acka-research Digest Sunday, November 29 1998 Volume 03 : Issue 283 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Frederic Mc Coy Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3820 Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 00:44:17 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 27 Nov 1998 devjoe@wilma.che.utexas.edu wrote: > Proposal 3820 > Another repeal > Gromit > Due: Fri Dec 4 18:10:02 1998 > > > Repeal rule 210 (Literature) > Any particular reason for this? Vynd jmccoy@umich.edu ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: A streaky Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 02:34:23 -0500 (EST) On Sat, 28 Nov 1998, Kelly Hubert Kelly wrote: >I see my lacky ;) has announced the chrome streak already. Rule 205 >seems to say its my duty to announce it so... I nnounce the following >quoted text :) Truthfully, I wasn't sure if this was something you did or something I as speaker did since the duty of tracking streaks is assigned to no other players. It's certainly not the case that just because it's a score change that it's the province of the Scorekeeper (see the loss of points for deadbeat, which waits on the CotC to announce it). If anyone, it should possibly be the promotor/tabulator's job or mine to make the announcement of the streak. --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3829 - it not fatal; really :) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 07:06:19 -0500 (EST) At 09:20 PM 11/28/98 -0500, you wrote: >devjoe@wilma.che.utexas.edu wrote: >> 3.2 replacing the following text: >> " >> (iii) to track the membership of each of the Castes [See rule 1030]. >> " >> with: there appears to be an extra " here as well >> " >> " >> (iii) to assign players to Castes and track the membership of each of >> the Castes [See rule 1030]. >> " >> >> {{[Essentially random determinations effecting the things they track - >> The DM does get paid now after all :)]}} > >R340: >Delimiters do not nest, except when the double quote character is used >as a delimiter. > >The net result will be that section (iii) has "" around it..... > >K 2 > -- Pol Pot Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: Kelly Hubert Kelly Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3829 - it not fatal; really :) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 10:33:13 -0500 (EST) Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote: > there appears to be an extra " here as well which is what the meaning of..... > >The net result will be that section (iii) has "" around it..... This text is. > >> " > >> " > >> (iii) to assign players to Castes and track the membership of each of > >> the Castes [See rule 1030]. > >> " > >R340: > >Delimiters do not nest, except when the double quote character is used > >as a delimiter. > > > > > >K 2 > > > -- > Pol Pot > > Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, > Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3776 accepted Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 16:59:34 -0500 (EST) > Proposal 3776 > > Votes: 19/24 (12 YES votes): Quorum met > Yes votes: 13/20: proposal accepted This results in a parade, with the appropriate effects on players' scores and duties for K 2 as the author of this proposal. > >I was young and foolish then, I feel old and foolish now. If this proposal did in fact duplicate one of K 2's earlier ones, it was foolish and some scoring effect happens. > >On any Tuesday for which the date is prime, there shall be pudding for > >everyone, except cows (since cows eat grass) and those pesky aliens > >(since pudding contains monosodium glutamate). I believe one or another of these was also the silly phrase, which results in yet more effects. /dev/joe ------------------------------ From: Kelly Hubert Kelly Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3837 Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 18:43:57 -0500 (EST) devjoe@wilma.che.utexas.edu wrote: > {{[ > For anyone who cares about the why of this, nothing currently stopped > players from trading hats and eggplants to churches they belonged to > ]}} escept of cource that eggplanys aren't tradeable... K 2 who like the idea of being able to bury hats as treasure. ------------------------------ From: Kelly Hubert Kelly Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3792 rejected Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 18:49:31 -0500 (EST) Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote: > > > Proposal 3792 > > > > Votes: 18/24 (6 YES votes): Quorum met > > Yes votes: 7/19: proposal rejected > > K 2 attempted to cause an amber banana to vote YES on this proposal. > I believe this fails, as amber bananas do not have this ability. > The Amber Banana Tree can do this, I was infact attempting to use the Amber banana tree. > but only its owner can cause it > to do so, and according to K2's player/entity page, no player currently > owns the amber banana tree. Hmmm. Well it shold've said I own it. > In any case, if K 2 did somehow cause another > YES vote to be cast on this proposal, the proposal was still defeated > soundly. Oh well. > /dev/joe > Tabulator ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3837 Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 18:56:02 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 29 Nov 1998, Kelly Hubert Kelly wrote: >devjoe@wilma.che.utexas.edu wrote: > >> {{[ >> For anyone who cares about the why of this, nothing currently stopped >> players from trading hats and eggplants to churches they belonged to >> ]}} > >escept of cource that eggplanys aren't tradeable... And of course, K2, is right, so half of this proposal doesn't do anything. I think burying hats and trading them to churches is personally a bad idea. --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3839 Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 19:58:51 -0500 (EST) /dev/joe pointed out to me that the gadgets were destroyed automatically. I'd missed the part of rule 595 which accomplished that, so that section will have no effect. The destruction of the errant otzma cards however is still a useful and good thing since it frees up room for 2 additional Otzma Cards to be created (I'm assuming that they still exist and are still counted since nothiing in the rules destroyed them) --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Acka: RFC: Making Harfers earn their salaries Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 20:11:38 -0500 (EST) This is something that was wandering through my mind this evening and I am wondering what people think of the idea. The idea here is that instead of paying functional officers a flat salary we could pay them a certain amount for services rendered. For instance, when a proposal is submitted, and distributed, the submitter pays a filing fee of A$10 (for example) to the treasury. The treasury then pays the promotor A$2. When results on that proposal are distributed, the tabulator is payed A$2 as well. When a player changes their name, the SHF is payed to the treasury, and the registrar and the financier are payed 1/5 of the SHF. When a player creates a trinket, they pay A$10 to the treasury PER trinket. The Trinket Harfer and the Financier each get A$2. (yes, this also makes trinket arrays and low-valued trinkets less financially feasible) Some functional offices, such as Rule-Harfer, Web-Harfer, and Speaker do not really have 'taxable' duties and so remain on a salary. Perhaps that salary should be raised slightly (or perhaps the above salaries are too much) As you can see, this is very rough right now, but if people think it's a really horrid idea, or a really good one, or have ideas on other functional offices and duties which could be payed for, I'd be happy to hear it. --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: David Scheidt Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Making Harfers earn their salaries Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 21:02:16 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 29 Nov 1998, JT wrote: :The idea here is that instead of paying functional officers a flat salary :we could pay them a certain amount for services rendered. Reasonable, if you implement it correctly. : :For instance, when a proposal is submitted, and distributed, the submitter :pays a filing fee of A$10 (for example) to the treasury. The treasury IF this means that I can'tt write proposals just because I am broke, this is a bad idea. I think that restricting the ability to change the rules is generally a spectacuuuuuulary bad thing. We have seen it before; lets not see it again. Other parts of the idea I disagree less with, but your amounts need some work. $10 per trinket is a lot, and harfing trinkets ain't that hard. rufus ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Making Harfers earn their salaries Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 21:21:34 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 29 Nov 1998, David Scheidt wrote: >:The idea here is that instead of paying functional officers a flat salary >:we could pay them a certain amount for services rendered. > >Reasonable, if you implement it correctly. >:For instance, when a proposal is submitted, and distributed, the submitter >:pays a filing fee of A$10 (for example) to the treasury. The treasury >IF this means that I can'tt write proposals just because I am broke, this >is a bad idea. I think that restricting the ability to change the rules >is generally a spectacuuuuuulary bad thing. We have seen it before; lets >not see it again. I was envisioning this as a forced payment not a voluntary one, so a debtor would merely be A$10 further in debt for submitting a proposal. >Other parts of the idea I disagree less with, but your amounts need some >work. $10 per trinket is a lot, and harfing trinkets ain't that hard. I don't think it is either, which is only why I gave A$2 to the trinket harfer. What would you find to be a 'reasonable' price/payment? --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: Matt Miller Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Making Harfers earn their salaries Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 21:50:46 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 29 Nov 1998, JT wrote: > As you can see, this is very rough right now, but if people think it's a > really horrid idea, or a really good one, or have ideas on other > functional offices and duties which could be payed for, I'd be happy to > hear it. > I think it's a really good idea, fwiw. IB ------------------------------ End of acka-research Digest V3 #283 ***********************************