fixed up a little. > B. The Greater Poobah shall be that player who had the greatest number > of proposals accepted during the most recent calendar week, as > determined by the Tabulator. The Lesser Poobah shall be that player who > > had the fewest number of proposals rejected during the most recent > calendar week, as determined by the Tabulator. For purposes of this > rule only, the Tabulator shall count only those proposals for which > voting expired during the most recent calendar week. This section would work better if it said each poobah was the player with the xxx number of proposals blah blah "from among those players eligible to be a poobah", then in D defined those characteristics as making players ineligible. As written, it is essentially impossible to be lesser poobah with any proposals at all rejected, since there are always players in any given week who don't submit proposals. > E. In the event that two or more players shall be equally qualified to > be proclaimed Greater or Lesser Poobah, the Tabulator shall resolve the > tie using the Ackanomic dice, with each player’s chance of selection > (among those qualified) being equally weighted. This is good, except you have a funny character in place of the apostrophe. It should be this one: ' > F. In the event that no player shall be qualified to be proclaimed > Greater or Lesser Poobah, the Tabulator shall proclaim that the office > for which no player qualified will remain vacant for that calendar > week. The other office, however, shall be filled in the normal manner. > G. In the event that one player qualifies for both offices, the player > shall be proclaimed to be the Greater Poobah, and the office of Lesser > Poobah shall be proclaimed to be vacant for that calendar week. This does weird things in combination with the tie-breaker rule. If, in one week, one player has 3 proposals accepted and 1 rejected, one has 3 proposals accepted and none rejected, and one has 2 proposals accepted and none rejected, and there are no other competitors for the poobah offices, this section gives mr 3-0 the greater poobah office without mr 3-1 getting a random chance at it, and leaves the lesser poobah empty when there were valid candidates. In Acka, when the rules don't state otherwise, the later parts of a rule take precedence over earlier parts of the same rule when there is a conflict, so this would knock out all the other candidates *and* the random choice when one candidate qualifies for both offices. I doubt you really intended this. Instead, have the Greater Poobah be chosen first, and make the newly chosen G.P. be ineligible for the Lesser Poobah office. > H. The Greater Poobah shall have the following duties: > > 1. Sign all is posts with the phrase: “So spake the Greater Poobah, may > his name be revered!” > > 2. To proclaim imself to be The funny quotes again, which you've corrected in your later mail, and your spivak is faulty. Spivak is the name for those funny neuter pronouns we use in Acka, and the proper forms are e (for he/she/it/they), em (for him/her/it/them), emself, eir (for his/her/its/their) -- they all start with e. > co-sponsor of at least one but not more > than three proposals written by other players, and for which voting > expires during the seven days following the moment e was proclaimed to > be Greater Poobah. This could be a problem if it should happen that nobody submitted a proposal that week, or all of them have their results posted before the GP gets a chance to do anything. We have had proposal-less weeks, mainly due to some crisis situation. I suggest removing the minimum 1 proposal co-sponsored, or just specify a penalty (equal to 1 failed regular proposal) for failure to co-sponsor a proposal, and in either case make it a duty. > I. The Lesser Poobah shall have the following duties: All my comments for the GP above applies here as well. > J. Neither the Greater Poobah nor the Lesser Poobah shall receive any > salary soley for serving as a Poobah. This shall not prohibit a player > from receiving salaries, payments, gifts, or any other benefit to which > the Rules may entitle im. "solely". "em". > H. Where conflicts occur, this rule takes precedence over all other > rules pertaining to Offices. You can probably do without this, and some players would prefer that you just took precedence over the rules or rule sections that actually conflict with this rule, but for a rookie rule writer and a rule without large-scale effects, this should be OK. You probably want to say that nobody can ever become an acting poobah, as this would just cause too much confusion, IMHO, and *that* clause should take precedence over any rule that would try to cause somebody to become an acting poobah. Also specify that the offices may only be filled by the method described in this rule, with precedence. /dev/joe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 08:26:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Towsner Subject: Re: Acka test >I have tried to fix the problem with my "quote" marks. Will someone >please respond to this message and let me know if it is fixed? > >Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. Yup, it works. - -- - -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 08:26:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Walmsley Subject: Re: Acka: CFD: Poobahs >A. There shall be two new Functional optional offices, the Greater >Poobah and the Lesser Poobah. [...] >J. Neither the Greater Poobah nor the Lesser Poobah shall receive any >salary soley for serving as a Poobah. This shall not prohibit a player >from receiving salaries, payments, gifts, or any other benefit to which >the Rules may entitle im. If you make the offices political then you could probably do away with this bit about the salary which seems somewhat imprecise. This is only a matter of aesthetics though, I don't view this as a major problem. Brie Clump. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 12:16:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Brandon Ray Subject: Re: Acka: CFD: Poobahs Many thanks for the helpful suggestions. I took most of them. I've now submitted the (hopefully) final version to the 'bot. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 18:08:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Brandon Ray Subject: Acka - Why #3344? As a Newbie, I fail to grasp the purpose of Proposal 3344. Can someone (like the author) explain what it would do? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 18:31:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Walmsley Subject: Re: Acka - Why #3344? >As a Newbie, I fail to grasp the purpose of Proposal 3344. Can someone >(like the author) explain what it would do? Essentially, if it passed it would give one random player a win. Check out rule 601. It's also a very silly proposalas is quite comon here in Acka. I also hhave a sneaking suspicion that the author may have some sort of scam planned for if it passes, although I can't for the life of me see why. Brie Clump. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 18:34:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Towsner Subject: Re: Acka - Why #3344? >It's also a very silly proposalas is quite comon here in Acka. I also hhave >a sneaking suspicion that the author may have some sort of scam planned for >if it passes, although I can't for the life of me see why. Doesn't he have a Felicitous Populi card? - -- - -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 18:38:08 -0400 (EDT) From: JT Subject: Re: Acka - Why #3344? On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote: >>As a Newbie, I fail to grasp the purpose of Proposal 3344. Can someone >>(like the author) explain what it would do? > >Essentially, if it passed it would give one random player a win. Check out >rule 601. Actually, it will give 0 or 1 players a win depending on whether or not the person selected by the OiCoRT had actually submitted a paradox win :) >It's also a very silly proposalas is quite comon here in Acka. I also hhave >a sneaking suspicion that the author may have some sort of scam planned for >if it passes, although I can't for the life of me see why. Either that or he's hunting cows, which is my personal belief :) - --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 18:40:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Walmsley Subject: Re: Acka - Why #3344? >>It's also a very silly proposalas is quite comon here in Acka. I also hhave >>a sneaking suspicion that the author may have some sort of scam planned for >>if it passes, although I can't for the life of me see why. > Doesn't he have a Felicitous Populi card? Why, yes. So e does. That'll be the scam then I suppose. Brie Clump. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 18:43:12 -0400 (EDT) From: JT Subject: Re: Acka - Why #3344? On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote: >>>It's also a very silly proposalas is quite comon here in Acka. I also hhave >>>a sneaking suspicion that the author may have some sort of scam planned for >>>if it passes, although I can't for the life of me see why. >> Doesn't he have a Felicitous Populi card? > >Why, yes. So e does. That'll be the scam then I suppose. Either that or just vote it down and let him find the dratted mu-cow treasure :) (personally, I would like to see that treasure die as well) - --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ End of acka-research-digest V3 #172 ***********************************