acka-research Digest Friday, January 29 1999 Volume 04 : Issue 024 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4023 accepted Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:25:46 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: > Amend Rule 2, "Proposals", by replacing the third paragraph with the > following MULTICOUNT2-delimited text: > > MULTICOUNT2 > 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 it meets the criteria specified in Rule 2-1. > MULTICOUNT2 Unfortunately, I think you meant the 4th, not the 3rd paragraph since the paragraph you replaced was All proposals shall be voted on, unless they are retracted or deemed invalid in accordance with the Rules. In these cases, they are removed from consideration, and are considered to be neither accepted or rejected. I don't believe this has any real effect on voting results, but it should be corrected soon. > Create a new Rule, numbered 4-4-6, titled "Voting Characteristic", with > the following MULTI-delimited text: Since rule 4-4-6 already existed, this rule became 4-4-7 via rule 2-3. --JT, Rule-Harfer [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ 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 4025 accepted Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:25:52 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: > Amend rule 7-4 (Definition of Otzma Cards) by inserting the following text > as the first paragraph; "This is the head of the Otzma Card Rule Suite." I am treating 7-4 as a typo for 7-14 since the name of the rule is correct. > {{ > Make Rules 2, 2-1, 2-1-1, 2-2, 2-3, 3, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-4-1, 3-4-2, > 4, 4-1, 4-1-1, 4-2, 4-4, 4-4-1, 6, 6-1, 6-2, 6-4, 6-4-1, 6-4-2, 6-4-7, > 6-4-8, 6-4-10, 6-5-2, 7, 7-1, 7-2, 7-4, and 7-5 Unassailable. > }} Rule 7-4 no longer exists, so it was not made Unassailable. --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 4026 accepted Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:30:15 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: > > Repeal Wild Card. > I believe this is a NULL proposal as it contained (according to Rule 2) an ambiguous, retroactive, and/or meaningless effect which was then ignored. (I believe the concept of repealing a player is meaningless as repeal as used in the rules applies to rules, not players). --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: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4023 accepted Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 02:44:35 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, JT wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: > > Amend Rule 2, "Proposals", by replacing the third paragraph with the > > following MULTICOUNT2-delimited text: > > > > MULTICOUNT2 > > 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 it meets the criteria specified in Rule 2-1. > > MULTICOUNT2 > > Unfortunately, I think you meant the 4th, not the 3rd paragraph since the > paragraph you replaced was > > All proposals shall be voted on, unless they are retracted or deemed > invalid in accordance with the Rules. In these cases, they are removed > from consideration, and are considered to be neither accepted or > rejected. > > I don't believe this has any real effect on voting results, but it should > be corrected soon. I don't believe I actually did this, unless you, as Rule-Harfer, decided that the "inserting a sentence" into Rule 2 caused by Proposal 4013 created a new paragraph. I said that the sentence I added to Rule 2 (the one which put K 2 in Gaol) was to be inserted "immediately" after the first sentence. I don't believe that meant to create a new paragraph, and I'm surprised that it resulted in one (two separate 1-sentence paragraphs in a row? Yeeeesh). Basically, you reformatted the rule in a way I was not expecting (because I had not specified it as part of the last proposal to change that rule), and therefore of course my proposal referenced the "wrong" paragraph. I would like to note that I shall not be using paragraph references in the future, as it is too easy for the Rule-Harfer to manipulate these to change the nature of the Proposal, even innocently as in this case. Yours, Duncan Richer -- 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 4023 accepted Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:01:23 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Duncan Richer wrote: >I don't believe I actually did this, unless you, as Rule-Harfer, decided >that the "inserting a sentence" into Rule 2 caused by Proposal 4013 >created a new paragraph. I said that the sentence I added to Rule 2 (the >one which put K 2 in Gaol) was to be inserted "immediately" after the >first sentence. I don't believe that meant to create a new paragraph, and >I'm surprised that it resulted in one (two separate 1-sentence paragraphs >in a row? Yeeeesh). Basically, you reformatted the rule in a way I was >not expecting (because I had not specified it as part of the last proposal >to change that rule), and therefore of course my proposal referenced the >"wrong" paragraph. When I read P4013, it looked as if it was a paragraph being inserted (4+ lines of text) and thus I didn't check if it was one or 2 sentances. Since it looked like a paragraph, I treated it as one. However, your wording of 'immediately after' could have been construed to be either the way you intended it or the way I interpreted it. It does bring up an interesting point however about paragraph references. >I would like to note that I shall not be using paragraph references in the >future, as it is too easy for the Rule-Harfer to manipulate these to >change the nature of the Proposal, even innocently as in this case. I do have the leeway as a priveledge of office to manipulate white space in rules, however, that (I believe) would require a public action by myself to perform. So, it was indeed an accidental alteration and I will change the rule-file to reflect your intent and reharf P 4023, since your reading makes perfect sense and causes less problems than mine did. --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: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4051 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:08:38 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: > Proposal 4051 > Minimum Punishments > JT > Due: Fri Feb 5 04:39:01 1999 > > Amend rule 3-6 (Criminal Justice) insert the following text as delimited > by MINIMUMS between sections 5 and 6. Renumber the current sections 6 > through 10 appropriately. > MINIMUMS > 6) A Crime may, when defined by a rule, contain a Minimum Penalty. When a > Crime contains a Minimum Penalty, a verdict of TRUE on the CFCJ must > include at least that Minimum Penalty as party of the actual penalty. > MINIMUMS How do we enforce such minimum penalties? If a player does not include such a penalty as part of their judgement, then what penalty gets imposed? -- 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: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4051 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:03:57 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote: >> Amend rule 3-6 (Criminal Justice) insert the following text as delimited >> by MINIMUMS between sections 5 and 6. Renumber the current sections 6 >> through 10 appropriately. >> MINIMUMS >> 6) A Crime may, when defined by a rule, contain a Minimum Penalty. When a >> Crime contains a Minimum Penalty, a verdict of TRUE on the CFCJ must >> include at least that Minimum Penalty as party of the actual penalty. >> MINIMUMS > >How do we enforce such minimum penalties? If a player does not include >such a penalty as part of their judgement, then what penalty gets >imposed? The rules enforce it as part of the judges verdict or else the judge is breaking the rules of the game. That seems pretty clear to me. --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 4052 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:21:40 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: >Proposal 4052 >Generic Proposal Title #4052 >K 2 >Due: Fri Feb 5 13:10:15 1999 > >This is a grandiose proposal. >{{Immediately upon distribution this proposal shall be retracted and its >author shall spend one day in gaol.}} Amusingly enough, this will be null because it's a retroactive effect :) --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 4029 accepted Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:47:17 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: > {{Simultaneously renumber rules 11-2 (Castes), 11-2-1 (Grey Council), > 1006 (Church) 1031 (Social Contracts) to 15-1, 15-1-1, 15-2, 15-3 > respectively}} I am treating the rule numbers as misspellings since the names are 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: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4051 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:16:27 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, JT wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote: > >> Amend rule 3-6 (Criminal Justice) insert the following text as delimited > >> by MINIMUMS between sections 5 and 6. Renumber the current sections 6 > >> through 10 appropriately. > >> MINIMUMS > >> 6) A Crime may, when defined by a rule, contain a Minimum Penalty. When a > >> Crime contains a Minimum Penalty, a verdict of TRUE on the CFCJ must > >> include at least that Minimum Penalty as party of the actual penalty. > >> MINIMUMS > > > >How do we enforce such minimum penalties? If a player does not include > >such a penalty as part of their judgement, then what penalty gets > >imposed? > > The rules enforce it as part of the judges verdict or else the judge is > breaking the rules of the game. > > That seems pretty clear to me. Yes, but the rules say that the penalty MUST be included. If the judge does not include it, does that (a) mean the Judgement did not happen (b) make the Judge's specified penalty the actual one, but make the Judge a criminal, or (c) force the minimum penalty to happen as well as whatever the Judge said. -- 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: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4026 accepted Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:35:31 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Joseph DeVincentis wrote: > > Proposal 4026 > > > > Yes/No vote characteristic totals: 35-20: proposal accepted > > > > Yes: > > Slakko (5) > > Duh, this is supposed to be using the voting characteristics, which are 2 > for each player except Eric., who just reduced his to 1. The prop > passes regardless and Wild Card is repealed. The other 2 props that went > through earlier today were unaffected by the change in rules. I thought Eric lowered his Proposal characteristic by 1, not his Voting. -- 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: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Winning Isn't Everything Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:35:31 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, K 2 wrote: > > > > (for sake of explanation, use the following terminology) > > > Level = # of cycle wins a player has + 1 > > > Points for win = 300*(Level)*(Level). > > > (or some other similar function which gets progressively harder. Maybe > > > not exponential) (suggestions?) > > > > I think Level=# of _point_ cycle wins a player has + 1 > > Ie point wins should get progressively harder according to how many times a > > player has managed it; In a system dependent on point wins alone an exponential > > function isn't a bad idea :) In a system that considered all wins some thing > > linear may be more appropriate.... I'm undecided which I prefer. > > How about: ? :-) -- 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: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4026 accepted Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:35:42 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, JT wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: > > > > Repeal Wild Card. > > > > I believe this is a NULL proposal as it contained (according to Rule 2) > an ambiguous, retroactive, and/or meaningless effect which was then > ignored. (I believe the concept of repealing a player is meaningless as > repeal as used in the rules applies to rules, not players). If it is a meaningless concept, then surely it can not have been intended as a one time action. Surely the effect of the proposal is to create a rule, with some number or other, whose text is "Repeal Wild Card". Yours, Slakko Devil's Advocate -- 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 4026 accepted Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:42:05 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Duncan Richer wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: >> > >> > Repeal Wild Card. >> > >> >> I believe this is a NULL proposal as it contained (according to Rule 2) >> an ambiguous, retroactive, and/or meaningless effect which was then >> ignored. (I believe the concept of repealing a player is meaningless as >> repeal as used in the rules applies to rules, not players). > >If it is a meaningless concept, then surely it can not have been intended >as a one time action. Surely the effect of the proposal is to create a >rule, with some number or other, whose text is "Repeal Wild Card". I believe you to be incorrect. Repeal Wild Card is a declartive statement equivalent to Amend Rule X or Renumber rule Y to Rule Z. As such, it's obviously a one-time effect, and thus is meaningless. --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: Jonathan David Amery Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Winning Isn't Everything Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:56:08 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Duncan Richer wrote: > > :-) Pity, I was hoping no-one'd notice... -- Jonathan D. Amery, http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html ##### Wild Card of Acka, member of SPAM, wearing Silly Agenda Hats. o__####### Holding the Silver Key to the Vault. \'####### Standing between the light and the dark, the candle and the flame. ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4047 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:48:16 -0500 (EST) >Proposal 4047 >The X Phobes >Eric. >Due: Fri Feb 5 00:19:02 1999 > > >Repeal each rule which contains the letters 'x' or 'X'. Elements found to contain "x": 1, 1-2, 1-2-1, 1-2-2, 1-2-2-1, 1-2-3, 1-2-7, 1-2-8-2, 1-2-8-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-6-1, 1-6-1-1, 1-6-3, 1-7, 1-7-7, 1-99, 2, 2-1, 2-2-2, 2-2-4, 2-2-5, 2-2-6, 2-3, 2-3-1, 2-4, 3, 3-1, 3-2, 3-2-1, 3-3, 3-4, 3-4-1, 3-4-2, 3-6, 4, 4-1, 4-1-1, 4-1-2, 4-3, 4-4-2, 4-4-4, 4-4-5-4, 4-5, 4-7, 4-8, 4-10, 4-11, 5, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 6, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4-1, 6-4-3, 6-4-4, 6-4-7, 6-4-9, 6-4-11-1, 6-4-12, 6-4-13, 6-4-14, 6-4-16, 6-4-17, 6-4-18, 6-4-19, 6-5-1, 6-5-2, 6-5-5, 6-5-6, 6-5-8, 6-5-8-1, 6-20-1, 7, 7-1, 7-2, 7-2-1, 7-2-2, 7-2-3, 7-2-4, 7-3-1, 7-3-1-2, 7-5, 7-5-1, 7-6, 7-7, 7-11, 7-13, 7-13-1, 7-13-2, 7-14, 7-14-1, 7-14-2, 7-14-4, 7-14-5, 7-14-6, 7-14-7, 7-14-8, 7-14-9, 7-14-10, 7-14-12, 7-14-13, 7-14-14, 7-14-15, 7-16, 7-16-1, 7-16-2, 7-16-3, 7-16-4, 7-17, 7-18, 8, 8-1, 8-2, 8-2-1, 8-2-3, 8-2-4, 8-4, 8-4-1, 8-5, 8-6-2, 8-7, 8-8, 9-1, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, 10, 10-1, 10-1-2, 10-1-2-1, 10-1-3, 10-1-4, 10-1-5, 10-1-6, 10-1-7, 10-1-8, 10-1-9, 10-1-11, 10-2, 10-3, 10-3-1, 10-4, 10-4-2, 10-5, 10-6, 10-7, 12-1, 12-2, 12-3, 12-3-1, 12-3-2, 12-3-3, 12-3-4, 12-3-5, 12-3-6, 12-3-7, 12-3-8, 12-3-9, 12-3-10, 12-3-11, 12-3-12, 12-3-13, 12-3-14, 12-3-15, 12-3-16, 12-4, 12-4-1-1, 12-4-1-2, 12-4-2-1, 12-5, 12-6, 12-7, 12-8, 12-8-1, 12-8-1-1, 12-8-1-2, 12-8-1-4, 12-8-1-5, 12-8-1-6, 12-8-1-8, 12-8-1-10, 12-8-1-11, 12-8-1-12, 12-8-1-14, 12-8-1-15, 12-8-1-18, 12-8-2, 12-8-2-1, 12-8-3, 12-8-3-1, 12-8-4, 12-8-4-1, 12-9, 12-9-1, 12-10, 12-11, 13-1, 15-1-1, 15-2, 15-2-1, and 15-3 -- -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 #24 **********************************