acka-research Digest Saturday, December 12 1998 Volume 03 : Issue 294 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 712 (ThinMan) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 02:54:55 -0500 (EST) John Frederic Mc Coy wrote: > On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > > 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 This won''t actually fix the invalidly assigned judge problem - CFJs 484,513,514,614,704 were all assigned to me in invalid threads without ever explicitly mentioning me. Of course the RFC is still a Good Idea. K 2 expert in non-CFJ - no matter what the senate says. ------------------------------ From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3891 Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 04:26:40 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote: > >> "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 discussedit 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) 3 and even 4 baa votes in such turnouts are not uncommon. This means exactly what I thought it means. I get the point. I don't like it one bit. Niccolo Flychuck ------------------------------ From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3891 Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 04:35:35 -0500 (EST) > >3 and even 4 baa votes in such turnouts are not uncommon. >This means exactly what I thought it means. I get the point. I don't like >it one bit. > that's true right now, Nicollo, when baa is the vote of an abstainer who doesn't want to abstain. The whole point of the proposal would be to change BAA! to a vote for the prop instead of a neutral vote. -- Trent Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Acting Thrallmaster, Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3891 Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 04:37:56 -0500 (EST) >that's true right now, Nicollo, err... Niccolo... >when baa is the vote of an abstainer who >doesn't want to abstain. The whole point of the proposal would be to >change BAA! to a vote for the prop instead of a neutral vote. -- Trent Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Acting Thrallmaster, Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3902 Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 04:43:28 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Towsner wrote: > >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. > 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 The current org rules may not, but ThinMan's current proposal does. It explicitly state that the pseudo-founder and the people who join become members fo the new org if the organization is the kind that has members. Then, in the rewrite of Corporations is states that Corporations have no members. This is a rather more elegant solution than the one I suggested some days ago. However, I believe the section on Oranizations disbandment might disband all Corporations at the moment of formation - since all Corporations have a nonpositive number of members, and while it allows for other rules to specify other methods, it does not allow them to replace the default method. Rather than adding a lot of complex precedence language, I suggest simply adding a statement that says "a corporation has itself as its sole member"- but that's not necessarily the best solution. Other than that one problem, I think ThinMan's rewrite retains the uniqueness of Corporations, and the integrity of the organizationl structure. With the problem fixed, I'm likely to support it. > 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 > *********************************** > ------------------------------ From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Acka: PE Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 06:56:31 -0500 (EST) is there a PE page more recent than september? Where is it? -- Trent Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Acting Thrallmaster, Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: Tom Walmsley Subject: Acka: My take on the whole org thing Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 08:46:09 -0500 (EST) There seems to have been a fair bit of modification of orgs recently and they seem to be almost as broken at the moment than literature is. My favoured solution to this would simply be repealing orgs outright since they seem to me to be little more than scam bate. I only mention this because if more than about two people agree with me now then it might be worth me actually writing up a proposal to do just this at some point. Jenny. -- Tom Walmsley t.walmsley@lineone.net http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739 Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo. ------------------------------ From: Tom Walmsley Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3891 Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 08:46:19 -0500 (EST) Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote: > that's true right now, Nicollo, when baa is the vote of an abstainer who > doesn't want to abstain. The whole point of the proposal would be to > change BAA! to a vote for the prop instead of a neutral vote. I don't like this one little bit either. As a regular BAA voter I think that regardless of whether you want to mess around with how votes in favour of a proposal work (I don't) you should keep some way of voting neutrally. Jenny. -- Tom Walmsley t.walmsley@lineone.net http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739 Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo. ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3902 Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 10:38:36 -0500 (EST) >The current org rules may not, but ThinMan's current proposal does. >It explicitly state that the pseudo-founder and the people who join become >members fo the new org if the organization is the kind that has members. >Then, in the rewrite of Corporations is states that Corporations have no >members. This is a rather more elegant solution than the one I suggested >some days ago. However, I believe the section on Oranizations disbandment >might disband all Corporations at the moment of formation - since all >Corporations have a nonpositive number of members, and while it allows for >other rules to specify other methods, it does not allow them to replace >the default method. I think this is what ThinMan meant by Player Sanctioned Membership Organization, although it's a little ambiguous. Regardles, Corporations would be substantially more complicated than they need to be. Even if the additional features for Organizations are overridded, they're still there. >Rather than adding a lot of complex precedence language, I suggest simply >adding a statement that says "a corporation has itself as its sole >member"- but that's not necessarily the best solution. That certainly works for this. But what if, (hypothetical situation), someone someday decides to make quasi-open the default admissions type, and it passes (that doesn't seem to unreasonable). What if they don't think about Corporations, and another player requests membership in the Corporation, which the Corporation does not object to, so the player is granted membership. Now that player can try to manipulate the Corporation like an Organization, without really being stopped. >Other than that one problem, I think ThinMan's rewrite retains the >uniqueness of Corporations, and the integrity of the organizationl >structure. This has nothing to do with the uniqueness of the structure, I agree that the structure is unaffected. This is simply poor design. In C++ terminology, this is like using classes instead of templates. You can do it, and it will work at first, but in the long run it's less work to do it right, and change the other rules. -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: John Frederic Mc Coy Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3891 Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 17:24:51 -0500 (EST) On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote: > > > Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote: > > > > that's true right now, Nicollo, when baa is the vote of an abstainer who > > doesn't want to abstain. The whole point of the proposal would be to > > change BAA! to a vote for the prop instead of a neutral vote. > > I don't like this one little bit either. As a regular BAA voter I think that > regardless of whether you want to mess around with how votes in favour of a > proposal work (I don't) you should keep some way of voting neutrally. > > Jenny. I agree wholeheartedly. Vynd jmccoy@umich.edu > > -- > Tom Walmsley t.walmsley@lineone.net > http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html > AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739 > Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo. > > > > ------------------------------ End of acka-research Digest V3 #294 ***********************************