Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #17
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest  Wednesday, March 19 1997  Volume 02 : Number 017

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 14:55:19 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka:  Proposal 1846

> If Krykec has an evil twin, then the twin will be considered to have
> volunteered first for the next time this rule needs a volunteer. If
> Krykec
> has more than one evil twin, she may choose one among them.
> 
This would seem to generate an infinite loop once it is invoked the
first time.  Moreover, it would be far better, IMO, to look backward
here instead of forward (i.e. consider who was Krykek last for the
purpose of choosing Krykec now, rather than choosing a future Krykec
based on the current one).

ThinMan
snowgod's evil twin

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 14:28:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka:  Proposal 1846 

>> If Krykec has an evil twin, then the twin will be considered to have
>> volunteered first for the next time this rule needs a volunteer. If
>> Krykec
>> has more than one evil twin, she may choose one among them.
>> 
>This would seem to generate an infinite loop once it is invoked the
>first time.  Moreover, it would be far better, IMO, to look backward
>here instead of forward (i.e. consider who was Krykek last for the
>purpose of choosing Krykec now, rather than choosing a future Krykec
>based on the current one).

Your point is completely valid. Indeed, the way things are right now, we
would have an infinite loop. However, two points.

First, that I have taken care of the possible multiple evil twin option. For
example. Mohammed is selected. I'm his evil twin, so I'm next. Now,
_suppose_ I was also your evil twin (no restriction on number of twins).
Then I get to choose who gets to be next. Since Mohammed has already done
it, I'd probably choose you. Then you get to choose between me and snowgod,
since he is your evil twin. This has the effect of keeping everything "in
the family" so to speak, but there is no restriction on how many people are
"in the loop".

The rational for this was that it tends to be people from the same group,
same family, who get involved in occult activities or abducted by aliens.
For example, if a brother or sister is abducted by aliens (or so claims) did
you know that your own chances of the same increases by some ridiculous
amount? And abductees are more likely to be abducted (again) than others.

Second, that it is always possible for any player to break off the evil twin
partnership, as per the evil twin rule. So let's say that, as it stands
right now, Mohammed gets chosen. Then I'm chosen. Then Mohammed is chosen.
Well, instead of having it bounce around, I could dissolve the partnership,
wait till someone else gets selected, then reform it if we still wanted to.
You didn't think being an evil twin was going to be all fun, did you?
[evil grin]        ; )

You made a suggestion of looking backwards instead of forward and I agree
that this is probably better. However, it is the effect would be almost the
same, except that it would mean the dissolution of the twin relation would
could be much shorter. That's not exactly what I had in mind, although
either way is fine by me.

To conclude, I'm well aware of the possible problem with this. However, I
did not think it was a really bad problem but rather an added bit of fun.

If you strongly object, I'm willing to retract it and rework it a little to
allow an evil twin to decline after having done it once (and make it look to
the past). Personally, I'd like to give it a shot, see if we get any
problems because of this. If so, then I would support you making an
amendment to that rule. I do think it's ok though (but I'm biased).

>ThinMan
>snowgod's evil twin

Calvin N Hobbes
Mohammed's evil twin

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 16:14:38 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka:  Proposal 1846

CnH wrote:
[I wrote:]
> >This would seem to generate an infinite loop once it is invoked the
> >first time.  Moreover, it would be far better, IMO, to look backward
> >here instead of forward (i.e. consider who was Krykek last for the
> >purpose of choosing Krykec now, rather than choosing a future Krykec
> >based on the current one).
> 
> Your point is completely valid. Indeed, the way things are right now,
> we
> would have an infinite loop. However, two points.
> 
> First, that I have taken care of the possible multiple evil twin
> option. For
> example
> 
[...]

Granted and acknowledged.

> Second, that it is always possible for any player to break off the
> evil twin
> partnership, as per the evil twin rule.
> 
Granted.  I realized this, and for this reason do not consider the
potential infinite loop to be a major problem, especially because
being Krykec doesn't appear to confer any particular advantages.

> You didn't think being an evil twin was going to be all fun, did you?
> [evil grin]        ; )
> 
Well, actually....

> You made a suggestion of looking backwards instead of forward and I
> agree
> that this is probably better. However, it is the effect would be
> almost the
> same, except that it would mean the dissolution of the twin relation
> would
> could be much shorter. That's not exactly what I had in mind, although
> either way is fine by me.
> 
The main advantage of looking backward instead of forward, in my view,
is that you can much more easilly account for such things as players
leaving the game or going on vacation, breaking off the evil twin
relationship, or other game situation that is difficult to predict.

I do not object sufficiently to insist upon retraction or even amendment
(should it pass).  I have not yet decided how I will vote on it,
however.  I pointed out the problems that I saw so that the public
could take them into account when deciding how to vote.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 21:26:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1793

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > 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.

Yeah, that was the original change I was going to make.  If the proposal to
remove this line altogether fails, I will ask the CSRR officer to change it.
(It seems like something he ought to be able to do.)

IB

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 21:33:00 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1793

IdiotBoy wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> Yeah, that was the original change I was going to make.  If the proposal to
> remove this line altogether fails, I will ask the CSRR officer to change it.
> (It seems like something he ought to be able to do.)

Actually, I'm going to make a proposal to amend that rule, and renumber it,
as soon as the results for 1793 come back.  As it is now, a player with a
controlling interest in a player can exercise the c.i. to make the player
vote YES on a proposal, then trade his controlling interest to another
player, and have that player exercise his c.i. to make the player vote
NO on the same proposal, ensuring that he will stiff his shareholders at
least once.

There are a few possible fixes:
1. make the "stiffing" penalty only apply if the player who exercised
   his c.i. still has the c.i. when the voting period ends
2. don't allow a player to exercise his c.i. the first week he has it
3. don't allow exercising a player's c.i. on a proposal if the c.i. has
   already been exercised for that player and that proposal
4. if a player's c.i. has been exercised for a proposal more than once,
   only the last one counts.

The first two depend on the current wording, limiting the player to
exercising his controlling interest once in any seven-day period.  Which
of the last two is preferable?

If P1793 fails, I will add in changing "week" to "calendar week" and
"2 days" to "3 days".

As far as the renumbering, it should probably go with the PFbonds rule,
like the dividends rule is, so 509 is the appropriate number.

/dev/joe

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #17
***************************************