acka-research Digest Friday, December 11 1998 Volume 03 : Issue 293 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3891 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 05:59:48 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 devjoe@wilma.che.utexas.edu wrote: > Proposal 3891 > who says voting is dead? > Trent > Due: Thu Dec 17 06:23:36 1998 > > in rule 106, replace > > "YES, NO or BAA!" with "YES, NO, BAA!, or PLONK" > and > "The required number of YES votes for a proposal to be accepted is > three-fifths of the total number of YES and NO votes legally cast within > the prescribed voting period. If that value is 0, however, the required > number of YES votes for acceptance is 1" > > with > > "The required number of YES votes for a proposal to be accepted is > three-fifths of the PASS number, where the PASS number is the total number > of votes legally cast less the product of the total number of PLONK votes ^^^^^^^^ The product? doesn't that you multiply PLONK by BAA and then many proposals could easily pass with mush less than even a majority. > and BAA! votes legally cast within the prescribed voting period. If that > value is 0 or less, however, the required number of YES votes for > acceptance is 1." > > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3891 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 06:36:56 -0500 (EST) >> "The required number of YES votes for a proposal to be accepted is >> three-fifths of the PASS number, where the PASS number is the total number >> of votes legally cast less the product of the total number of PLONK votes > ^^^^^^^^ > >The product? doesn't that you multiply PLONK by BAA and then many >proposals could easily pass with mush less than even a majority. > yes, that is exactly what it means, except it's not abusive. JT seemed not to understand the point either when I discussed it with him on IRC. Did you think that I meant sum? Or that I was trying to trick you guys? Consider the effects of this proposal: 15 players voting (sounds about right for nowadays, maybe a little high) with no BAA! or PLONK, a 9-6-0-0 causes the proposal to pass. with 1 BAA! or PLONK, you need 9-5-1-0/9-5-0-1 (10 votes arranged) with 1 of each, you need 9-4-1-1 (11 votes arranged) with 1-2, you need 8-4-1-2 (11 votes) with 2-2, you need 7-4-2-2 (11 votes) with 2-3, you need 6-4-2-3 (11 votes) 4-5-3-3 (10 votes) 2-6-4-3 (9 votes) 1-6-4-4 (9 votes) with low voter turnout (11 is a nice recent figure), here are the passing stats: 7-4-0-0 (7) 6-3-1-1 (8) 6-2-1-2 (9) 5-2-2-2 (9) (Note here that 2-2 is optimal v. 1-3) 3-2-2-3 (8) 1-4-3-3 (7) You see how with the low number of voters we have currently, it NEVER helps to vote PLONK or BAA! over yes. Let's go crazy and look at having 25 voters 15-10-0-0 (15) 15-8-1-1(17) 14-8-2-1(17) 13-8-2-2(17) 12-8-2-3(17) 10-9-3-3(16) 8-10-3-4(15) 6-11-4-4(14) 3-13-5-4(12) 1-14-5-5(11) so... If you have 25 voters, and you can arrange for 7 other Ackans to vote in specific special ways (some voting BAA!, some PLONK!), you can beat it by 1. And with the 25 voters, the very best you can do, with active collusion of 40% of the voters, is pass a proposal with 44% of the vote. sounds real broken to me, NOT! how often are you going to have a proposal that gets that kind of dichotomy, where 1/2 the people are adamantly against it and the other half are so for it that they will vote in one of these PARTICULAR ways instead of YES? The last time i saw collusion of this scae was JT's attempted palindrome win, and that was just him calling in a bunch of favors ("Hey, would you mind voting YES on prop XXXX")... if someone says "Vote PLONK for me" you'll probably actually look at the prop, make sure there are no emperor clauses. This framework is entirely useless with fewer than 16 voters, and not very broken with more than that. I suggest that Acka look at these numbers before deciding that this is scambait (which i highly doubt unless i've missed something drastic) -- Trent Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Acting Thrallmaster, Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 712 (ThinMan) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:49:06 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > I RFC a proposal that dissallows anyone who's elegability to Judge the >CFJ depends upn that CFJ from being chosen as Judge for it unless only >such people exist. I would certainly support such an amendment. --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: John Frederic Mc Coy Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 712 (ThinMan) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:07:01 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > > > > > I RFC a proposal that dissallows anyone who's elegability to Judge the > > > CFJ depends upn that CFJ from being chosen as Judge for it unless only > > > such people exist. > > > > Such concepts have been discussed before. I've yet to hear a practical > > method of doing this described. How does one determine if a player would > > only be eligible to judge a CFJ if that CFJ was TRUE (or FALSE)? In many > > cases it might seem to be obvious, but not always. And even in "obvious" > > cases, another CFJ would be necessary if there was any disagreement. > > > > Well, O.K. Dissallow any person mentioned in the CFJ text (Pol Pot in > this case). Unless more than 1/2 of the eligable people are excluded by > this. > This is something which I would probably support in proposal form. Vynd jmccoy@umich.edu ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3902 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 21:58:45 -0500 (EST) >This is an overhaul of the Organization/Corporation system bringing >Corporations back under the Organizational hierarchy. This has the advantage >of making Corporations subject to many of the same rule provisions that >Organizations are subject to, although some of the relevant rules making >provisions for Organizations will still have to be patched up to account >for Corporations. To clarify my objects to having Corporations be Organizations, I think most people will agree that these are analogous, not homologous structures. That is, they serve the similar purposes, but have different internal functioning. If Corporations are a kind of Organization, then they have all the properties of Organizations. That means they have Org-style motions defined. And Org-style membership. And so on. As the rule is in this proposal, that isn't a problem. But having all those additional rules opens things up to ambiguities and problems. To take the obvious one, I couldn't find anything in the organization rule that defers to the Corporation rule. So the clause saying that Corporations have no members looses in precedence to Organizations. So does the entire Corporation rule. Maybe I missed something, and I'm wrong about this error. But the point is that even if the rules work as ThinMan wrote it, Corporations should not descend from Organizations, and having them do so means that it becomes much easier for a future alteration to break things or open a scam. -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ End of acka-research Digest V3 #293 ***********************************