Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #13
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest   Saturday, March 15 1997   Volume 02 : Number 013

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 22:58:47 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1798 

Yes, we've had this conversation before....  Many many times.  And just as I
said before, I am as guilty of bringing complexity to Ackanomia in my short
stay here as anyone else is.  But once again I'll make my case for
simplicity.

1. Ackanomic has a large rule set.
2. It takes a new player a LONG time to read through our rule set.
3. Many rules have little or no effect on the game (such as the chess nuts
boasting in an open foyer rule) or have conditions virtualy impossible to
fill (such as winning by palindrome or the Cyrstal Chalice).
4. Eliminating those rules would go a long way toward making life easier on a
new player.
5. As our rule set gets larger and more complex, it will become increasingly
difficult to attract new players... or at least players who stick around for
any length of time.
6. Some Ackanomic players will stick around for a long time.  Other very
committed players will, for one reason or another, leave the game (For
example, Guy Fawke's semi-recent departure, or Ludwig's very recent
departure)
7. Eventualy, the rules will become complex enough that players leave the
game at a rate greater than that of players joining the game.
8. Although I suspect the chain of events outlined above is inevitable, I
also think it is in all our best interests to delay it as much as possible.
 I will therefore support any rule that makes things easier on new players.
 I will also support rules that tend to simplify our rule set over those that
tend to make it more complex.  This is not a hard and fast policy, just
something I look at when evaluating a proposal.

Narf

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 22:13:54 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1798 

>5. As our rule set gets larger and more complex, it will become increasingly
>difficult to attract new players... or at least players who stick around for
>any length of time.

I disagree with this point. I think that there is a great move to simplify
it and reorganize it -- I don't think entropy is increasing overall.

Also, in the future, many new players will opt to be nonvoting players, and
thus will not have to deal with these issues. 

If it ever comes down to Acka stagnating, I am sure we'll prune the rules.
But I am not at all convinced that it will.

>6. Some Ackanomic players will stick around for a long time.  Other very
>committed players will, for one reason or another, leave the game (For
>example, Guy Fawke's semi-recent departure, or Ludwig's very recent
>departure)

Many players leave, but that's not usually a function of the complexity of
the rule set -- it's usually outside influences from RL. I don't think we
can do much about that... Of course, players could always take the route I
did in the middle of last year, and just go on a 4 month vacation. :)

>8. Although I suspect the chain of events outlined above is inevitable, I
>also think it is in all our best interests to delay it as much as possible.
> I will therefore support any rule that makes things easier on new players.
> I will also support rules that tend to simplify our rule set over those that
>tend to make it more complex.  This is not a hard and fast policy, just
>something I look at when evaluating a proposal.

I must disagree. I think our rule set is not going to become increasingly
complex -- I think we will make it more managable in whatever way is
necessary. More players stay in Acka now than they used to, I think. Maybe
not. At any rate, I guess this is just a basic disagreement between us.

Robert Sevin

------------------------------

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #13
***************************************