From: owner-acka-research-digest@muppetlabs.com (acka-research-digest) To: acka-research-digest@muppetlabs.com Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #191 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 17 1998 Volume 03 : Number 191 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 06:09:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Raiter Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3383 accepted > Proposal 3383 - Fri 07 Aug 1998 02:41 EDT > What's in a Name > K 2 (Kelly Kelly) > > This is a Modest Proposal. > > {{[All this proposal does is replace Inactive with Vacationing, which Even though I like "vacationing" better than "inactive", I voted against this proposal. The reason: > Replace all occurrences of "an inactive" in the rules with "a Vacationing" > > Replace all occurrences of "becomes inactive" with "goes on Vacation" > > Replace all occurrences of "becoming Inactive" and "becoming inactive" with > "going on Vacation" > > Replace all occurrences of "become Inactive" and "become inactive" with > "gone on Vacation" Replace all occurrences IN THE RULES. You need to specify this! There are all kinds of Ackanomic documents, and proposals are the only ones that are specifically prohibited from being modified. CFJs and CFCJs remain actively recognized documents, for example, and there is precedent for them being modifiable at any time (cf the Spelling Bee). Whether anything besides the rules get modified or not, I'll leave up to the harfers concerned.... This is also one of the reasons I'm voting against Proposals 3423 and 3424, by the way. Also, I've noted before that this approach offloads a bunch of work onto me - especially when there are more than one global-replacements in a single proposal. I understand that the uncertainly of what proposals might pass after your proposal is submitted makes it hard to give a definitive list of rules to modify. But still. To support my argument that such global replacements should be avoided in general: > Replace all occurrences of "inactive" with "vacationing" except in Rule > 594.24 (Blueprint: Finger of Justice) if it exists. Unfortunately, Rule 594.24 still got amended by two of the prior global-replacements. Other, lesser important miswordings resulting from this proposal: In Rule 250, section V.a: "Players who gone on Vacation voluntarily may specify a duration at the time they specify they are going on Vacation." Rule 1250.23 has a few occurrences of "goes/gone vacationing". Finally, Rule 370 uses the word "inactivated", which needs to be fixed as well. breadbox ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:23:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3451 On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote: > Proposal 3451 > What You'll Find When You Open Up Your Letterbox Tomorrow > breadbox (Brian Raiter) > > {{[Rules 370 and 422 have become rather haphazard by now. This > proposal moves all player duties and restrictions into Rule 370, and > all Postmaster duties and privileges into Rule 422. The definitions > regarding the Postal Code are placed into a new Rule 370.1. This reminds me. Would it be possible for the backup list at makelist.com to be added to the list of public fora in the Postal Code? Yours, Slakko - -- Duncan C. "" Richer aka Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, Clerk of the Court, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:39:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Walmsley Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3442 >{{The Offices of Caped Crusader, Chair of the Ackan Reserve, Financial >Communitie's Member of the Ackan Reserve, Mad Scientist, People's Member >of the Ackan Reserve and Praetor are all destroyed.}} I probably would vote for this proposal except for this bit.I like this sort of dumb inconsistencies. Put them in the harfonisn if you want. MTM. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:44:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3442 On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote: > >{{The Offices of Caped Crusader, Chair of the Ackan Reserve, Financial > >Communitie's Member of the Ackan Reserve, Mad Scientist, People's Member > >of the Ackan Reserve and Praetor are all destroyed.}} > > I probably would vote for this proposal except for this bit.I like this > sort of dumb inconsistencies. Put them in the harfonisn if you want. I can't put them in the Harfonian as they are not owned by anyone, being non-Capital Offices. Technically they still need to be tracked, and this is the only way to stop that. - -- Duncan C. "" Richer aka Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Clerk of the Court ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:51:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3442 On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote: > On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote: > > > >{{The Offices of Caped Crusader, Chair of the Ackan Reserve, Financial > > >Communitie's Member of the Ackan Reserve, Mad Scientist, People's Member > > >of the Ackan Reserve and Praetor are all destroyed.}} > > > > I probably would vote for this proposal except for this bit.I like this > > sort of dumb inconsistencies. Put them in the harfonisn if you want. > > I can't put them in the Harfonian as they are not owned by anyone, being > non-Capital Offices. > > Technically they still need to be tracked, and this is the only way to > stop that. Oh, dumb inconsistencies could actually backfire on you, Tom. If any of the players holding these posts leaves the game, or goes On Ice, or something, then you, as Count Tabula, would be required to hold an election for these useless Offices. Do you really want to do that? - -- Duncan C. "" Richer aka Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Clerk of the Court ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:03:45 -0400 (EDT) From: K2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3383 accepted I donate A$ 1 to the twits and A$ 1 to breadbox. K 2 Brian Raiter wrote: > > Proposal 3383 - Fri 07 Aug 1998 02:41 EDT > > What's in a Name > > K 2 (Kelly Kelly) > > > > This is a Modest Proposal. > > > > {{[All this proposal does is replace Inactive with Vacationing, which ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:47:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" Subject: Acka: CFCJ 173 (fwd) K 2 said: I hate to bring this up but since makelist hasn't been designated as a public list by the postmaster, CFCJ 173 hasn't actually been distributed yet - at least not as a public message. I shall of cource return a verdict on it, but only after a public distribution ;). This is a public message. K 2 I say: So does this mean that if muppetlabs is out for a week, all Officers with stuff to do will be forced to violate speed because there is no other way to publicly distribute stuff? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:11:04 -0400 (EDT) From: alfvaen@telusplanet.net (Aaron V. Humphrey) Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 173 (fwd) > K 2 said: > I hate to bring this up but since makelist hasn't been designated as a > public list by the postmaster, CFCJ 173 hasn't actually been distributed > yet - at least not as a public message. I shall of cource return a > verdict on it, but only after a public distribution ;). > This is a public message. > K 2 > I say: > So does this mean that if muppetlabs is out for a week, all Officers with > stuff to do will be forced to violate speed because there is no other way > to publicly distribute stuff? Rule 422 states "A message is a public message if and only if it is distributed to all active Players or it is sent to any mailing list indicated as a public forum in the Postal Code, and any actions performed in the message obey all restrictions of the Postal Code for that list." So if all active players were subscribed to _any_ mailing list, even acka-research(I believe), then any message on there would be a public message. - -- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ ) Song In My Head--Prince:Lady Cab Driver Current Book--Tanith Lee:The Book of The Beast Deprive a mirror of its silver and even the Czar won't see his face. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:19:57 -0400 (EDT) From: K2 Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 173 (fwd) Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote: > K 2 said: > > I hate to bring this up but since makelist hasn't been designated as a > public list by the postmaster, CFCJ 173 hasn't actually been distributed > yet - at least not as a public message. I shall of cource return a > verdict on it, but only after a public distribution ;). > > This is a public message. > > K 2 > > I say: > > So does this mean that if muppetlabs is out for a week, all Officers with > stuff to do will be forced to violate speed because there is no other way > to publicly distribute stuff? Rule 422:A message is a public message if and only if it is distributed to _all active Players_ or it is sent to any mailing list indicated as a public forum in the Postal Code...ie ackanomic/games/voting@muppetlabs.com _or_ all active players: [actually a list of all players on the pe page :)] mailto:plumb@hawaii.edu, alfvaen@connect.ab.ca, sharsmvk@localnet.com, breadbox@muppetlabs.com, joffraint@mail.utexas.edu, devjoe@wilma.che.utexas.edu, tows@earthlink.net, kenningd@which.co.uk, aaron.keesler@adtran.com, joshherr@concentric.net, idiot@slack.net, frank.schmidt@docnet.de, joejava@dragoncat.net ,jtraub@dragoncat.net, kii@internex.net.au, ilk20@hermes.cam.ac.uk, t.walmsley@lineone.net, bruck@actcom.co.il, piz@innocent.com, publius@avalon.net, gmd@earthling.net, belhagin@bya1c87.pl.lucent.com, RobXXVIII@aol.com, david@infocom.com, dcr24@cam.ac.uk, mueller4@sonic.net, jobollin@indiana.edu, mitcharf@mail.utexas.edu, munizao@cyberhighway.net, jmccoy@umich.edu, jda23@cam.ac.uk, Zakdordn@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:46:50 -0400 (EDT) From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 173 (fwd) On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, K2 wrote: > Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote: > > > K 2 said: > > > > I hate to bring this up but since makelist hasn't been designated as a > > public list by the postmaster, CFCJ 173 hasn't actually been distributed > > yet - at least not as a public message. I shall of cource return a > > verdict on it, but only after a public distribution ;). > > > > This is a public message. > > > > K 2 > > > > I say: > > > > So does this mean that if muppetlabs is out for a week, all Officers with > > stuff to do will be forced to violate speed because there is no other way > > to publicly distribute stuff? > > Rule 422:A message is a public message if and only if it is distributed to > _all active Players_ or it is sent to any mailing list indicated as a public > forum in the Postal Code...ie ackanomic/games/voting@muppetlabs.com _or_ all > active players: [actually a list of all players on the pe page :)] Well, I believe that Tom fixed up makelist so that any messages sent to it were sent to all active players. Hence messages sent to the makelist list would qualify as public messages. - -- Duncan C. "" Richer aka Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Clerk of the Court ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 12:03:15 -0400 (EDT) From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3450 On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote: >Proposal 3450 >New Clear Child >Alfvaen (Aaron Humphrey) > >{{The player currently or formerly known as Mr. Tambourine Man receives >the title of Vile Prophet.}} The meaning behind this one escapes me. - --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, 17 Aug 1998 13:00:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: acka: proposal rfc On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, L'homme a tete de choux wrote: > I haven't really started to formulate this into a substanial proposal yet, but > here's an idea that I've been considering: > > 1. Ackans have 'Lives' (these would be ownable, and probably tradeable, > entities). Initially, I think that we should follow the cat model and start > with nine lives. > > 2. Things like being burnt for heresy or losing a duel would cost a life. Any > number of things could cost you a life. If you run out of lives, you end up in > Limbo ('Somewhere Else'). Is there a way to get back to life from Limbo? What penalties are there for being in Limbo? It sounds good, whether I would vote for it or not depends on what your plans are for this particular bit. - -- Duncan C. "" Richer aka Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, Clerk of the Court, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:28:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: RFC proposal On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 RobXXVIII@aol.com wrote: > If both 3419 and 3411 pass, the rules might require the speaker to > choose a random integer, with all integers being equally possible, which > isn't possible. > I'd like to close this loophole. Suppose, for example, some rule said > the person whose score was closest to a randomly chosen number > gained points. While there's a zero chance that any one number > is chosen; 50% of the time it will be larger than the highest score, > 50% of the time it will be lower than the lowest, and the chance of anyone > else winning should be zero. Since all that really matters is who gets > the points the speaker really only needs to toss a coin. > > Do you think this proposal would let the problem be solved like that? > ---------- > > Create a rule named 'Infinite improbabilities' with the INFINITE delimited > text > INFINITE > > If any number has to be randomly selected from an infinite range, then > the person making the selection shall > > A/ Determine all possible resulting changes in the game-state. All > subsequent references in this rule to game state changes refer only to changes > that > can result from the random choice. [So no-one is tempted to > consider other changes] > > B/ Choose at random a game-state change in such a way that > i/ if the set of numbers which produce a particular game-state > change is finite its chance of being chosen is zero > ii/ all other game-state changes are equally likely. > > C/ Chose, in any way they see fit, a number which would produce > the game-state change chosen in step B. > > The number chosen in step C is the number selected. Nice. However, what if you have an infinite number of distinct game state changes, each of which is generated by a finite number of numbers? (e.g. someone gains a random number of points, 0 to +infinity. Each number produces a distinct change to the result, so the chance of each event happening is zero). I would prefer something a little more concrete, myself. How about - Pick a random integer between -100000 and 100000, excluding zero. Divide it by 100000. Take the square root of the result. Take the reciprocal of that. Round off to the nearest integer. - -- Duncan C. "" Richer aka Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, Clerk of the Court, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:36:37 -0400 (EDT) From: RobXXVIII@aol.com Subject: Re: Acka: RFC proposal In a message dated 17/08/98 17:32:22, you write: > > Nice. However, what if you have an infinite number of distinct game state > changes, each of which is generated by a finite number of numbers? > > (e.g. someone gains a random number of points, 0 to +infinity. Each > number produces a distinct change to the result, so the chance of each > event happening is zero). > If it exceeds the magic number they win, which is all that really matters. How much they exceed it by makes little difference. This could probably be fudged - the relevant game-state changes are those between just before the random selection is made, and the next moment players can act. Changes which aren't significantly different are counted as the same. This might encourage too many CFJs though. One option is to state if there is no legal way to make the random selection that the rule that requires it is invalid. Rules which require a random selection among a infinite number of significantly different choices seem likely to be undesirable. > I would prefer something a little more concrete, myself. > How about - > > Pick a random integer between -100000 and 100000, excluding zero. > Divide it by 100000. > Take the square root of the result. > Take the reciprocal of that. > Round off to the nearest integer. > > Thats one possiblity, though as written 50% of the time it would give zero (for any negative integer) and it can give infinity as a result. 38% of the time it gives 1 -for positive numbers between 25000 and 100000 Also what if rules require a random even number or a number that is a multiple of some players score. We could create a list of possible methods, either as a rule or as a rule suite. E.g the numbers are listed in the order they appear in this list 0,-1,1,-2,2,-3,3,-4,4,.... then there's a 10% chance of picking the first number, if any number isn't picked there's a 10% chance of picking the next number. (10% as default unless the rule says use this process with some other chance) Then rules can either specify an acceptable method, or if they don't we pick an acceptable method from this finite list at random and use that. Any method will give an uneven distribution, and the best one probably depends on why the number is being chosen. Robin Hood ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 15:10:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: RFC proposal On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 RobXXVIII@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 17/08/98 17:32:22, you write: > > > > > Nice. However, what if you have an infinite number of distinct game state > > changes, each of which is generated by a finite number of numbers? > > > > (e.g. someone gains a random number of points, 0 to +infinity. Each > > number produces a distinct change to the result, so the chance of each > > event happening is zero). > > > If it exceeds the magic number they win, which is all that really matters. > How much they exceed it by makes little difference. This could probably > be fudged - the relevant game-state changes are those between just > before the random selection is made, and the next moment players can > act. Changes which aren't significantly different are counted as the same. > This might encourage too many CFJs though. Especially when you try to work out how many Ackadollars constitutes significantly different. Is A$1 different from A$2? Is A$100 different from A$101? > One option is to state if there is no legal way to make the random selection > that the rule that requires it is invalid. Rules which require a random > selection > among a infinite number of significantly different choices seem likely to be > undesirable. They certainly do. That might be the best way to go about it. - -- Duncan C. "" Richer aka Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, Clerk of the Court, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 15:32:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Brandon Ray Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3390 rejected What a drag! Was this one of the ones that expired over the weekend? Is there a way to double check this vote? I can't believe I abstained on my own proposal. If I did, I shall have to do something appropriately self-flagellatory... nomicbot wrote: > Results of Proposal 3390 > > 20/26 votes: Quorum achieved > 11/20 YES votes: Proposal rejected > > YES: > /dev/joe (Vulcan) > Robin Hood (AVPP) > Niccolo Flychuck (MetaMorph) > K 2 (AVPP) > two-star > else...if > Attila the Pun (AVPP) > 867-5309 (Boomerangs) > Slakko (SPAM) > Ethelred (AVPP) > Piz > > NO: > breadbox > IdiotBoy (AVPP) > Mr. Tambourine Man > Rex Mundi (Klingon) > Alfvaen (MetaMorph) > rufus (SPAM) > JT (Boomerangs) > J. M. Bear (MetaMorph) > Tammany [breadbox bribed Tammany A$25] > > BAA!: > Rig R. Mortis [Rig R. Mortis is no longer pending] > > ABSTAINED: > Calvin N Hobbes (Harf) > ThinMan (Vulcan) > Vynd (Vulcan) > Fortunato > Publius > Studge > > VACATIONING: > Wild Card > Ayla > Horny Protoceratops > Zaknafein Dourden > > > Proposal 3390 - Mon 10 Aug 1998 02:50 EDT > > Who cares? > > Publius (Brandon Ray) > > > > Rule 214 is modified by striking the following XXX-delimited text > > > > XXX > > or (4) Invalid > > XXX > > > > and replacing it with the following YYY-delimited text: > > > > YYY > > (4) Invalid; or (5) Moot > > YYY > > > > Add the following new ZZZ-delimited text to the end of Rule 214: > > > > ZZZ > > The original Judge shall not be penalized for an overturned verdict on a > > CFJ that e finds to be Moot. > > > > For purposes of this Rule, the term “Moot” means that the Judge finds there > > would be no change in the state of play by a verdict of True or False. > > ZZZ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 15:50:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Walmsley Subject: Re: Acka: RFC proposal >Nice. However, what if you have an infinite number of distinct game state >changes, each of which is generated by a finite number of numbers? > >(e.g. someone gains a random number of points, 0 to +infinity. Each >number produces a distinct change to the result, so the chance of each >event happening is zero). > >I would prefer something a little more concrete, myself. >How about - > >Pick a random integer between -100000 and 100000, excluding zero. >Divide it by 100000. >Take the square root of the result. >Take the reciprocal of that. >Round off to the nearest integer. Forgive me if my maths is a bit rusty but wouldn't this produce an imaginary number half the time? There would only be 100000 different possibilities as well so you may as well pick an integer between 1 and 100000. MTM. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 15:56:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Walmsley Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3390 rejected At 15:32 17/08/98 -0400, you wrote: >What a drag! Was this one of the ones that expired over the weekend? Is there >a way to double check this vote? I can't believe I abstained on my own >proposal. If I did, I shall have to do something appropriately >self-flagellatory... If it's any consolation then it wouldn't have passed even if you had have voted for it. Instead of self flagelation I would recomend donating some money to the twits. MTM. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:39:43 -0400 (EDT) From: RobXXVIII@aol.com Subject: Re: Acka: RFC proposal In a message dated 17/08/98 19:13:27, writes: > > One option is to state if there is no legal way to make the random > > selection that the rule that requires it is invalid. Rules which require a random > > selection among a infinite number of significantly different choices > > seem likely to be undesirable. > > They certainly do. That might be the best way to go about it. > However nulling the whole rule might be awkward if it accidentally invalidates something we want to keep. It might also be unclear which rule is at fault. Suppose I add to my suggestion the sentence - -- If this procedure can not be followed, the number will not be chosen until it can be chosen in accordance with the rules. No player shall suffer any penalty for obeying this clause. - --- Then under 230/II nothing will happen, neutering the responsible rules without our having to decide which they are. The choice will be put off indefinitely. Robin Hood ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 22:34:10 -0400 (EDT) From: alfvaen@telusplanet.net (Aaron V. Humphrey) Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3450 > >Proposal 3450 > >New Clear Child > >Alfvaen (Aaron Humphrey) > >{{The player currently or formerly known as Mr. Tambourine Man receives > >the title of Vile Prophet.}} > The meaning behind this one escapes me. And Mr. Tambourine Man was just complaining a few days ago about how e always seems to get the same page(s) in the Ackanomicon... - -- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ ) Current Album--Rush:Caress of Steel Current Book--Tanith Lee:The Book of The Beast Brushing your teeth with a guitar string is a bad idea. ------------------------------ End of acka-research-digest V3 #191 ***********************************