acka-research Digest Friday, February 26 1999 Volume: 04 Issue: 044 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Non Players and elderhood Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 01:42:46 -0500 (EST) JT wrote: > On February 21, AJ became a Non Player. > On February 19, Aunt Froot became a Non Player. > On February 18, Blarney became a Non Player. > On February 17, J. M. Bear became a Non Player. > On February 14, Rig R. Mortis became a Non Player. bother just after I awarded em a point for the parade.... do icy players get points during a parade? MTM: Read the rules :-) K 2 > > > If K 2 could inform me of any trinkets destroyed by this, I'd appreciate > it. > > --JT, Registrar > > -- > [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] > [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] > [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] > [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: Eric Plumb Subject: Re: Acka: Non Players and elderhood Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 04:56:11 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, K 2 wrote: > bother just after I awarded em a point for the parade.... > do icy players get points during a parade? MTM: Read the rules :-) Me!? Why? :-) -Hubert The mome rath isn't born that could outgrabe me. ------------------------------ From: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: Fuzzy Rewards. Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:20:16 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Matt Miller wrote: > Well, fuzzy voting seems to be working pretty well. Is it now time for > fuzzy rewards? I, apparently, think so as I will be working on a proposal > (to be introduced Monday) to do this. > > First question: Should it be a seperate Paradigm? Or should we include > "adjustments" to the fuzzy reward system across all Paradigms? > > Here are my current thoughts: > > - The "proposal" receives the same amount of manna (or manna/x?) as was > distributed to the players. (This makes boring proposals more valuable... > perhaps it should serve as a subtrahend?) > > - The author recieves 1/3 (rounded down) of the manna, regardless of > outcome. > > - The rest of the "spoils" are split evenly among the "victors", rounded > down, throwing away any remainder. > > Should we use manna or some other store of value? We could make it determine how the points are distributed. However, that would be flow-voting, and therefore some players may have principled stands for/against it. 20 points per proposal. Each player who voted boringly gets a point. Each player who voted for the winning side, not boringly gets 2 points. If the proposal was accepted the author receives all remaining points (even if -ve). If the proposal was rejected the author receives 0 - all remaining points (even if +ve). This has the advantage that it introduces fuzzy rewards while not significantly complicating the existing points system. -- 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) ------------------------------ End of acka-research Digest V4 #44 **********************************