acka-research Digest Sunday, January 24 1999 Volume 04 : Issue 020 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4034 Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 04:28:17 -0500 (EST) On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, JT wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, K 2 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) > > Well, I'm going to harf this date has having occured and the above people > gaining honor unless someone can give me a good reason why the date didn't > actually occur. Dates are regulated by the rules (after all, they're mentioned). No rule allows a player to invite Ackanomic on a date. Therefore K 2 could not do so, as it changed the game state. -- Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/ Ackanomic | U. of Cambridge Web-Harfer, Clerk of the Court, Map-Harfer, Justice | 2nd Year PhD(PMa) ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Acka: RFC(2): All Mannna of Fuzzy Voting Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 04:56:44 -0500 (EST) {{[ Suggestions from else...if, /dev/joe & JT have been incorporated. i) The amount of Mannna a player can gain on any one proposal is capped at 20. ii) Mannna is no-longer Tradable - it can be made tradable latter when any supply kinks have been sorted out. iii) The Tabulator doesn't need to pay any attention to Mannna - except for announcements of players going into and leaving debt (perhaps this could be implemented as a bot command #EBS JT ;-) iv) Mannna debt is no longer a crime v) The scorekeeper is in charge of tracking Mannna vi) newbies start with 100 Mannna - existing players receive 100 Mannna. vii) players who are in debt are restricted to votes between +100 and -100; i.e. are prevented from going further into debt. ]}} {{[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. 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" with the text: " Mannna is an ownable entity. A Trading entity may own a negative amount of Mannna. When A Proposal's Voting Results are Reported, but prior to any effects generated by it (including any scoring changes), the following Mannna changes shall be applied to all players who did not abstain on the proposal: a) Players who cast a vote with an absolute value greater than 100 loose 100 less than the absolute value of their vote in Mannna. b) Players who cast a vote with an absolute value between 60 and 100 gain 50 less half the absolute value of their vote in Mannna. c) Players who cast a vote with an absolute value less than 60 gain 20 Mannna. >From the time it is publicly pointed out that a player posses a negative amount of Mannna, until the ScoreKeeper reports that they are out of debt, that player may only cast votes between 100 and -100. This paragraph takes precedence over all rules governing how a player can vote. " IV. Amend sub-section 2 of section II of Rule 4-1 (Joining the Game) to read: " 2) The new player is paid from the Treasury the sum of A$900 and receives 100 Mannna. " {{All players have 0 Mannna.}} {{[Don't even think of Patent Infringement]}} {{[Fix the rest of the rules]}} V. 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. " VI. 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). " VII. 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). " VIII. 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: " IX. 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 votes for that verdict as votes of 100 and all other votes in the hearing as votes of -100. 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. " X. 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. " XI. 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" {{[Functionally Scorekeeper is the best officer to track this.]}} XII. Make Rule 6-4-6 (Scorekeeper) read in full: " The Office of the Scorekeeper is a Functional Office. The Duties of the Scorekeeper are: (a) maintaining a record of the players' current scores and their Mannna. (b) recording each score and Mannna change (c) detecting and announcing as soon as possible the event of a player achieving a Winning Condition by points. (d) announce when a player has a negative amount of Mannna and when that haas ceased to be the case. (d) To perform any random determinations involved in a process solely involving Points or Mannna. " {{[Make the votes on proposals made under the other rules work]}} XIII. 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. " ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: RFC: Acka: My thoughts on Voting Variability Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 04:56:50 -0500 (EST) > >*** > >>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. > >*** > > Yes, I still don't like it however. > Under the proposed scheme the only way a player would get in debt is by voting more Mannna than they have. In effect the above limitation is exactly what would be required of a player who wanted to vote > 100 at some time in the future (e would have to vote less than 100 for a while first) except in reverse... vote first hoard later. RFC v2 limits players who are in debt to votes between 100 and -100 - i.e. it prevent them from getting further in debt... > I think you'd be better off phrasing it so that it was either 100 or -100, > so that if we do get individual player voting levels, that player doesn't > get undo value in hearings. 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 votes for that verdict as votes of 1 and all other votes in the hearing as votes of -1. 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. " K 2 ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: RFC(2): All Mannna of Fuzzy Voting Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:48:40 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, K 2 wrote: >2) The new player is paid from the Treasury the sum of A$900 and >receives 100 Mannna. >" >{{All players have 0 Mannna.}} {{[Don't even think of Patent >Infringement]}} Urrm.. I think you meant 100 Mannna here :) >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. >" Something else /dev/joe and else and I were discussion. Make Boring the range -50 to 50 inclusive, so you can still vote on it with something other than zero and it can still pass, but can still be boring. Boring proposals can/should pass too (ie, lots of fixes are boring, but pretty much need to be made in some cases) --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: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:48:42 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Duncan Richer wrote: >On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, JT wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, K 2 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) >> >> Well, I'm going to harf this date has having occured and the above people >> gaining honor unless someone can give me a good reason why the date didn't >> actually occur. > >Dates are regulated by the rules (after all, they're mentioned). No rule >allows a player to invite Ackanomic on a date. Therefore K 2 could not do >so, as it changed the game state. As was recently argued with respect to parties and swingerships (and upheld by else...if's CFJ decision, only the effect of the date is regulated, not the actual invitation). I argued against this, but since the CFJ was decided in that fashion, that sets implicit game custom and I feel that the two cases are very similar, so will treat this in a consistant manner. --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: Acka: RFC(2): All Mannna of Fuzzy Voting Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:28:56 -0500 (EST) >>From the time it is publicly pointed out that a player posses a negative >amount of Mannna, until the ScoreKeeper reports that they are out of >debt, that player may only cast votes between 100 and -100. This >paragraph takes precedence over all rules governing how a player can >vote. I still there should be a penalty to players who go into debt. There should be interest on their debt. -- -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: Acka: RFC(2): All Mannna of Fuzzy Voting Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:29:03 -0500 (EST) >Something else /dev/joe and else and I were discussion. >Make Boring the range -50 to 50 inclusive, so you can still vote on it >with something other than zero and it can still pass, but can still be >boring. Boring proposals can/should pass too (ie, lots of fixes are >boring, but pretty much need to be made in some cases) Actually, make the range -60 to 60, since that's the range where the voter gets the maximum income -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: "Gavin Logan" Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4013 accepted Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 19:09:56 -0500 (EST) >Proposal 4013 > >Yes votes: 5/8: proposal accepted > However, if the number of proposals authored by that player currently in > their authorised voting period is equal to or exceeds their Proposal > characteristic, any attempt to submit a proposal will lead to that > proposal being automatically retracted, and the player being put in Gaol > with a sentence of 1 day. Doesn't this make it a lot harder to get a stilton? And in a more general note, won't this dramatically reduce the number of proposals submitted? Since some of the BIG proposal submitters will be reduced to just 1 or 2 a week? Isn't this a bad thing? O Olde Alpha ------------------------------ From: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4013 accepted Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 19:31:38 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Gavin Logan wrote: > >Proposal 4013 > > > >Yes votes: 5/8: proposal accepted > > > However, if the number of proposals authored by that player currently in > > their authorised voting period is equal to or exceeds their Proposal > > characteristic, any attempt to submit a proposal will lead to that > > proposal being automatically retracted, and the player being put in Gaol > > with a sentence of 1 day. > > > Doesn't this make it a lot harder to get a stilton? And in a more general > note, won't this dramatically reduce the number of proposals submitted? > Since some of the BIG proposal submitters will be reduced to just 1 or 2 a > week? Isn't this a bad thing? Ummmm.... If you read the rule carefully, you will see that everyone is limited currently to 5 a week. That's hardly a huge restriction. If people are rich and proposal-mad, they can always increase that. Personally I think that a single player submitting HUGE numbers of proposals is annoying. I would also note that the rule effectively stops players from getting a Stilton in under 2 weeks. Hardly a huge impact. -- Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/ Ackanomic | U. of Cambridge Web-Harfer, Clerk of the Court, Map-Harfer, Justice | 2nd Year PhD(PMa) ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4013 accepted Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 20:12:32 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Gavin Logan wrote: >> However, if the number of proposals authored by that player currently in >> their authorised voting period is equal to or exceeds their Proposal >> characteristic, any attempt to submit a proposal will lead to that >> proposal being automatically retracted, and the player being put in Gaol >> with a sentence of 1 day. > > >Doesn't this make it a lot harder to get a stilton? And in a more general It doesn't make it any harder to get a stilton. I can still get 5 accepted proposals 'in a row' (note that in a row is in quotes because they needn't be sequential in number, just none of them need to be rejected.) >note, won't this dramatically reduce the number of proposals submitted? Possibly. >Since some of the BIG proposal submitters will be reduced to just 1 or 2 a >week? Isn't this a bad thing? Umm.. how do you figure.. I can submit 5 a week still, not just 1 or 2. --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 #20 **********************************