acka-research Digest Saturday, January 23 1999 Volume 04 : Issue 018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4034 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 09:16:33 -0500 (EST) jtraub@dragoncat.net wrote: > Proposal 4034 > Quick Fix > else...if > Due: Fri Jan 29 20:53:46 1999 > > {{All players are removed from the CFJ inelligibility list}} I fail to see the need for this - it would be simpler to publish what you beleive to be the list and let any interested parties sort out any discrepancies.... ***If these are incorrect speak now or forever hold.... *** As far as I'm aware the CFJ inelligibility list at http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/Nomic/Acka/rules/cfjinel.html is correct: CFJ Ineligibility list -------------------------------------------------------- Alfvaen (CFJ 625) Attila the Pun (CFJ 603) Calvin N Hobbes (voluntary) Danek (CFJ 697) Ethelred (CFJ 665) J. M. Bear (CFJ 641) Koxvolio (CFJ 609) Memo (CFJ 641) Niccolo Flychuck (CFJ 641) Rex Mundi (voluntary) Robin Hood (CFJ 667) rufus (CFJ 708) saaremaa (voluntary) Thomas Jute (CFJ 706) two-star (CFJ 655) While I'm here I may as well tackle player locations at http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/Nomic/Acka/offices/location.html I've patched the information contained therein after a quick search of my recent mail archives. Player Location -------------------------------------------------------- 404 Not Found Wilds of Ackanomic /dev/joe Vulcan Headquarters (07 Dec 1998 18:40:49) Alfvaen Tower of Bandwidth (07 Dec 1998 19:45:38) breadbox Free Market (Since Forever) Calvin N Hobbes Home (07 Dec 1998 18:23:16) Ethelred Town Hall (28 Sep 1998 12:17:33) Fortunato Monolith. (21 Dec 1998 11:34:15) Karma Home (Whenever the Munseum was repealed) Niccolo Flychuck Home (08 Dec 1998 02:35:04) Laa Laa Ackanomic Institute of Genetic Replication (08 Dec 1998 17:28:30) Hubert Home r-attila the farce Library (09 Jan 1999 03:37:32) Red Barn Library (29 Nov 1998 00:27:15) Rex Mundi Home (Whenever Azapiazu disbanded) rufus Library (25 Nov 1998 22:02:10) saaremaa Library (02 Oct 1998 18:04:23) Studge Home (05 Jan 1999 17:20:13) ThinMan Vulcan Headquarters (22 Dec 1998 13:45:17) Trent Home (03 Jan 1999 18:39:09) two-star Free Market (07 Dec 1998 19:11:17) Vynd Home (08 Dec 1998 00:05:45) Wild Card Titan (Moon) JT Library (11 Jan 1999 00:53:31) else...if University (05 Jan 1999 17:54:47) Idiotboy Ackanomic Institute of Genetic Replication (19 Jan 1999 23:00:12) K 2 University (22 Jan 1999 08:39:54) O Olde Alpha Home (21 Dec 1998 14:40:26) Everyone Else is at Home ***If these are incorrect speak now or forever hold.... *** K 2 ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: RFC: Acka: My thoughts on Voting Variability Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 09:17:03 -0500 (EST) Bribe: I'll pay each player who makes a constructive comment on this RFC; (implementation, potential, etc.) A$15. K 2 who has seen RFC's pass un comment ed :) {{[This proposal sets up a 'fuzzy voting system' and ties it into a concept of Mannna (suggestions of a better name are welcome :). Voting for or against a proposal requires Manna. Players are permitted to have a greater effect on a proposals outcome, however, only at increased cost, which must be earnt back by having a reduced effect on other proposals. For the time being I've set the maximum effect at |300| i.e. three times the normal voting amount - this is roughly equivalent to a vote, a bonus vote and a Tammany bribe under the old system. The max/min effect could possibly be tied into Slakko's voting characteristic (a characteristic of 4 allows players to vote in the range -400 to 400) Under the proposed system a vote of 100 is equivalent to YES, -100 to NO and 0 to Baa!. SInce each proposal which completes its voting period earns a player 100 Manna, the right to vote at the 'standard level' is guaranteed. Players may vote at a decreased level on proposals they do not care about - in return they may have increased effect on others. A concept of seniority is incorporated into this scheme, since by judicious use of votes less than 100 a long term player may aqcuire the means to have greater game effect. Since such an effect is a drain to their rescues. I have also written other proposals (not included in this RFC) which separately fold A$ and points into the Manna. Under such a system Manna would become a means to effect the game state, form which it may derive 'value'.]}} {{[The following modifications were inspired by P2996, authored by saaremaa]}} I. Amend rule 2, "Proposals", to replace the third paragraph with this: " As soon as possible after a proposal's prescribed voting period ends, the votes on that proposal shall be posted publicly. The proposal is then accepted if the proposal's Acceptance Index exceeds its Acceptance Threshold. " II. Amend rule 2-1, "Voting on Proposals", to read: " Voting Players may vote an integer between -300 and 300 inclusive on each proposal, by sending their vote to the Tabulator. Players who vote less than a proposal's Acceptance Threshold are said to have voted to reject it, while players who vote greater are said to have voted to accept it. Votes must be unambiguous and unconditional. A Voting Player may also choose not to vote on a proposal, which is called abstaining. Voting Players who do not vote within the prescribed voting period shall be deemed to have abstained. Voting Players may change their vote up until the end of the prescribed voting period, but in any case are limited to one vote per proposal. A proposal's Acceptance Index is the sum of all votes legally cast within its prescribed voting period. A proposal's Acceptance Threshold is 0, unless changed as described in the rules. {{[***RFC Note***: The previous paragraph implements the current situation. i.e. more than 50% of the vote to pass - The following implements the 60% threshold: A proposal's Acceptance Index is the sum of all positive votes plus one and a half time the sum of all negative votes. Only votes legally cast within its prescribed voting period are counted. A proposal's Acceptance Threshold is 0, unless changed as described in the rules. ]}} The prescribed voting period on a proposal is seven days, starting from the moment that the proposal is publicly distributed as specified by the rules. Entities may vote only as specified by the rules. Non-entities may not vote. " III. Create a new rule numbered XX entitled "Mannna from Heaven, Food for the Soul" with the text: " Mannna is an operable gift entity. An Trading entity may own a negative amount of Mannna, however, a Trading Entity may not accept or offer a trade or perform a game action which would cause the amount of Mannna it owns to be below 0, unless it would result in it owning more Mannna after the trade than before. When A Proposal's Voting Results are Reported, but prior to any effects generated by it (including any scoring changes), the following Manna Changes shall occur in order: i) each player who did not abstain shall receive 100 Manna. ii) the absolute value of each player's vote is subtracted from their Mannna Score. If a player's Mannna drops below 0 as a result of step ii she has committed the Evil Crime of Ballot Stuffing. A player who possesses a negative amount of Mannna may not cast a vote other than 0 (abstention is also possible), this take precedence over all rules governing how a player may vote. " {{[Fix the rest of the rules]}} IV. Amend Rule 2-2 (Scoring When A Proposal's Voting Results are Reported) making section VI. Boring Proposals to read in full: " A proposal is Boring if and only if at least half of the votes cast on the proposal were equal to its Acceptance Threshold. The above provisions notwithstanding, no points are scored by any player as a result of a Boring proposal being accepted or rejected. " V. Amend Rule 1-7-3 (Paradigm Type: AntiVoting) by replacing the phrase: " Anti-Voting is defined as voting NO on an accepted proposal or voting YES on a rejected proposal (determined at the end of the prescribed voting period). " with: " Anti-Voting is defined as voting to reject an accepted proposal or voting to accept a rejected proposal (determined at the end of the prescribed voting period). " VI. Amend Rule 1-7-5 (Paradigm Type: Flow Voting) by replacing the phrase: " Flow-Voting is defined as voting YES on an accepted proposal or voting NO on a rejected proposal (determined at the end of the prescribed voting period). " with: " Flow-Voting is defined as voting to accept an accepted proposal or voting to reject a rejected proposal (determined at the end of the prescribed voting period). " VII. Amend Rule 2-2-3 (Ackanomic Unity) by replacing the first sentence with: " Should it ever occur that every player eligible to do so should vote to accept the same proposal then the following shall happen: " VIII. Amend the paragraph which commences "If exactly one of the verdicts of a Serious Hearing" in Rule 5 (Hearings) to read in full: " If exactly one of the verdicts of a Serious Hearing would lead to a modification of the ruleset, that verdict must receive sufficient votes such if it were a proposal it would be accepted, treating vote for that verdict as maximal proposal votes and all other votes in the hearing as minimal proposal votes. In this case, if this particular response would fail to be accepted, the response that received the second most responses is the verdict of the Hearing. " IX. Amend Section i under the heading 'Effect:' in Rule 7-16-4 (ASS Song: Ode to Joy) to read: " i) Every player that voted to accept the proposal that triggered the song gains one point. " X. Replace the text "All players who voted against a Great Work that was accepted will lose 7 points" where it appear in section III, subsection c in Rule 2-2-2 (Literature) with the text "All players who voted to reject a Great Work that was accepted will lose 7 points" {{[Make the votes on proposals made under the other rules work]}} Create a new rule with number 2-1-2, title "ZZimsy Proposals", and text: " This rule has precedence over all other rules effecting proposal votes. All proposals distributed after the proposal that created this rule, yet distributed before this rule was created are ZZimsy Proposals. No other proposals are ZZimsy. All YES votes cast on ZZimsy Proposals are converted to votes of 100. All NO votes cast on ZZimsy Proposals are converted to votes of -100. All BAA votes cast on ZZimsy Proposals are converted to votes of 0. Upon it being true that there exists no ZZimsy Proposals whose voting results have not been reported, this rule repeals itself. " XI. {{All players have 0 Mannna.}} {{[Don't even think of Patent Infringement]}} ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Acka: RFC: My thoughts on Voting Variability (Formatted better :) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 09:26:50 -0500 (EST) Bribe: I'll pay each player who makes a constructive comment on this RFC; (implementation, potential, etc.) A$15. K 2 who has seen RFC's pass un comment ed :) {{[This proposal sets up a 'fuzzy voting system' and ties it into a concept of Mannna (suggestions of a better name are welcome :). Voting for or against a proposal requires Manna. Players are permitted to have a greater effect on a proposals outcome, however, only at increased cost, which must be earnt back by having a reduced effect on other proposals. For the time being I've set the maximum effect at |300| i.e. three times the normal voting amount - this is roughly equivalent to a vote, a bonus vote and a Tammany bribe under the old system. The max/min effect could possibly be tied into Slakko's voting characteristic (a characteristic of 4 allows players to vote in the range -400 to 400) Under the proposed system a vote of 100 is equivalent to YES, -100 to NO and 0 to Baa!. SInce each proposal which completes its voting period earns a player 100 Manna, the right to vote at the 'standard level' is guaranteed. Players may vote at a decreased level on proposals they do not care about - in return they may have increased effect on others. A concept of seniority is incorporated into this scheme, since by judicious use of votes less than 100 a long term player may aqcuire the means to have greater game effect. Since such an effect is a drain to their rescues. I have also written other proposals (not included in this RFC) which separately fold A$ and points into the Manna. Under such a system Manna would become a means to effect the game state, form which it may derive 'value'.]}} {{[The following modifications were inspired by P2996, authored by saaremaa]}} I. Amend rule 2, "Proposals", to replace the third paragraph with this: " As soon as possible after a proposal's prescribed voting period ends, the votes on that proposal shall be posted publicly. The proposal is then accepted if the proposal's Acceptance Index exceeds its Acceptance Threshold. " II. Amend rule 2-1, "Voting on Proposals", to read: " Voting Players may vote an integer between -300 and 300 inclusive on each proposal, by sending their vote to the Tabulator. Players who vote less than a proposal's Acceptance Threshold are said to have voted to reject it, while players who vote greater are said to have voted to accept it. Votes must be unambiguous and unconditional. A Voting Player may also choose not to vote on a proposal, which is called abstaining. Voting Players who do not vote within the prescribed voting period shall be deemed to have abstained. Voting Players may change their vote up until the end of the prescribed voting period, but in any case are limited to one vote per proposal. A proposal's Acceptance Index is the sum of all votes legally cast within its prescribed voting period. A proposal's Acceptance Threshold is 0, unless changed as described in the rules. {{[***RFC Note***: The previous paragraph implements the current situation. i.e. more than 50% of the vote to pass - The following implements the 60% threshold: A proposal's Acceptance Index is the sum of all positive votes plus one and a half time the sum of all negative votes. Only votes legally cast within its prescribed voting period are counted. A proposal's Acceptance Threshold is 0, unless changed as described in the rules. ]}} The prescribed voting period on a proposal is seven days, starting from the moment that the proposal is publicly distributed as specified by the rules. Entities may vote only as specified by the rules. Non-entities may not vote. " III. Create a new rule numbered XX entitled "Mannna from Heaven, Food for the Soul" with the text: " Mannna is an operable gift entity. An Trading entity may own a negative amount of Mannna, however, a Trading Entity may not accept or offer a trade or perform a game action which would cause the amount of Mannna it owns to be below 0, unless it would result in it owning more Mannna after the trade than before. When A Proposal's Voting Results are Reported, but prior to any effects generated by it (including any scoring changes), the following Manna Changes shall occur in order: i) each player who did not abstain shall receive 100 Manna. ii) the absolute value of each player's vote is subtracted from their Mannna Score. If a player's Mannna drops below 0 as a result of step ii she has committed the Evil Crime of Ballot Stuffing. A player who possesses a negative amount of Mannna may not cast a vote other than 0 (abstention is also possible), this takes precedence over all rules governing how a player may vote. " {{[Fix the rest of the rules]}} IV. Amend Rule 2-2 (Scoring When A Proposal's Voting Results are Reported) making section VI. Boring Proposals to read in full: " A proposal is Boring if and only if at least half of the votes cast on the proposal were equal to its Acceptance Threshold. The above provisions notwithstanding, no points are scored by any player as a result of a Boring proposal being accepted or rejected. " V. Amend Rule 1-7-3 (Paradigm Type: AntiVoting) by replacing the phrase: " Anti-Voting is defined as voting NO on an accepted proposal or voting YES on a rejected proposal (determined at the end of the prescribed voting period). " with: " Anti-Voting is defined as voting to reject an accepted proposal or voting to accept a rejected proposal (determined at the end of the prescribed voting period). " VI. Amend Rule 1-7-5 (Paradigm Type: Flow Voting) by replacing the phrase: " Flow-Voting is defined as voting YES on an accepted proposal or voting NO on a rejected proposal (determined at the end of the prescribed voting period). " with: " Flow-Voting is defined as voting to accept an accepted proposal or voting to reject a rejected proposal (determined at the end of the prescribed voting period). " VII. Amend Rule 2-2-3 (Ackanomic Unity) by replacing the first sentence with: " Should it ever occur that every player eligible to do so should vote to accept the same proposal then the following shall happen: " VIII. Amend the paragraph which commences "If exactly one of the verdicts of a Serious Hearing" in Rule 5 (Hearings) to read in full: " If exactly one of the verdicts of a Serious Hearing would lead to a modification of the ruleset, that verdict must receive sufficient votes such if it were a proposal it would be accepted, treating vote for that verdict as maximal proposal votes and all other votes in the hearing as minimal proposal votes. In this case, if this particular response would fail to be accepted, the response that received the second most responses is the verdict of the Hearing. " IX. Amend Section i under the heading 'Effect:' in Rule 7-16-4 (ASS Song: Ode to Joy) to read: " i) Every player that voted to accept the proposal that triggered the song gains one point. " X. Replace the text "All players who voted against a Great Work that was accepted will lose 7 points" where it appears in section III, subsection c in Rule 2-2-2 (Literature) with the text "All players who voted to reject a Great Work that was accepted will lose 7 points" {{[Make the votes on proposals made under the other rules work]}} Create a new rule with number 2-1-2, title "ZZimsy Proposals", and text: " This rule has precedence over all other rules effecting proposal votes. All proposals distributed after the proposal that created this rule, yet distributed before this rule was created are ZZimsy Proposals. No other proposals are ZZimsy. All YES votes cast on ZZimsy Proposals are converted to votes of 100. All NO votes cast on ZZimsy Proposals are converted to votes of -100. All BAA votes cast on ZZimsy Proposals are converted to votes of 0. Upon it being true that there exists no ZZimsy Proposals whose voting results have not been reported, this rule repeals itself. " XI. {{All players have 0 Mannna.}} {{[Don't even think of Patent Infringement]}} ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4034 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 12:50:06 -0500 (EST) >As far as I'm aware the CFJ inelligibility list at >http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/Nomic/Acka/rules/cfjinel.html is >correct: I think it is about right, and I plan to use it until 4034 passes. But I'd rather know for sure. -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Re: RFC: Acka: My thoughts on Voting Variability Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 12:50:22 -0500 (EST) I like it. I think you've done an excellent job of creating a fair, balanced economy. Do you give new players manna? They should receive 100 to begin with (maybe I missed it). I'd like the penalty for Ballot Stuffing to be a little more severe, since as it stands, players can borrow directly from future earnings. Perhaps interest of some sort (a player with less than 0 Manna looses 1 Manna for every -10 Manna e has). -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4036 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 16:27:07 -0500 (EST) On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 jtraub@dragoncat.net wrote: >Rearrange the list in section 9 of the same rule so that each item >begins on a different line. Just for the record, this has already been done, at least in my most recent local copy which should also be online at www.ackanomic.org. Also, changes to the whitespacing within the rules is a perogative of the rule-harfer, so if you find the spacing wrong, all you need to do is tell me and I can do it as a priveledge of my office. --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: RFC: Acka: My thoughts on Voting Variability Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 16:53:57 -0500 (EST) On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, K 2 wrote: >Bribe: I'll pay each player who makes a constructive comment on this >RFC; >(implementation, potential, etc.) A$15. Here's my comments :) >A concept of seniority is incorporated into this scheme, since by >judicious use of votes less than 100 a long term player may aqcuire the >means to have greater game effect. Since such an effect is a drain to >their rescues. It was unclear that you really mean less than |100| until reading further. It appeared just from reading this that a vote of NO on a proposal would gain me Manna above and beyond. I'm glad to see that's not the case. I definately think this will encourage more BAA votes. Maybe this is a good thing, maybe it's not. Personally, I would prefer not to encourage BAA. It might also encourage me to vote around 50-70 for a proposal, IE half-hearted support rather than full support. >" > >As soon as possible after a proposal's prescribed voting period ends, >the votes on that proposal shall be posted publicly. The proposal is then >accepted if the proposal's Acceptance Index exceeds its Acceptance >Threshold. > >" [various other things which require changes to the bot removed] I know that *I*, should I still be acting Promoter or acting Tabulator would not want to have to make the changes to the bot that this requires. However, I canbnot speak for /dev/joe whom I'm fairly sure will be returning shortly as he rejoined the mailing lists last night :) >III. Create a new rule numbered XX entitled "Mannna from Heaven, Food >for the Soul" with the text: >" >Mannna is an operable gift entity. > >An Trading entity may own a negative amount of Mannna, however, a >Trading Entity may not accept or offer a trade or perform a game action >which would cause the amount of Mannna it owns to be below 0, unless it >would result in it owning more Mannna after the trade than before. Thank you for including that :) >If a player's Mannna drops below 0 as a result of step ii she has >committed the Evil Crime of Ballot Stuffing. Drop the Evil :) >A player who possesses a negative amount of Mannna may not cast a vote >other than 0 (abstention is also possible), this take precedence over all >rules governing how a player may vote. >" This means the bot would need to possibly change a players vote which was cast during a series of votes to be BAA if they don't have the manna. Given that, you might as well get rid of the crime above since the check could be done there as well. I also don't like that provision. I don't think that anything should interfere with a players right to vote under ordinary continuous circumstances, and players who care about the rules and not committing crimes or having their votes arbitrarily shifted are now much more likely to vote BAA rather than EVER voting yes or no. I think there should be more incentive to actually think about and decide on the 'worth' of a proposal rather than incentives to just sit back and be sheep. Also, if we are giving manna for voting on a proposal, we probably shouldn't be giving points as well, but you said you discussed merging them in another proposal, so I'll wait to see that. >VIII. Amend the paragraph which commences "If exactly one of the >verdicts of a Serious Hearing" in Rule 5 (Hearings) to read in full: >" >If exactly one of the verdicts of a Serious Hearing would lead to a >modification of the ruleset, that verdict must receive sufficient votes >such if it were a proposal it would be accepted, treating vote for that >verdict as maximal proposal votes and all other votes in the hearing as >minimal proposal votes. In this case, if this particular response would >fail to be accepted, the response that received the second most responses .is the verdict of the Hearing. >" I find this unclearly phrased. 'maximal' and 'minimal' are not really well defined, since you defined the range to be '300' to '-300' but 'standard votes' are 100 to -100? Which value (100 or 300) is used here? As a more general comment, you need to have text which says that a vote to accept a proposal is any vote with a value greater than the acceptability threshold and a vote to reject is any vote with a value less than the acceptability threshold. Apologies if this is in there and I missed it. >XI. {{All players have 0 Mannna.}} {{[Don't even think of Patent You use Mannna here and Manna elsewhere :) You might want to clear that up. --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 4037 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 16:57:29 -0500 (EST) On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 jtraub@dragoncat.net wrote: >II. Swingerships can only be owned players. I think the word 'by' missing here is very important as it completely changes the meaning from one which makes sense and is useless to one which makes sense and is correct. --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 4034 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 17:11:19 -0500 (EST) On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, K 2 wrote: >JT Library (11 Jan 1999 00:53:31) I had thought I had gone home after this. Ahh well. If I am in fact not at my home, I go home. --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: Towsner Subject: Re: RFC: Acka: My thoughts on Voting Variability Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 18:00:05 -0500 (EST) On further thought, I have some more comments (do I get an extra A$15?) I don't think Manna should be tradeable. If Manna is tradeable, I can accumulate a huge amount, and then spend more than 300 manna on a proposal by tradeing it to other people. It also encourages excessive hoarding. If players can't spend more than 300 manna, then there is no reason to hoard manna beyond a certain point, which means that the old players will not have much of an advantage over new players, and that the difference can be overcome quickly. In addition, I don't think players who vote less than |100| should get a full 100 manna back. /dev/joe suggested on IRC that a player receive back 100 if eir vote was 100 or more, the average of eir vote if it was between 60 and 80, and 20 more than eir vote if it was less than 60. -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: RFC: Acka: My thoughts on Voting Variability Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:30:36 -0500 (EST) > I don't think Manna should be tradeable. If Manna is tradeable, I > can accumulate a huge amount, and then spend more than 300 manna on a > proposal by tradeing it to other people. It also encourages excessive > hoarding. If players can't spend more than 300 manna, then there is no > reason to hoard manna beyond a certain point, which means that the old > players will not have much of an advantage over new players, and that the > difference can be overcome quickly. The main point of making Manna tradeable is because I am/was intending to fold both A$ and points into the Mannna system creating a single currency. As far as trading and hording is concerned - in order to gain Mannna a player must accept that they would have reduced effect on the game state, as far as this RFC is concerned trading Mannna is trading your ability to vote - in a unified system a in order to horde a player would have to pass up other opertunaties as well; the purchase of otzma cards and element. In fact previously free activites such as visting the vault could come at a price as well. > In addition, I don't think players who vote less than |100| should > get a full 100 manna back. /dev/joe suggested on IRC that a player receive > back 100 if eir vote was 100 or more, the average of eir vote if it was > between 60 and 80, and 20 more than eir vote if it was less than 60. Like this: ? a) Players who cast a vote with an absolute value greater than 100 recieve 100 Mannna. b) Players who cast a vote with an absolute value between 60 and 100 inclusive, recieve 50 plus half their vote in Mannna. c) Players who cast a vote with an absolute value less than 60 receive 20 plus thier vote in Mannna. ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4034 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:30:36 -0500 (EST) You went to the Library after I invited Ackanomic to a Date there :) K 2 JT wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, K 2 wrote: > >JT Library (11 Jan 1999 00:53:31) > > I had thought I had gone home after this. Ahh well. If I am in fact not > at my home, I go home. > > --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: RFC: Acka: My thoughts on Voting Variability Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:30:45 -0500 (EST) JT wrote: > I > definately think this will encourage more BAA votes. Maybe this is a good > thing, maybe it's not. Personally, I would prefer not to encourage BAA. > It might also encourage me to vote around 50-70 for a proposal, IE > half-hearted support rather than full support. Technically they wouldn't be Baa! votes anymore :) Yes I would expect an increase in reduced magnitude votes, such a situation, however, will not adversely effect the acceptance of a proposal (as in an anti-voting system) - that player would simply have less effect. I would expect proposals which are controversial, harry or interesting to generate higher votes and cause a greater drain on player resources. In other words I don't see this as a problem. If Mannna accumulates too rapidly the proposal income can always be reduced. Having read else...if's message I think a reward system capped at 20 (1/5th of an additional vote) and with no return for |votes| greater than 100, is a Good Idea. > [various other things which require changes to the bot removed] > > I know that *I*, should I still be acting Promoter or acting Tabulator > would not want to have to make the changes to the bot that this requires. > However, I canbnot speak for /dev/joe whom I'm fairly sure will be > returning shortly as he rejoined the mailing lists last night :) If such alterations were to be the only source of objection, I could offer my services... I'm at least familiar with python now :) > >If a player's Mannna drops below 0 as a result of step ii she has > >committed the Evil Crime of Ballot Stuffing. > > Drop the Evil :) It was an allusion to Evil Ballot Stuffers actually - I could always make it The Crime of Evil Ballot Stuffing :) > >A player who possesses a negative amount of Mannna may not cast a vote > >other than 0 (abstention is also possible), this take precedence over all > >rules governing how a player may vote. > >" > > This means the bot would need to possibly change a players vote which was > cast during a series of votes to be BAA if they don't have the manna. > Given that, you might as well get rid of the crime above since the check > could be done there as well. > > I also don't like that provision. I don't think that anything should > interfere with a players right to vote under ordinary continuous > circumstances, and players who care about the rules and not committing > crimes or having their votes arbitrarily shifted are now much more likely > to vote BAA rather than EVER voting yes or no. I think there should > be more incentive to actually think about and decide on the 'worth' of a > proposal rather than incentives to just sit back and be sheep. > > Also, if we are giving manna for voting on a proposal, we probably > shouldn't be giving points as well, but you said you discussed merging > them in another proposal, so I'll wait to see that. This was one of the more problematic sections... There needs to be a mechanism which keeps the tracking of Manna solely with the 'Mannna Keeper" and doesn't require the tabulator to cross check against Mannna player levels to determine if a vote is legal. On the other hand players must be prevented from simply voting the maximum all the time. I figured making it a crime would reduce the attractiveness of deliberately going into debt. Once in debt players must have a way to get out of debt. Perhaps if players were estimated to voting between 60 and -60 (under the else...ifian/devjovian scheme this is the region of maximum gain) until the scorekeeper reports that they are no longer in debt. *** >From the time it is publicly pointed out that a player posses a negative amount of Manna, until the MannnaKeeper reports that they are out of debt, she may only cast votes between 60 and -60. *** This wouldn't change votes already cst so a determined player could sink further into debt before the rules enforced a more moderate spending shceme :) > >as maximal proposal votes and all other votes in the hearing as > >minimal proposal votes. > I find this unclearly phrased. 'maximal' and 'minimal' are not really > well defined, since you defined the range to be '300' to '-300' but > 'standard votes' are 100 to -100? Which value (100 or 300) is used here? how about if it was re-phrased "the maximum possible proposal vote". > As a more general comment, you need to have text which says that a vote to > accept a proposal is any vote with a value greater than the acceptability > threshold and a vote to reject is any vote with a value less than the > acceptability threshold. Apologies if this is in there and I missed it. It is - see the first paragraph of R2-1. > >XI. {{All players have 0 Mannna.}} {{[Don't even think of Patent > > You use Mannna here and Manna elsewhere :) You might want to clear that > up. I'm still waiting for a better name :) K 2 ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: RFC: Acka: My thoughts on Voting Variability Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:48:39 -0500 (EST) On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, K 2 wrote: >> I don't think Manna should be tradeable. If Manna is tradeable, I >> can accumulate a huge amount, and then spend more than 300 manna on a >> proposal by tradeing it to other people. It also encourages excessive >> hoarding. If players can't spend more than 300 manna, then there is no >> reason to hoard manna beyond a certain point, which means that the old >> players will not have much of an advantage over new players, and that the >> difference can be overcome quickly. > >The main point of making Manna tradeable is because I am/was intending >to fold both A$ and points into the Mannna system creating a single >currency. I truthfully do not believe that A$ and points and manna should all be folded into one system. Each of them serve different purposes, and I believe they should. This alone would be enough for me to vote against this proposal (or at least it's companion). --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 4034 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:49:11 -0500 (EST) On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, K 2 wrote: >You went to the Library after I invited Ackanomic to a Date there :) Oh right.. did that date occur? and if so, who was there :) --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: RFC: Acka: My thoughts on Voting Variability Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:54:33 -0500 (EST) JT wrote: > Each of them serve different purposes, and I > believe they should. This alone would be enough for me to vote against > this proposal (or at least it's companion). Which is why the RFC only covers Mannna as a voting currency... any attempts to combine either oth the other currencies would be made separatly if Mannna is accepted. K 2 ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4034 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:55:45 -0500 (EST) JT wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, K 2 wrote: > >You went to the Library after I invited Ackanomic to a Date there :) > > Oh right.. did that date occur? and if so, who was there :) According to my research: r-attila the farce Library (09 Jan 1999 03:37:32) Red Barn Library (29 Nov 1998 00:27:15) rufus Library (25 Nov 1998 22:02:10) saaremaa Library (02 Oct 1998 18:04:23) JT Library (11 Jan 1999 00:53:31) > > > --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: Towsner Subject: Re: RFC: Acka: My thoughts on Voting Variability Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:56:02 -0500 (EST) >The main point of making Manna tradeable is because I am/was intending >to fold both A$ and points into the Mannna system creating a single >currency. I don't think that's a good reason. I don't want Manna to be tradeable because you have big ambitions for it:) >As far as trading and hording is concerned - in order to gain Mannna a >player must accept that they would have reduced effect on the game >state, as far as this RFC is concerned trading Mannna is trading your >ability to vote - in a unified system a in order to horde a player would >have to pass up other opertunaties as well; the purchase of otzma cards >and element. In fact previously free activites such as visting the vault >could come at a price as well. Maybe when Manna gobbles A$ and points, making it tradeable would work. At the moment though, a player could effectively spend more than 300 Manna on a single proposal, which is unbalanced. As the RFC stands now, Manna should not be tradeable. >a) Players who cast a vote with an absolute value greater than 100 >recieve 100 Mannna. >b) Players who cast a vote with an absolute value between 60 and 100 >inclusive, recieve 50 plus half their vote in Mannna. >c) Players who cast a vote with an absolute value less than 60 receive >20 plus thier vote in Mannna. Yes -- -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 V4 #18 **********************************