acka-research Digest Friday, January 22 1999 Volume 04 : Issue 017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Acka: More Reform Suggestions Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 03:25:12 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Matt Miller wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote: > > > What do people think about the following Vote Economy: > > > > Everyone has a Vote Characteristic. Default value is 2. > > Players may raise their Vote Characteristic by 1 at a cost of A$3000. > > They may lower their Vote Characteristic by 1 to receive A$2500. > > No player may lower their Vote Characteristic to 0. > > > > No player may raise their Vote Characteristic to a number greater than > > 50% of the number of Active Players. If ever a player's Vote > > Characteristic reaches such a level, then it will be reduced until there > > is no longer a problem. > > > > The number of votes cast in a particular way (FOR, AGAINST, or BAA) is > > equal to the sum of the Vote Characteristics of the players who voted that > > way. > > > > If people feel that this is too open to scamation, I suggest the following > > safeguard: > > > > Any player who has won a Cycle may Annoy a Proposal as a public action, > > provided the proposal is in its voting period. If any Proposal has been > > Annoyed by (some number, say 4) players then it is vetoed and removed from > > voting consideration. > > > > Comments? Suggestions? > > I like the up-front costs. But I would also suggest that it makes sense > to have a recurring cost. I know, I know, everyone thinks it -horrible- > to make people pay for voting. Everyone also thinks it's -horrible- that > older players might somehow have an advantage of newer players. > > Just so it's clear, I think both objections are silly. > > IB Apart from that last veto part, I wouldn't object to it. I think the upper value should be close to 20% of the active players. Niccolo Flychuck > > > > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4027 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 05:39:49 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 jtraub@dragoncat.net wrote: > Proposal 4027 > Also Sprach Discordia > Eric. > Due: Fri Jan 29 05:30:13 1999 > > > Renumber each currently existing Rule to a random prime number between one > and one billion such that each Rule's number is unique. Welcome to another segment of that great game show, "Beat the Speaker!" Today's contestant is Eric.. Did I pronounce that correctly? So, Eric, what are you going to get the speaker to do? "Find all primes between one and a billion." Did you hear that audience? All primes up to a billion! Why do you want the Speaker to do this? "Ummm... er... well..." That's all for this show folks. Come back in another week to see how Eric. got on. -- Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/ Queens' College Cambridge, 2nd Year Ph.D. (Pure Maths) - Graph Theory Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Clerk of the Court ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4027 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:35:42 -0500 (EST) Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 jtraub@dragoncat.net wrote: > > > Proposal 4027 > > Also Sprach Discordia > > Eric. > > Due: Fri Jan 29 05:30:13 1999 > > > > > > Renumber each currently existing Rule to a random prime number between one > > and one billion such that each Rule's number is unique. > > Welcome to another segment of that great game show, "Beat the Speaker!" And of cource the question arises which definition of a Billion? Bi-Million = 1,000,000,000,000 or the whimpy tri-thousand = 1,000,000,000.... K 2 ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4011 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:36:07 -0500 (EST) Hya JT, First of all I'd like to restate my offer regarding the Rule Harfer position; If you do find it too much of a strain on your game time, I would be happy to take over :) I'm intending to ditch Treasure Harfer and Org Harfer soon (post presidential elections...) and if I manage to keep the finance/score pages up to date.... (My current failure to keep them up to date is the reason I didn't offer my services during the official nomination period.) Secondly Rule 5-6 (Scam of the Day) is formatted incorrectly the proposal that created it had several paragraphs, I had intended to tell Trent about this some time ago but never got around to it : ---- Subject: Acka: Proposal 3943 Proposal 3943 Scam of the Day K 2 Due: Mon Dec 28 14:18:49 1998 Status: accepted Create a new rule numbered 606 titled "Scam of the Day" with the text as delimited by SCAMFEST. SCAMFEST After a player has exploited, or attempted to exploit, a loophole in the rules (even if the loophole is later found not to have existed), any other player may call a Scam Hunt against them, provided that the player hasn't had a Scam Hunt called against them in during the past week. A Scam Hunt is a serious hearing. The player who calls the hearing is the hearing harfer for it and the valid responses are: "Wow! She drove a truck through it!" and "I don't think she knows how to drive.". If the result of the hearing is "I don't think she knows how to drive." The player against whom the hearing was called receives a black mark. If the result of the hearing is "Wow! She drove a truck through it!" the player who called for the hearing receives a black mark. When only one player, from amongst all players with an acka age of more than three months who are eligible to win a cycle, does not own a black mark that player gains a winning condition. When the cycle is won by this method each player who owns at least one black back has one destroyed and the winner of the cycle gains one black mark. Black marks are non-tradeable entities. Any players who possesses a black mark is very ashamed of themselves. SCAMFEST --- Regards, K 2 ------------------------------ End of acka-research Digest V4 #17 **********************************