acka-research Digest Friday, January 01 1999 Volume 04 : Issue 001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matt Miller Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3974 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 13:51:02 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 1 Jan 1999 jtraub@dragoncat.net wrote: > Proposal 3974 > 5 is Even and Odd > O Olde Alpha > Due: Fri Jan 8 13:16:10 1999 > > > Create a new rule, with a number of the Rule-Harfer's choosing with the name > "Mathematics Produces a Belief in Raisins" with the following SLAKKER > delimited text: > I think this bit is dangerous. IB ------------------------------ From: Matt Miller Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3976 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 13:52:44 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 1 Jan 1999 jtraub@dragoncat.net wrote: > Proposal 3976 > "Players eligible to vote on proposals who do not vote within the > prescribed voting period shall be deemed to have voted BAA!." > You've got to be kidding. IB votes for himself or not at all ------------------------------ From: Tom Walmsley Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3976 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 13:57:42 -0500 (EST) Matt Miller wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jan 1999 jtraub@dragoncat.net wrote: > > > Proposal 3976 > > > "Players eligible to vote on proposals who do not vote within the > > prescribed voting period shall be deemed to have voted BAA!." > > > > You've got to be kidding. > > IB > votes for himself or not at all At the moment voting BAA! and abstaining are exactly equivalent as far as I can see. Consider a vote of BAA! to be an abstention, except that there's no longer any danger in abstaining causing a quorum failure. NY E NJ. -- 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: Matt Miller Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3976 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 14:24:37 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, Tom Walmsley wrote: > > At the moment voting BAA! and abstaining are exactly equivalent as far > as I can see. Consider a vote of BAA! to be an abstention, except that > there's no longer any danger in abstaining causing a quorum failure. > At the moment they are. Why muck about with it? IB > NY E NJ. > > -- > 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 3976 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 14:27:57 -0500 (EST) Matt Miller wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, Tom Walmsley wrote: > > > > > At the moment voting BAA! and abstaining are exactly equivalent as far > > as I can see. Consider a vote of BAA! to be an abstention, except that > > there's no longer any danger in abstaining causing a quorum failure. > > > > At the moment they are. Why muck about with it? Because it removes some unnecessary complexity from the rules. -- 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: Matt Miller Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3976 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 14:45:19 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, Tom Walmsley wrote: > > > > Because it removes some unnecessary complexity from the rules. > I guess we disagree. I hardly find the concept of abstention complex. IB ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3977 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 15:05:32 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 1 Jan 1999 jtraub@dragoncat.net wrote: >{{Destroy all swingerships.}} > >{{[Hopefully this will allow party chess to begin anew. At the moment >myself and Niccolo are the only swingers after the destruction of orgs. >This will also give me an opportunity to get all the party chess stuff >sorted]}} I think you are incorrect here. The parties weren't destroyed when the rules defining them were repealed. Therefore the party swingerships do still exist. Please retract this proposal and resubmit it while keeping the current swingers as swingers, with their current pieces and board position. --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 3976 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 15:17:25 -0500 (EST) There is in fact one very specific difference between BAA and Abstention already in the rules. Voting BAA gains you 1 point for bothering to vote. --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: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3977 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 17:13:34 -0500 (EST) > The parties weren't destroyed when the > rules defining them were repealed. Parties may not have been destroyed but they are not entities any more - implicit entity hood has been removed; something is an entity iif the say so - and in the case of parties/orgs/institutions/churches? the rules don't say so... K 2 ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3977 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 18:09:30 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, K 2 wrote: >> The parties weren't destroyed when the >> rules defining them were repealed. > >Parties may not have been destroyed but they are not entities any more - >implicit entity hood has been removed; something is an entity iif the say so - >and in the case of parties/orgs/institutions/churches? the rules don't say >so... Yes, but the swinger rules say that the swingership is destroyed if the party is destroyed. It wasn't, therefore the swingerships still exist. They still have attributes and are associated with the now non-existant party because there is no rule manadated way for them to have gone away. That is why I will and do object to P3977, and ask that it be retracted. It would be better to let the existing swingers continue to play rather than wipe away their efforts within the game when there is no need to do so. --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: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3977 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 18:38:36 -0500 (EST) JT wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, K 2 wrote: > >> The parties weren't destroyed when the > >> rules defining them were repealed. > > > >Parties may not have been destroyed but they are not entities any more - > >implicit entity hood has been removed; something is an entity iif the say so - > >and in the case of parties/orgs/institutions/churches? the rules don't say > >so... > > Yes, but the swinger rules say that the swingership is destroyed if the > party is destroyed. It wasn't, therefore the swingerships still exist. > They still have attributes and are associated with the now non-existant > party because there is no rule manadated way for them to have gone away. > Well I was only refering to parties; Of cource now that parties are unregulated non-entites someone could destroy them quite easily... K 2 someone else ------------------------------ From: Bill Palmer Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3976 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 19:51:22 -0500 (EST) similar but not the same... To abstain can be to miss the opportunity OR not care one whit about the oportunity to vote. BAA! (now I might be remembering something from a rule that's long gone, but the spirit lives on in me) is a way of saying: if that weren't so 'boring' I wouldn't have even voted on it. Boring = mundane = no real interesting OR tangible effect caused by the proposal. Danek "Interest confounds daily, set aside something for a reigning day." Matt Miller wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, Tom Walmsley wrote: > > > > > > > > > Because it removes some unnecessary complexity from the rules. > > > > I guess we disagree. I hardly find the concept of abstention complex. > > IB ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3977 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 19:55:29 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, K 2 wrote: >> Yes, but the swinger rules say that the swingership is destroyed if the >> party is destroyed. It wasn't, therefore the swingerships still exist. >> They still have attributes and are associated with the now non-existant >> party because there is no rule manadated way for them to have gone away. >> > >Well I was only refering to parties; Of cource now that parties are unregulated >non-entites someone could destroy them quite easily... Perhaps, but that would be a case of a non-entity causing rule-generated effects, and I'm fairly sure we had a discussion about that and decided that didn't happen :) IE, I believe the mention of parties in the swinger rule is enough to keep them regulated at least as entities so that they cannot be arbitrarily destroyed. --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ End of acka-research Digest V4 #1 *********************************