acka-research Digest Friday, February 12 1999 Volume: 04 Issue: 033 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4071 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:29:43 -0500 (EST) K 2 wrote: > K 2 wrote: > > > P4066 fixes this in a far more generalised way.... > > > > K 2 > > > > ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: > > > > > Proposal 4071 > > Having thought about it for a moment longer P4066 doesn't... oh well.... > > K 2 After afew more moments of thought it does in fact solve the problem; which is good 'cause it was just such a situation I had hoped to fix. Currently there are no game actions for which explicit permission is given to 'go into debt' (-ve points result from proposal rejections; an explict exception would need to be given for proposal retractions tho.... too bad I'm frobbed out; wait a second. whats this? A$1000. Tissues ornate tissues....). K 2 arguing the pros and cons of P4066 on eir own. ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Hunt Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:32:32 -0500 (EST) My intent was to lodge my dislike for else..ifs explotation of that loop hole. It was totally unnesseary particularly as I had noticed it earlier _and_ submitted a proposal I thought was going to fix the problem ( and in fact does) *without* actually scamming the loophole. By exploting it to such rediculous lengths I hoped to trigger a CRD which would undo _all_ of the effect of player explotation of that loophole. K 2 JT wrote: > I hereby call a Scam Hunt against K 2 for exploiting an already discovered > loophole. > > Valid votes in this hearing are: > "Wow! She drove a truck through it!" > "I don't think she knows how to drive.". > > Please join me in condeming K 2's blatant abuse of a loophole by voting "I > don't think she knows how to drive." > > --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: Scam Hunt Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:35:02 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, K 2 wrote: >My intent was to lodge my dislike for else..ifs explotation of that loop hole. >It was totally unnesseary particularly as I had noticed it earlier _and_ >submitted a proposal I thought was going to fix the problem ( and in fact does) >*without* actually scamming the loophole. By exploting it to such rediculous >lengths I hoped to trigger a CRD which would undo _all_ of the effect of player >explotation of that loophole. The last time I issued a CRD (for an equally obnoxious exploit if you will all recall) it was objected to and voted down. Now, I'm certainly willing to CRD it, but it seems to be under control, and I don't feel like being impeached just because people decide to object to a worthwhile fix. --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: Scam Hunt Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:37:59 -0500 (EST) JT wrote: > On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, K 2 wrote: > >My intent was to lodge my dislike for else..ifs explotation of that loop hole. > >It was totally unnesseary particularly as I had noticed it earlier _and_ > >submitted a proposal I thought was going to fix the problem ( and in fact does) > >*without* actually scamming the loophole. By exploting it to such rediculous > >lengths I hoped to trigger a CRD which would undo _all_ of the effect of player > >explotation of that loophole. > > The last time I issued a CRD (for an equally obnoxious exploit if you will > all recall) it was objected to and voted down. Now, I'm certainly > willing to CRD it, but it seems to be under control, and I don't feel like > being impeached just because people decide to object to a worthwhile fix. Last time the scam involved otzma cards... this time its the ability to effect the passage of proposals... K 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 ] > [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4071 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:38:19 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, K 2 wrote: >After afew more moments of thought it does in fact solve the problem; >which is good 'cause it was just such a situation I had hoped to fix. >Currently there are no game actions for which explicit permission is >given to 'go into debt' (-ve points result from proposal rejections; an >explict exception would need to be given for proposal retractions >tho.... too bad I'm frobbed out; wait a second. whats this? A$1000. >Tissues ornate tissues....). Actually, it doesn't. Points are explicitly allowed to be negative and therefore P4066 has no effect on them or the conversion whatsoever. --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: Scam Hunt Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:44:10 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, K 2 wrote: >Last time the scam involved otzma cards... this time its the ability to >effect the passage of proposals... Last time the scam involved Bonus Votes, which when they were defined had the 'ability to effect the passage of proposals'. --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 4071 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:51:06 -0500 (EST) K 2 wrote: > K 2 wrote: > > > P4066 fixes this in a far more generalised way.... > > > > K 2 > > > > ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: > > > > > Proposal 4071 > > Having thought about it for a moment longer P4066 doesn't... oh well.... > > K 2 After afew more moments of thought it does in fact solve the problem; which is good 'cause it was just such a situation I had hoped to fix. Currently there are no game actions for which explicit permission is given to 'go into debt' (-ve points result from proposal rejections; an explict exception would need to be given for proposal retractions tho.... too bad I'm frobbed out; wait a second. whats this? A$1000. Tissues ornate tissues....). K 2 arguing the pros and cons of P4066 on eir own. ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4071 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:52:37 -0500 (EST) JT wrote: > >Currently there are no game actions for which explicit permission is > >given to 'go into debt' (-ve points result from proposal rejections; an > >explict exception would need to be given for proposal retractions > >tho.... too bad I'm frobbed out; wait a second. whats this? A$1000. > >Tissues ornate tissues....). > > Actually, it doesn't. Points are explicitly allowed to be negative and > therefore P4066 has no effect on them or the conversion whatsoever. The rules don't explicitly allow players to 'perform an action' which gives em -ve points. It only permits em to own -ve points. K 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 ] > [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Hunt Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:55:31 -0500 (EST) JT wrote: > On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, K 2 wrote: > >Last time the scam involved otzma cards... this time its the ability to > >effect the passage of proposals... > > Last time the scam involved Bonus Votes, which when they were defined had > the 'ability to effect the passage of proposals'. Oh yeah :-) Any way mainly because of my actions :p all icy players own A$0, the treasury owns A$0. numerous players own alot of A$ and have -ve points and players are cappable of casting 1/2* # of active players greater than normal vote on evry proposal. > > > --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 4071 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:59:46 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, K 2 wrote: >> >Currently there are no game actions for which explicit permission is >> >given to 'go into debt' (-ve points result from proposal rejections; an >> >explict exception would need to be given for proposal retractions >> >tho.... too bad I'm frobbed out; wait a second. whats this? A$1000. >> >Tissues ornate tissues....). >> >> Actually, it doesn't. Points are explicitly allowed to be negative and >> therefore P4066 has no effect on them or the conversion whatsoever. > >The rules don't explicitly allow players to 'perform an action' which gives em >-ve points. It only permits em to own -ve points. Except for the fact that the rest of the phrasing in P 4066 refers to trades and thus takes precedence over that earlier bit. I don't think 4066 acts the way you believe it does. I am however slightly more swayed by Slakko's arguments about points and their existance. However, I think rule 8-4 might actually allow what else...if (and yourself) did. It says "when it is specified that a Player's score is changed, the appropriate number of points are created or destroyed in order to accomplish the specified change." I believe this is sufficient to cause the destruction of 5000 points creating an appropriate number of negative points. Either that or 8-4-3 isn't usable at all since it doesn't specify that converting means losing the specified number of points. (that might be covered by 8-4-2 however though the wording of that rule seems to make it specific to those conversions only). I am however way to tired to think this through tonight. --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: Scam Hunt Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:00:43 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, K 2 wrote: >Oh yeah :-) > >Any way mainly because of my actions :p all icy players own A$0, the treasury >owns A$0. numerous players own alot of A$ and have -ve points and players are >cappable of casting 1/2* # of active players greater than normal vote on evry >proposal. --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 4071 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:32:34 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, JT wrote: > On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, K 2 wrote: > >> >Currently there are no game actions for which explicit permission is > >> >given to 'go into debt' (-ve points result from proposal rejections; an > >> >explict exception would need to be given for proposal retractions > >> >tho.... too bad I'm frobbed out; wait a second. whats this? A$1000. > >> >Tissues ornate tissues....). > >> > >> Actually, it doesn't. Points are explicitly allowed to be negative and > >> therefore P4066 has no effect on them or the conversion whatsoever. > > > >The rules don't explicitly allow players to 'perform an action' which gives em > >-ve points. It only permits em to own -ve points. > > Except for the fact that the rest of the phrasing in P 4066 refers to > trades and thus takes precedence over that earlier bit. I don't think > 4066 acts the way you believe it does. > > I am however slightly more swayed by Slakko's arguments about points and > their existance. > > However, I think rule 8-4 might actually allow what else...if (and > yourself) did. > > It says "when it is specified that a Player's score is changed, the > appropriate number of points are created or destroyed in order to > accomplish the specified change." This can be read sufficiently tightly to still prevent the changes. It says points may be created or destroyed. The conversion must create the 5000 points out of nowhere, AND then destroy them. It does not say that the points may be created and destroyed for the one score change. Technical and nitpicky, but if it saves us a CRD I think it is an entirely reasonable interpretation. -- 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 4071 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:09:14 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Duncan Richer wrote: >> However, I think rule 8-4 might actually allow what else...if (and >> yourself) did. >> >> It says "when it is specified that a Player's score is changed, the >> appropriate number of points are created or destroyed in order to >> accomplish the specified change." > >This can be read sufficiently tightly to still prevent the changes. >It says points may be created or destroyed. > >The conversion must create the 5000 points out of nowhere, AND then >destroy them. It does not say that the points may be created and >destroyed for the one score change. The problem is that I don't think your interpretation work, or at least I think that it possible conflicts with how the game has to work in order to be playable (which isn't insurmountable, we can just rely on pragmatism). Say player A has 1 point and the rules direct that he loses 10 points. How does this allow player A to wind up with -9 points. Simple, it does this by causing the player 10 points to be destroyed. Say player A has 1 point and converts 5000 to something else. Given the english meaning of conversion (which it taking something and removing that yielding something else), I see that as only being the destruction of 5000 points. Rule 8-4-2 makes explicit that that is what conversion means in that rule. The question in my mind is if that definition is sufficient to extend to rule 8-4-3 (in which case things worked). If that definitions isn't sufficient to extend to rule 8-4-3, then is conversion's english meaning sufficient to imply that it only works on a quantity which you already own? The other option (which would solve a lot of these problems) is to make points Operable entities and define the Operation of Conversion on them. (Mannna would need to be operable as well, and A$ already are). This would have the effect of allowing Operations only on entities you own as well as only on amounts that you own. I will propose this later since I think it's a good thing regardless of this current discussion. >Technical and nitpicky, but if it saves us a CRD I think it is an entirely >reasonable interpretation. I agree that it is technical and nitpicky. I don't see (as I pointed out above) how it could work however, especially not and have the normal means of aquiring negative points still happen. --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 #33 **********************************