From: owner-acka-research-digest@muppetlabs.com (acka-research-digest) To: acka-research-digest@muppetlabs.com Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #195 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 Friday, August 21 1998 Volume 03 : Number 195 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:11:46 -0400 (EDT) From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Conversion On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote: >>This fails. P3389 swapped point conversion for otzma creation. > >What, me actually find out how the Rules have changed in the last few >months? I give A$1 to the Twits, and another A$ to They Might Be >Slumbering Giants. > >>so this won't work yet....? > >>> Happy! Happy! Happy! > >Probably not. I'm just annoyed because, had I calculated the scores >after Tuesday night's(?) small batch of Proposals, I had 105 points >then, but I didn't realize this until another batch was already out. Rule 1131 doesn't instate a time-limit on happiness, so you can probably still claim this from Tuesday if you really wanted to Alfvaen, I believe. - --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: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:13:34 -0400 (EDT) From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3422 accepted On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, K2 wrote: >> Grr.. K 2, please be more careful with global replacements :/ >> > >Replacement of that phrase would have been an effect of P3383 with or without a >global replace. True.. but you were handy to blame anyway :) - --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: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:42:06 -0400 (EDT) From: JT Subject: Acka: Happy Since rule 1131 doesn't say that there is a time limit on happyness, and since Alfvaen pointed out that it was publically knowable on Tuesday that he had a score of 105 and he did in fact state 'Happy Happy Happy' I am going to harf this as being valid and I am going to generate his boon. I will also generate the new happy number. If people disagree with this harfing, I'm sure a CFJ will be submitted sometime soon :) - --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: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:51:43 -0400 (EDT) From: K2 Subject: Acka: RFC: Treasure Scams I wonder if I might solicit some comments on the following wrt to both technical implementation and the idea in general. Insert as a new Section after Section III of rule 1217 (Buried Treasure!) the following text (--- delimited): - --- IV. If a player believes that a particular treasure map, for a treasure which was discovered within the previous three days, is not in keeping with the spirit of treasure hunting e may call for a Hostile Takeover. A Hostile Takeover is a Hearing for which the valid responses are: "Right up there with the Jukkasjarvi Treasure" and "the accumulation of money is a great evil and a burden to the soul" [Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad]. The player who called it is the Hearing Harfer for it and is called the Gold Digger while it is in session. For the purposes of this section those entities which were buried in the treasure and any entities created from them since the discovery of the treasure are referred to as The Motherload. In the event that the verdict of the Hostile Takeover is "Right up there with the Jukkasjarvi Treasure", the Gold Digger shall transfer The Standard Harfer Fee to the map writer. In the event that the verdict is "the accumulation of money is a great evil and a burden to the soul" [Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad], then all entities in The Motherload, which are of types normally accepted by the Museum, are transferred to the North Wing of the Museum with the map writer as beneficiary. Any entities in the Motherload which were not transferred to the Museum's North wing by the previous sentence are transferred to the Treasury. Additionally the map writer shall pay The Standard Harfer Fee to the Gold Digger. - --- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 01:00:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Treasure Scams > I wonder if I might solicit some comments on the following wrt to both > technical implementation and the idea in general. > > Insert as a new Section after Section III of rule 1217 (Buried > Treasure!) the following text (--- delimited): > If a player believes that a particular treasure map, for a treasure > which was discovered within the previous three days, is not in keeping > with the spirit of treasure hunting e may call for a Hostile Takeover. [...] > In the event that the verdict is "the accumulation of money is a great > evil and a burden to the soul" [Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad], then > all entities in The Motherload, which are of types normally accepted by > the Museum, are transferred to the North Wing of the Museum with the map > writer as beneficiary. Any entities in the Motherload which were not > transferred to the Museum's North wing by the previous sentence are > transferred to the Treasury. Additionally the map writer shall pay The > Standard Harfer Fee to the Gold Digger. I think you're just trying to claim more power for yourself in your position as curator of the museum, but of course I'm biased so judge for yourself. :-) /dev/joe with tongue planted firmly in cheek ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:09:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3462 On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Niccolo Flychuck wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote: > > > Proposal 3462 > > Dancing With Danger > > Slakko (Duncan Richer) > > > > [Aim of this proposal: to make the use of Tammany interesting. Currently > > Tammany only makes one vote per proposal, at most. The main gist of this > > proposal is to change that to one vote for each bribing player. However, > > all votes are cast for the winning side, which makes for an interesting > > game. ] > > We already have Bonus Votes whcih count one per player up to a maximum > four per proposal. > I don't think it's a good idea to let tammany cast multiple votes. The key point of my proposal is that now a Tammany bribe can have a backfiring effect - if people are competing to push Tammany over to their side, the winning side gets one vote for everyone who bribed, including the losers. I thought that this backfiring effect was more interesting than the way Bonus Votes are used. - -- 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: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:11:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: Conversion On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote: > >This fails. P3389 swapped point conversion for otzma creation. > > What, me actually find out how the Rules have changed in the last few > months? I give A$1 to the Twits, and another A$ to They Might Be > Slumbering Giants. This failed. Research. - -- 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: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 05:18:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Walmsley Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Treasure Scams >In the event that the verdict is "the accumulation of money is a great >evil and a burden to the soul" [Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad], then >all entities in The Motherload, which are of types normally accepted by >the Museum, are transferred to the North Wing of the Museum with the map >writer as beneficiary. Any entities in the Motherload which were not >transferred to the Museum's North wing by the previous sentence are >transferred to the Treasury. Additionally the map writer shall pay The >Standard Harfer Fee to the Gold Digger. You might wannt to make this slightly more implicit wrt prosthetic foreheads. They would probably count as being "of types normally accepted by the Museum". Maybe if you changed it to "which the museum would accept if donated normally", or something similar. MTM. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 05:18:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Walmsley Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3462 Niccolo wrote: >On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote: > >> Proposal 3462 >> Dancing With Danger >> Slakko (Duncan Richer) >> >> [Aim of this proposal: to make the use of Tammany interesting. Currently >> Tammany only makes one vote per proposal, at most. The main gist of this >> proposal is to change that to one vote for each bribing player. However, >> all votes are cast for the winning side, which makes for an interesting >> game. ] > >We already have Bonus Votes whcih count one per player up to a maximum >four per proposal. >I don't think it's a good idea to let tammany cast multiple votes. I agree. This would make tamany a lot easier to scam. With good organisation it would be possible to get one person to make a large tamany bribe and then maybe three others a small bribeof A$5, all for the same type of vote. With Bonus Votes, Tammany and part unity a group of four people wuld be capable of casting 13 votes on a proposal, which would probably be enough to make it pass. No thank you. MTM. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 05:31:46 -0400 (EDT) From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3462 On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote: > Niccolo wrote: > > >On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote: > > > >> Proposal 3462 > >> Dancing With Danger > >> Slakko (Duncan Richer) > >> > >> [Aim of this proposal: to make the use of Tammany interesting. Currently > >> Tammany only makes one vote per proposal, at most. The main gist of this > >> proposal is to change that to one vote for each bribing player. However, > >> all votes are cast for the winning side, which makes for an interesting > >> game. ] > > > >We already have Bonus Votes whcih count one per player up to a maximum > >four per proposal. > >I don't think it's a good idea to let tammany cast multiple votes. > > I agree. This would make tamany a lot easier to scam. With good > organisation it would be possible to get one person to make a large tamany > bribe and then maybe three others a small bribeof A$5, all for the same > type of vote. With Bonus Votes, Tammany and part unity a group of four > people wuld be capable of casting 13 votes on a proposal, which would > probably be enough to make it pass. No thank you. (1) The minimum Tammany bribe is A$25, not A$5. (2) If four people are clearly so interested in a proposal that they would expend 4 Bonus Votes and A$100 (at least, possibly as much as A$400) to attempt to get it through, and no-one else cares enough to attempt to oppose the measure (by casting their own Bonus Votes or organising their own posse to oppose the Tammany bribes), then why shouldn't it pass? (Actually, if 4 people want to ensure that their Tammany bribes work against even 1 person, they will need to spend more than A$200. It only takes 2 people sufficiently against a proposal to eliminate the Tammany bribes of up to 4 people - A$200 spent on SILENT votes would cancel out A$400 on YES votes.) So the Tammany would only succeed if less than two people cared sufficiently to try to sink the proposal. I don't think that this is sufficient to unbalance the game. - -- 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: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 08:28:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3462 On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote: > On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote: > > > I agree. This would make tamany a lot easier to scam. With good > > organisation it would be possible to get one person to make a large tamany > > bribe and then maybe three others a small bribeof A$5, all for the same > > type of vote. With Bonus Votes, Tammany and part unity a group of four > > people wuld be capable of casting 13 votes on a proposal, which would > > probably be enough to make it pass. No thank you. I forgot to mention - Tammany maximum bribe is A$100 (so the large Tammany bribe trick doesn't work). Also, the mathematics of the Tammany Scam. Assumptions: The scam is such that only those involved vote YES on the proposal. 4 Bonus Votes are cast YES. Tammany is bribed to vote YES by the scammers, no-one else interferes. All others who do vote, vote NO. If scam size = 4 Votes YES = 13 Number of NO votes to reach quorum (currently 25 players in game) = 11 13/24 < 60%, so this fails. If scam size = 5 Votes YES = 15 (5 player, 4 Bonus, 5 Tammany, 1 Party) Number of NO votes to reach quorum = 10 15/25 = 60%. This would pass only if exactly 10 people voted NO. Any fewer and quorum would not be reached, any more and the proposal would fail. I don't think this makes Tammany too scammable. It just makes it more interesting. - -- 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: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:58:11 -0400 (EDT) From: John Frederic Mc Coy Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3462 On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote: > On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote: > > > Niccolo wrote: > > > > >On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote: > > > > > >> Proposal 3462 > > >> Dancing With Danger > > >> Slakko (Duncan Richer) > > >> > > >> [Aim of this proposal: to make the use of Tammany interesting. Currently > > >> Tammany only makes one vote per proposal, at most. The main gist of this > > >> proposal is to change that to one vote for each bribing player. However, > > >> all votes are cast for the winning side, which makes for an interesting > > >> game. ] > > > > > >We already have Bonus Votes whcih count one per player up to a maximum > > >four per proposal. > > >I don't think it's a good idea to let tammany cast multiple votes. > > > > I agree. This would make tamany a lot easier to scam. With good > > organisation it would be possible to get one person to make a large tamany > > bribe and then maybe three others a small bribeof A$5, all for the same > > type of vote. With Bonus Votes, Tammany and part unity a group of four > > people wuld be capable of casting 13 votes on a proposal, which would > > probably be enough to make it pass. No thank you. > > (1) The minimum Tammany bribe is A$25, not A$5. > (2) If four people are clearly so interested in a proposal that they would > expend 4 Bonus Votes and A$100 (at least, possibly as much as A$400) to > attempt to get it through, and no-one else cares enough to attempt to > oppose the measure (by casting their own Bonus Votes or organising their > own posse to oppose the Tammany bribes), then why shouldn't it pass? > > (Actually, if 4 people want to ensure that their Tammany bribes work > against even 1 person, they will need to spend more than A$200. > It only takes 2 people sufficiently against a proposal to eliminate the > Tammany bribes of up to 4 people - A$200 spent on SILENT votes would > cancel out A$400 on YES votes.) > > So the Tammany would only succeed if less than two people cared > sufficiently to try to sink the proposal. I don't think that this is > sufficient to unbalance the game. I'm sorry Slakko, but I think your argument here is pretty weak. You're saying that whenever a proposal is submitted that I am afraid to see pass, no matter how unlikely I think it is that a significant proportion of people will vote in favor of it, I should have to dump tons of cash into Tammany just to be sure that a group of three or four people doesn't force it through with a few bribes and some bonus votes? If this proposal passes, I'm going to get another three or four people together and start submitting proposals. I think we'll start by submitting, oh, 10 proposals, all of which are variations on the theme of "All entities in Slakko's possession are transfered to Vynd." You know, just different enough not to be invalid. Which one are you going to bribe Tammany against, Slakko? I don't see how this new idea would be useful for anything but blatant, two-fisted scamming. It practically begs people to get together and give themselves dictatorial powers, fantastic wealth, etc. Vynd jmccoy@umich.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:06:08 -0400 (EDT) From: David Scheidt Subject: RE: acka: Proposal 3454 nomicbot scribith: >Proposal 3454 - Thu 20 Aug 1998 04:51 EDT > Return to the stone age > Mr. Tambourine Man (Tom Walmsley) Due: Thu 27 Aug 1998 04:51 EDT Your vote: NO Repeal rule 593 (Ackanomic University) Repeal the blueprints rulesuite, i.e., all rules numbered 594.x, including rule 594. Repeal rule 595 (Gadgets) Repeal Rule 1013 (Secret Laboratories) Shouldn't you compensate people for the loss of stuff here? Sekrit labs are expensive, and so are lots of gadgets. rufus ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:55:15 -0400 (EDT) From: "else...if" Subject: Acka: Point Pool RFC I liked this idea, so here's the next draft of the RFC. I added those suggestions and simplified it a little. #submit Let's all go point swimming In rule 207 (Scoring when a proposal's voting results are reported) alter section III to read as delimited by HOKEYPOKEY HOKEYPOKEY If a proposal is accepted or rejected the points invested by each player are transfered to the point pool for that proposal. When a proposal is accepted or rejected, the winning side will split up the point pool proportionally to the number of points invested by vote (any kick in from the proposer is not counted for the proposer's share); if the proposal passed, one quarter of the invested points other than the kick in will be given to the proposer first, if it failed the proposer's kick in is transfered to the Treasury first. When the pool cannot be divided evenly, it is divided as evenly as possible and excess points are given to the largest successful investors. HOKEYPOKEY Replace the first paragraph of rule 104 with "A Voting player may submit a proposal by sending its text to the Promoter along with the number of points e is investing on it (the kick in), who shall then post it publicly to be voted on. The number of points invested may not be posted publicly until the proposal's results are announced." At the end of the first sentence of rule 106 add "along with, if the vote is either YES or NO, the number of points e is investing." Remove section V of rule 207 and renumber the other elements in the list accordingly. Alter the second sentence of section V (formerly VI) of rule 207 to read "When a Null Proposal is accepted all players receive the number of points they invested in it from the proposal's pool." Alter the second sentence of section VI (formerly VII) of rule 207 to read "When a Boring Proposal is accepted or rejected all players receive the number of points they invested in it from the proposal's pool." Repeal rule 207.1 (Sillyness) {{[Yes, I like it too. I'd really like someone to find a way to reincorporate it, but I'll leave it to someone else.]}} Repeal rule 207.3 (Foolishness) {{[See above]}} Repeal rule 210 (Literature) {{[Once again...]}} In rule 250 (Player States) remove step d from section VI and reletter the steps accordingly. Remove rule 319 (Unanimity is Lovely...) In rule 330 (Retractions) alter the last sentence of the first paragraph to read "A player other than a newbie who retracts eir own proposal in this manner loses all points invested in the kick in, they are transferred to the treasury. A newbie has eir kick in returned. All other points invested in the proposal are returned to their investors." In rule 330 remove everything in the second paragraph after and including "unless". In rule 330 remove the third sentence of the third paragraph. Remove the last sentence of rule 330. Remove "gain one extra point and" from rule 344 (Weasel Words) In rule 374 (Politeness Moon) alter the last two sentences to read "If the verdict of the Hearing shows that the message was not polite, 3 points are transferred from the player who sent it to the player who called the Hearing. If it shows that it was polite, its author gets the nickname Jazz JackRabbit for the next 3 days and the player who called the hearing transfers 2 points to the author." In rule 404 (Impeachment) replace "is penalized 10 points" with "transfers 10 points to the player the IP was called against" Remove the second sentence of secton III of rule 419.2 (Internomic Interface) In rule 603 (Winning by Points) replace the second two sentences of the third paragraph with "The base value of the magic number is 2000." Replace the second sentence of rule 603 with "Points are tradeable entities, however any trade which would result in the receiver having more than 75% of the magic number fails as does any which would result in a player having negative points." In the second paragraph of rule 603, replace everything after the semi-colon with "when a player is said to lose points, the points are transfered to the Treausry, when a player gains point they are transfered from the treasury. If there are not enough points to cover a trade ordered by the rules, as many points as can be traded without any entity having negative points are." In rule 666 (End of Cycle) alter section i to read "A player's fair share is the number of points they would own of all points were distributed evenly. Any player owning more than double their fair share loses one quarter of their points, which go into the winning pool. Those points are distributed one-by-one to the player who owns the fewest points until there are no points left. This repeats until no player owns more than double their fair share. Replace the last sentence of the first paragraph of rule 901 (The Magic Potato) with "When a proposal made by the player who currently hold the Magic Potato is rejected, e receives eir kick in back." Remove the last sentence of rule 901. Remove rule 919 (Brass Monkey) Remove the last sentence of the second to last paragraph of rule 961(B-Ack) as well as the last paragraph. Remove "5 points (a score change based on proposal content) and" from rule 1112 Remove "When a player is designated "Funky and Stylish", they gain 5 points" from rule 1112 Replace "the penalized player's score (after having the penalty revoked) will be raised to the first prime number higher than their current score" with "the penalty will be revoked" in rule 1129 Remove section 8 of rule 1211 and reletter accordingly. Remove the last sentence of the first paragraph of section H of rule 1213. Remove rule 1313 (tornado) Remove the last sentence of the second to last paragraph of rule 1350. Remove the second to last sentence of 594.1 Repeal 594.3 Remove item 4 from 594.21 Remove "The Player that currently holds Nyarlathotep will gain three extra points for each proposal of his that is accepted while he holds Nyarlathotep" from 594.23 Remove the last sentence of paragraph two of section III of rule 594.26 Remove ", and a player shall gain 6 points the first time e publically describes all four of the above" from 950.1 #end _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:00:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" Subject: Re: Acka: Point Pool RFC > If a proposal is accepted or rejected the points invested by > each player are transfered to the point pool for that proposal. When > a proposal is accepted or rejected, the winning side will split up the > point pool proportionally to the number of points invested by vote > (any kick in from the proposer is not counted for the proposer's > share); if the proposal passed, one quarter of the invested points > other than the kick in will be given to the proposer first, if it > failed the proposer's kick in is transfered to the Treasury first. > When the pool cannot be divided evenly, it is divided as evenly as > possible and excess points are given to the largest successful > investors. A few things here. I. What effect does the amount of points the proposer invests have on anything? (I.e., why should I kick in more than 1, or even 0 points for my proposal?) The only thing I see is that if the proposal passes, his kick in is divided among the successful investors without having a 1/4 cut taken first. This might promote players to invest more in the proposal, except the amount of the kick in is hidden until the results are posted. II. This would read much more smoothly if you moved the bit about the proposer recieving 1/4 of the points or his kick in getting transferred to the treasury before the other distribution, since it happens first in either case, and it puts the last part next to the distribution it refers to (I think it refers to that anyway). Add "rounded down" on the successful proposer's 1/4 distribution just to make it clearer. III. "Divided as evenly as possible" contradicts with "excess points are given to the largest successful investors. If there are 10 points in the pool, and two successful investors, one who invested one point and one who invested five, "as evenly as possible" is two for the one-point investor and 8 for the 5-point investor. If you meant "When the pool cannot be divided evenly, all fractions are rounded down, and the remaining points in the pool given to the largest successful investors," this example gives 1 to the 1-pt investor and 9 to the 5-pt investor. > Replace the first paragraph of rule 104 with "A Voting player > may submit a proposal by sending its text to the Promoter along with > the number of points e is investing on it (the kick in), who shall > then post it publicly to be voted on. The number of points invested > may not be posted publicly until the proposal's results are announced." Did you mean to restrict *anybody* from posting this amount publicly, or just the promoter? > Remove "gain one extra point and" from rule 344 (Weasel Words) I thought we repealed this. > Replace the last sentence of the first paragraph of rule 901 > (The Magic Potato) with "When a proposal made by the player who > currently hold the Magic Potato is rejected, e receives eir kick in > back." Does this have sufficient precedence? > Remove the second to last sentence of 594.1 > Repeal 594.3 > Remove item 4 from 594.21 > Remove "The Player that currently holds Nyarlathotep will gain > three extra points for each proposal of his that is accepted while he > holds Nyarlathotep" from 594.23 > Remove ", and a player shall gain 6 points the first time e > publically describes all four of the above" from 950.1 Towards the end, you left out the word "rule" in these. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:21:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "else...if" Subject: Re: Acka: Point Pool RFC >I. What effect does the amount of points the proposer >invests have on anything? (I.e., why should I kick in >more than 1, or even 0 points for my proposal?) The >only thing I see is that if the proposal passes, his >kick in is divided among the successful investors >without having a 1/4 cut taken first. This might >promote players to invest more in the proposal, except >the amount of the kick in is hidden until the results >are posted. Good point. The kick in would be promoted with the proposal, so it's an incentive to vote for. >III. "Divided as evenly as possible" contradicts with >"excess points are given to the largest successful >investors. If there are 10 points in the pool, and >two successful investors, one who invested one point >and one who invested five, "as evenly as possible" is >two for the one-point investor and 8 for the 5-point >investor. If you meant "When the pool cannot be >divided evenly, all fractions are rounded down, and >the remaining points in the pool given to the largest >successful investors," this example gives 1 to the >1-pt investor and 9 to the 5-pt investor. I was worried about that being unclear. Do you think just saying "as evenly as possible" leaves only one way for the points to be distributed? _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 15:02:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" Subject: Re: Acka: Point Pool RFC > Good point. The kick in would be promoted with the proposal, so it's > an incentive to vote for. OK, this makes more sense. > >III. "Divided as evenly as possible" contradicts with >"excess points > are given to the largest successful >investors. If there are 10 > points in the pool, and >two successful investors, one who invested > one point >and one who invested five, "as evenly as possible" is >two > for the one-point investor and 8 for the 5-point >investor. If you > meant "When the pool cannot be >divided evenly, all fractions are > rounded down, and >the remaining points in the pool given to the > largest >successful investors," this example gives 1 to the >1-pt > investor and 9 to the 5-pt investor. > I was worried about that being unclear. Do you think just saying "as > evenly as possible" leaves only one way for the points to be distributed? No, if there are 10 points and two investors, one who invested one and one who invested 3, the proportional split is 2.5 and 7.5. Maybe what you want is "When the pool cannot be divided evenly, all fractions are rounded down, and the remaining points in the pool are given (one per investor) to the investors who had the largest fractions rounded down, and in case of ties, to the largest investors first, with further ties being broken randomly." (by who? Are all these calculations are being performed by the score keeper?) /dev/joe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 16:04:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Mueller Subject: Acka: Proposal 3440 (Recess!!!) I'm thinking potential for abuse: >6. A Recess shall have the following effects: > >A. With the exception of paragraph 6B of this Rule, while >the game is in a state of Recess, no action may occur which >affects the state of the game. All deadlines are >automatically extended by adding a period of time equal to >the length of the Recess onto the end of the deadline. > >B. A CFJ (including all legal appeals) challenging the >validity of a Recess or challenging the declared length of >a Recess will be processed and considered as if there were >no Recess in effect. > >(i) If a CFJ challenging the validity of a Recess is >successful, then the Recess shall immediately end (if it >is still in progress). The game shall then proceed as if >a valid Recess had just occurred; there shall be no >retroactive adjustments to the state of the game. > >(ii) If a CFJ challenging the declared length of a Recess >is successful, then the length of the Recess shall be >immediately adjusted in accordance with the findings of the >Judge. Imagine the scenario: Somebody calls a recess and due to a confluence of business, it passes. Then someone makes a CFJ that the deadline for recess must be extended like all other deadlines in a move that is specifically allowed by Prop 3440.... With an unscrupulous CFJer who co-opts a momentarily weak Judge with a conspiracy and a few screwballs to block an overrule, might the game be pasued indefinitely. And while that doesn't seem very likely the other problem might be that while 6B operates during recess 6A does not. It is the clause which causes us to go into recess, and then "no action may occur which affects the state of the game." Does that mean 6A can not take us out of recess? I'm not sure, but I'm worried. Studge ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:17:40 -0400 (EDT) From: K2 Subject: Re: Acka: Juice IIRC you did on 24/07/1998 22:34:25 - for a reason that escapes me I didn't record the fact; I did record you going on vaction at that time tho :) else...if wrote: > I thought I'd done this, but apparently not. > I make Right Handed Grapefruit Juice with my Right Handed Grapefruit > 10 times. You now have 14 units (which are unregulated in size, except that they represent all the RHGFJ you can scull/frink in one go) of RHGFJ. K 2 > _________________________________________________________ > DO YOU YAHOO!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:17:42 -0400 (EDT) From: K2 Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Treasure Scams Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote: > I think you're just trying to claim more power for yourself in your > position as curator of the museum, but of course I'm biased so judge > for yourself. :-) > > /dev/joe > with tongue planted firmly in cheek Mawww ha ha! ha! aha!! haha ha!!!!!!!You've seen thru my Evil plan. K 2 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:17:49 -0400 (EDT) From: K2 Subject: Re: Acka: Offices: Bad Rhyme Tom Walmsley wrote: > At 05:52 21/08/98 -0400, you wrote: > >> For dungeone master there were two nominees: > >> > >> Mr. Tambourine Man > >> K 2 > > > >Okay, we've only just created the need for this Office, so we, the > >voting populace, are wanting for criteria regarding who to vote for. > >I'd like to see a few words from each candidate on why we should vote > >for em. In rhyme. > > I'd love to, really I would, but I'm going away for a couple of days in > about half an hour's time. So, unfortunately, I don't have the time :-). Ha! The opposition admits its flaw! Eir time is taxed. Show em the door. When evil monsters are seen to lurk, The Dungeon Master must go berserk. Not cower away in some forgotten land with both eir heads implanted in the sand. As Dungeon Master I will provide to every player who takes my side uncommon wisdom and intelligence and never shall I show em negligence. A firm hand shall I show to villains and to bribe I'll not cost billions. In summary, it must be said, the choice is clear, it's easily read. K 2's the one you all should choose. A vote for em just can not lose. E'll give to you, your very hearts desire; Unelected - your house on fire. K 2 > MTM. ------------------------------ End of acka-research-digest V3 #195 ***********************************