Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #16
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest   Tuesday, March 18 1997   Volume 02 : Number 016

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 00:26:41 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1801

> Proposal 1801
> Dealing With The Paranormal
> Calvin N Hobbes

> 1. Amend proposal R1117 by replacing its last two paragraphs by the
> following:

> 2. Create a new proposal, renumbered to R251 to read:

Both of the above statements should refer to rules, not proposals.

Furthermore, the numbering in the second statement will be ineffective,
as there is already a Rule 251, "Player Names".

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 02:52:18 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1786

> Proposal 1786
> Fixing a truly unforgiveable pawn

> 2. Any pawn can move exactly one square horizontally or vertically.  A
> pawn that is currently protecting a friendly piece can, alternatively,
> move two squares horizontally or vertically.

Is "protecting a friendly piece" defined in Party Chess?  Should it
be?

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 03:34:40 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: acrobot 

#vote 1800 n

If we can't have a Spanish Inquistion, then we can't have an enlightenment!  

<grin>

Narf

Ok, ok... I changed my mind.

#vote 1800 y

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 04:10:01 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: acrobot 

#vote 1801 p y y

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:36:40 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1786

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > Proposal 1786
> > Fixing a truly unforgiveable pawn
> 
> > 2. Any pawn can move exactly one square horizontally or vertically.  A
> > pawn that is currently protecting a friendly piece can, alternatively,
> > move two squares horizontally or vertically.
> 
> Is "protecting a friendly piece" defined in Party Chess?  Should it
> be?
> 
> Malenkai
> 
I guess we both missed that. Defending a friendly piece is defined,
protecting isn't.

I'd recomment to Mohammed to resubmit.
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:56:50 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Retraction of Impeach the Scorekeeper! (fwd)

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 01:42:30 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Retraction of Impeach the Scorekeeper!

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
> I hearby call for the impeachment of /dev/joe from the scorekeeper's
> office, and here's why!
> 
> He didn't tell me about all these lousy rules that make me lose points!  I
> found out from the pointlog that I lost points because my first proposal
> ever didn't pass.  I still haven't found the rule for that one, and if it
> exists, it is probably moraly wrong.  And then there's this buisness about
> my score getting set to zero at the end of the cycle.  I slave all month
> to get even a few paltry points together, and then THIS crap happens.  If
> I'd understood the stupid, if not down right perverted, rules for the end
> of a cycle, I never would have bothered with the immense effort that went
> into my Pet Animals proposal in the first place, seeing as how Malenkai
> was obviously going to win soon.  Sheesh, I'd swear that the part about
> scores getting set to zero wasn't even there the first time I looked at
> that rule, I bet someone added it when they saw that I was actually gonna
> get some points before the end of the cycle.  You people are always doing
> that, spitefully changing the rules right after I read them, admit it!!!
> 
> 
> Well, anyways, impeach /dev/joe and stuff.
> 
> 
>                                   - Vynd
> 
> [email-masked]
> 

Um, ah, sorry about that.  I kind of um, lost control there.  I've taken
my happy pills, and I feel better now.  I retract my call for the
impeachment of /dev/joe from the scorekeeper's office.  All that other
stuff about my losing points due to malicious rule changing and impossible
to find penalties and stuff, still stands though.  It's all true!  Don't
try to deny it!

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

PS -  My apologies for sending out so many times to so many places.  The
postmaster should probably be impeached for making it so difficult to
figure out where to send stuff.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:51:04 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1787

> Proposal 1787
> Relocating Decks 
> A proposal to cause the following effects:
> 
> I. Add a listing entitled "Decks of Playing Cards", to the General
> Equipment section of Games and Contests.

> II. Add a listing entitled "Legacy Deck", to the General
> Equipment section of Games and Contests.

> III. Add a listing entitled "Eleusis Deck", to the General
> Equipment section of Games and Contests.

This proposal will not work, and will break the 2 subgames that
depend on decks.  None of the items I, II, or III are rule changes,
yet item IV, several rule changes, will *repeal* the playing cards.

On a more philosophical level, I do not see the point of a non-modest
proposal to simply move the specification of decks from the the 
games and contests section of the rules to the games and contests 
web page.  The content has to be somewhere.  I would actually favor 
making the games and contest entries rules (and putting the stuff
in a rule suite), so that things that operate on rules can be used,
such as the spelling bee, CSRs, and amendments.  As a newbie recently
pointed out to me, spreading the content out of the rules document and
into seperate sections such as blueprints and games and contests actually
make the rules *harder* to follow.  A rule suite off of the games and
contest enabling rule (with the decks in there) would be a better solution.  

At the very least, a simple proposal that does not change the way
the game is played should be Modest.  In this case, I urge a vote
of NO in case someone wants to play GPS or Spades in the near future,
and so that we do not get *another* proposal to clean it up.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:55:33 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1786

> Is "protecting a friendly piece" defined in Party Chess?  Should it
> be?
	It should be "defending".  :o(  "attacking" and "defending" are 
defined, but "protecting" isn't.  Perhaps, if it passes, a CSR could be 
issued.

- --Mohammed
rats

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:06:23 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1787

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > Proposal 1787
> > Relocating Decks 
> > A proposal to cause the following effects:
> > 
> > I. Add a listing entitled "Decks of Playing Cards", to the General
> > Equipment section of Games and Contests.
> 
> > II. Add a listing entitled "Legacy Deck", to the General
> > Equipment section of Games and Contests.
> 
> > III. Add a listing entitled "Eleusis Deck", to the General
> > Equipment section of Games and Contests.
> 
> This proposal will not work, and will break the 2 subgames that
> depend on decks.  None of the items I, II, or III are rule changes,
> yet item IV, several rule changes, will *repeal* the playing cards.

This has nothing to do with being rule changes. It has to do with a
proposal being a legal way to add a listing to the G&C page.

> gamesand contests section of the rules to the games and contests 
> web page.  The content has to be somewhere.  I would actually favor 
> making the games and contest entries rules (and putting the stuff
> in a rule suite), so that things that operate on rules can be used,
> such as the spelling bee, CSRs, and amendments.  As a newbie recently
> pointed out to me, spreading the content out of the rules document and
> into seperate sections such as blueprints and games and contests actually
> make the rules *harder*to follow.  A rule suite off of the games and
> contest enabling rule (with the decks in there) would be a better solution.  

If you want to write such a proposal, which will include the ability to
add games with a less than a 2/3 majority, something that should not be
too complicated, then I'll retract this proposal.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:33:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1787

> > This proposal will not work, and will break the 2 subgames that
> > depend on decks.  None of the items I, II, or III are rule changes,
> > yet item IV, several rule changes, will *repeal* the playing cards.
> This has nothing to do with being rule changes. It has to do with a
> proposal being a legal way to add a listing to the G&C page.
	I don't really think that'll work.  *Is* a proposal a legal way 
to do this?
	I'm beginning to believe that Rule Suites need to be made into 
places where minor rules can go-- rules that are not allowed to conflict 
with the major rules in any way.  That way, blueprints would be minor 
rules, otzma would be minor rules, party chess would be minor rules.
And imported entities would be controlled by minor rules.
	This would get rid of the need for special precedence language in 
the Blueprint rule for one thing.. that big puff of yellow smoke in the 
Wizard's home, and all, don't you know...

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:54:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1786

> I guess we both missed that. Defending a friendly piece is defined,
> protecting isn't.
	I'd rather not.  It's up to the CSRR Officer; if e says e won't
make the change ("protecting" to "defending") if/when the proposal is 
accepted, I'll resubmit instead. 

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:56:01 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1827

Why did we skip from proposal 1804 to 1827?  And from 1827 to 1835 or
something like that?  I was pretty sure from our esteemed promoter's
earlier message (which I unfortunately deleted) that he wasn't going to be
posting these proposals at all.  Perhaps the acrobot went rogue, trampled
it's coolies, and is now rampaging across Ackanomia, spurting out
proposals as it sees fit?  If so, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

                            - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:10:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1827

> Why did we skip from proposal 1804 to 1827?  And from 1827 to 1835 or
> something like that?  I was pretty sure from our esteemed promoter's
> earlier message (which I unfortunately deleted) that he wasn't going to be
> posting these proposals at all.
	That was what I intended to convey, but unfortunately, when I 
logged back on after class, the bot processed a message from Red Barn 
submitting all those proposals for real-- in the proper format, no less!
	So they're all out there, but I believe all but one of them are 
invalid.

> Perhaps the acrobot went rogue, trampled
> it's coolies, and is now rampaging across Ackanomia, spurting out
> proposals as it sees fit?  If so, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
	This is an accurate assessment, and I interpret it as being 
generally bad.  :o)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 15:25:28 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1827

>Why did we skip from proposal 1804 to 1827?  And from 1827 to 1835 or
>something like that?  I was pretty sure from our esteemed promoter's
>earlier message (which I unfortunately deleted) that he wasn't going to be
>posting these proposals at all.  Perhaps the acrobot went rogue, trampled
>it's coolies, and is now rampaging across Ackanomia, spurting out
>proposals as it sees fit?  If so, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

  Two words:  my proposals....

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:33:51 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1827

> > Why did we skip from proposal 1804 to 1827?  And from 1827 to 1835 or
> > something like that?  I was pretty sure from our esteemed promoter's
> > earlier message (which I unfortunately deleted) that he wasn't going to be
> > posting these proposals at all.
> 	That was what I intended to convey, but unfortunately, when I 
> logged back on after class, the bot processed a message from Red Barn 
> submitting all those proposals for real-- in the proper format, no less!

This is exactly the situation that I wanted to try to avoid by having
many people subscribe to the voting list in digest form.  Single messages
go through just fine, but when a whole big batch of messages comes at once,
some of them get saved to be processed later.  This processing happens in
a seemingly random order, and somehow differently from the normal
processing, in that it's much slower... there are a few addresses on the
list that are just hanging and not accepting mail right now, or the network
to those sites is down (snowgod, techno, panther, [email-masked]),
and it seems that these don't slow down new messages -- those get processed
quickly and then sit in the queue with those few addresses to be handled
later -- but messages that were never sent out at all the first time around,
because too many were received at once, go through this slow process where
it waits for each of the bad addresses to time out before it tries the
other addresses.

In any case, at the moment I'm writing this, there are 44 queued messages.
Three are new messages, being processed.
Eleven are old messages, fully delivered except a few unreachable addresses.
The rest are old messages, all but two of them really short ones (length
less than 150 characters -- probably all Red Barn's proposals).  Of these,
sendmail is currently trying to send three (including one of the two
longer messages), but is being slowed down by these unreachable addresses.

I can make sendmail process the queued messages more often, but I don't know
how I can make it run more messages at once, or speed it up.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 15:36:07 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1827 

In a message dated 97-03-17 15:32:18 EST, you write:

> 	This is an accurate assessment, and I interpret it as being 
>  generally bad.  :o)
>  
Bad acrobot.  Bad bad acrobot.  I reccomend sending it to bed without its
supper.

Narf

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:59:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1827

> This is exactly the situation that I wanted to try to avoid by having
> many people subscribe to the voting list in digest form.
	Being the promoter and all, I'd like to stay on the immediate list
if that's feasible.  If I shouldn't, then by all means move me.  Thanks. 

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 23:18:03 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1787

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > > This proposal will not work, and will break the 2 subgames that
> > > depend on decks.  None of the items I, II, or III are rule changes,
> > > yet item IV, several rule changes, will *repeal* the playing cards.
> > This has nothing to do with being rulechanges. It has to do with a
> > proposal being a legal way to add a listing to the G&C page.
> 	I don't really think that'll work.  *Is* a proposal a legal way 
> to do this?

G&C rule, section 9 procedure 2, describes a proposal as a legal way to
add a listing to a G&C rule.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 23:34:55 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1787

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> 	I don't really think that'll work.  *Is* a proposal a legal way 
> to do this?

If it doesn't work then several entries on G&C shouldn't be there. The
Limerick contest which was added by one of Malenkai's proposals.
(Originally it was part of the rule which was proposed when G&C was
otherwise empty) a couple of games added by a proposal by Guy Fawkes, etc.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:00:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1787

> If it doesn't work then several entries on G&C shouldn't be there. The
> Limerick contest which was added by one of Malenkai's proposals.
> (Originally it was part of the rule which was proposed when G&C was
> otherwise empty) a couple of games added by a proposal by Guy Fawkes, etc.
	As far as I know, all the proposals that have created or editit 
G&Cs so far did so be creating new rules, and manipulating G&C entries 
via those new rules.  See, for example, P1689.
	According to R103, as far as I can tell, manipulating G&Cs is not 
a valid rule change.  R103 takes precedence over the G&C rule.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:02:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1833

> Proposal 1833
> Please, oh please, STOP!
> Red Barn
	Amen to that.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:08:13 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1787

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > If it doesn't work then several entries on G&C shouldn't be there. The
> > Limerick contest which was added by one of Malenkai's proposals.
> > (Originally it was part of the rule which was proposed when G&C was
> > otherwise empty) a couple of games addedby a proposal by Guy Fawkes, etc.
> 	As far as I know, all the proposals that have created or editit 
> G&Cs so far did so be creating new rules, and manipulating G&C entries 
> via those new rules.  See, for example, P1689.
> 	According to R103, as far as Ican tell, manipulating G&Cs is not 
> a valid rule change.  R103 takes precedence over the G&C rule.
> 
> --Mohammed
>
I'm gonna have to CFJ this.
Meanwhile I'll retract this proposal

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:37:55 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1787

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

[about p 1787]

> This has nothing to do with being rule changes. It has to do with a
> proposal being a legal way to add a listing to the G&C page.

As I read the proposal and the rules, however, the proposal will
have the effect of deleting the decks of cards, and not creating
entries on the G&C page.  This will break the card games.  Moreover,
those card games need to be modified to use General Equipment *even*
if the proposal had what I read as its intended effect.
 
> If you want to write such a proposal, which will include the ability to
> add games with a less than a 2/3 majority, something that should not be
> too complicated, then I'll retract this proposal.

I was thinking about it, but it has some drawbacks: the biggest one
moving the work back to /dev/joe, the second biggest that I do not have
that much time to write it.  I do urge retraction of 1787, however,
as I believe it to be seriously flawed.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:49:42 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1787

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> If it doesn't work then several entries on G&C shouldn't be there. The
> Limerick contest which was added by one of Malenkai's proposals.
> (Originally it was part of the rule which was proposed when G&C was
> otherwise empty) a couple of games added by a proposal by Guy Fawkes, etc.

Those were actually added by rules, not proposals.  I admit I missed
the quoted section about the G&C rule allowing addition of G&C entries
via proposal, but I believe it loses a precedence battle to one of the
100 series rules.  The G&C rule should be changed to "rule" from "proposal".

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:17:08 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1793

> Proposal 1793
> More Controlling

> Amend rule 1771 by removing the following, delineated by $$:
> 
> $$
> A player may not exercise his controlling interest in any single other
> player more often than once a week.
> $$

I recommend language like 'calendar week', as opposed to 'week'.  The
change in the way the game is played is small, but tracking is easier.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 02:28:25 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1787

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> Those were actually added by rules, not proposals.  I admit I missed
> the quoted section about the G&C rule allowing addition of G&C entries
> via proposal, but I believe it loses a precedence battle to one of the
> 100 series rules.  The G&C rule should be changed to "rule" from "proposal".
> 
> Malenkai

R103 specifies that a proposal which doesn't specify what rule change it
is, creates a new rule. I'm not sure this would have affected said
proposal, but if it did, it would not have been desirable either.

About ammending G&C, you could either ammend that, or go the entire route
and make it into a rule suite. 

About the lower majorities - I'm not married to the current majorities of
G&C. I could live with a Simple Majority rule. 
I wouldn't like to see G&C acceptable only by a 2/3 majority.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:23:46 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1799

> Proposal 1799
> bonds bonds bonds

> {{

[...]

>   At the conclusion of the current cycle, set every player's absolute score
> to 0 and ammend rule #508 in its entirety such that the following text,
> delineated by @@ replaces the current rule #508

[...]

> }}

I do not believe this will work.  Has this been retracted?  The rule 
will self-delete upon creation, so unless this occurs at the same time
as the end of a cycle, the above text will not be around to do what it
is trying to do.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 02:39:39 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1787

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> > If you want to write such a proposal, which will include the ability to
> > add games with a less than a 2/3 majority, something that should not be
> > too complicated, then I'll retract this proposal.
> 
> I was thinking about it, but it has some drawbacks: the biggest one
> moving the work back to /dev/joe, the second biggest that I do not have
> that much time to write it.  I do urge retraction of 1787, however,
> as I believe it to be seriously flawed.
> 
> Malenkai
>
Reracted, Mohammed was online and a couple of hours to spare :)

I replied to your next message nefore this one so as for changing this
into a Rule Suite. You're right about the added work, I think that was
part of the original reasoning.
I'll go over the rule to see if there's anything else that needs fixing
there. 

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 02:45:26 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1787

On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> I replied to your next message nefore this one so as for changing this
> into a Rule Suite. You're right about the added work, I think that was
> part of the original reasoning.
> I'll go over the rule to see if there's anything else that needs fixing
> there. 
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
>
And I'll rewrite 1787 to have the desired effect.
Niccolo Flychuck
 
> 

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:28:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1787

> I replied to your next message nefore this one so as for changing this
> into a Rule Suite. You're right about the added work, I think that was
> part of the original reasoning.
	Why not put something like the following in the Head of the Rule 
Suite:  "The GamesMaster has the Duty of maintaining the Web 
availability of the Rules in this Rule Suite.  The Web-Harfer is not 
responsible for these Rules.  This takes precedence over..."

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:32:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1842

> {{[For some reason, there seems to be a reluctance lately to retract
> flawed proposals; rather, sometimes it seems players would rather
> follow them with a CSR or score another round of points on fixup
> proposals.  This doesn't seem like gaming to me -- I'd rather just
> get the dis-incentive to retract out of there so we can get the
> *correct* proposal through faster.]}}
	A CSR is, in some cases, a good deal faster than retraction 
and resubmit.  For a one-word change, it seems a bit of a waste to 
retract a proposal six hours before its finalization.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:38:16 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1842

Mohammed wrote:

>         A CSR is, in some cases, a good deal faster than retraction
> and resubmit.  For a one-word change, it seems a bit of a waste to
> retract a proposal six hours before its finalization.

I think the point was missed, and that was not the only case I was
referring to.  Also, the CSRR officer has indicated reluctance to
make changes that change the way the game is played, and these are
the cases I am referring to.

I do not think a player who writes a flaw-free proposal should score
5 points for getting the job done in 7 days, while a player who writes
a flawed proposal should get 10, 15, or more for getting the job done
in 14 days.  I have not been able to solve this problem directly with
legislation, however.

I do think the known flawed proposals 1758 and 1786, among others, should
have been retracted.  You know how I feel about 1758 -- I do not want
to get into that more :-).  (I was also thinking of the non-Modest 1783
and others...)

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 23:37:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: acrobot 

#retract 1801

Thanks to /dev/joe for pointing out the "proposal != rule" flaw, as well as
the "251 != 261" numbering flaw. I'll propose it again with the corrections.
I will also make it a modest proposal. I do not think I will modify the
2Teles rule to talk about it not working in Gaol, considering the Goal rule
is itself pretty specific it would seem redundant.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #16
***************************************