Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #45
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest    Friday, April 18 1997    Volume 02 : Number 045

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

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:03:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  red tape

> Hoiwever, there are certain people in ackanomic who "run the game" This is
> not nescacarrily a bad thing,
	I think it is, and the consequence, which you noted, is bad as well:

> lost, but it bothers me noetheless.  The common acka-folk can longer just
> come up with an idea and pop it out.
	In my opinion, this is largely a result of too many ideas having
popped out and not enough having been nutty-well popped in again.  
	We can either pop off into several nomics that are very tightly 
knit together-- Townships-- (this is my personal favorite solution) with 
only the absolute best rules at the top (i.e. Trinkets, a subset of the 
Officer rules (that subset which is largely intuitive), and the Township 
stuff itself); or go through and repeal a bunch of stuff (which I will be 
happy to propose shortly, if you would lend me your Widget to avoid 
crashing the bond market); or we can go on as we are.  The last solution 
is my least favorite.

> game was muych more fun a year ago when it was free wheeling... (someone
> who's been here a while, please jump in and help me out).  If I want to
> submit a proposal without an RFC, thats my right.  It's my proposal.
	Hmm.  Perhaps.  It sort of depends on the content.

- -- 
Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:14:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1929

> Proposal 1929
> Loosening the Rule Change Necktie
> Mohammed

> If a proposal is accepted, one of two things happen.  If the proposal
> consisted of a list of one-time effects, such as changes to the rules,
> then those effects shall be applied, one at a time, in the order in
> which they appear in the proposal.  (Ambiguous, conditional,
> retroactive, and/or meaningless effects are ignored.)
> 
> Otherwise, the proposal itself changes from a proposal to a rule.  [It
> is assigned a title and number as described in Rules 301 and 303.]

[there was much more, but the above is the guts of the proposal]

I like this.  We have been steadily moving toward this for quite some time,
and it can't do anything a {{self-deleting rule}} couldn't do.  I wrote
much of the current system, and I realize it isn't as nice as it could be,
but it was the best I could come up with at the time to eliminate ambiguous
rule changes without making other large-scale changes in the way proposals
worked which, at that time, probably would have made the proposal fail.

The one thing I dislike about it is that, currently, if you wanted to do
something in a {{rule}} that is prohibited by some other rule, you would
have to either renumber your {{rule}} or have it claim precedence over
the other rule (or both), either of which is a signal that you're doing
something unusual.  Under this system, the effects in a proposal occur
essentially with the force of R103.  However, the most problematic of
such cases, retroactivity, is made stiffer in this proposal by moving the
ban up to R101, which has the effect of requiring a {{rule}} with a
renumbering *and* a precedence clause (since R101 claims global precedence),
which is likely to set off all sorts of alarms in all our heads; this is
stricter than what is required now, but still allows for retroactivity if
we really need it.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 17:27:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 374 (Malenkai) 

>Hoiwever, there are certain people in ackanomic who "run the game" This is
>not nescacarrily a bad thing, because without these people we would be
>lost, but it bothers me noetheless.  The common acka-folk can longer just
>come up with an idea and pop it out.  Only a few of us really understand
>the rules well enough to do what we want to do,m and that seems ago with
>some people.  Sure, there are offers to help, to proofread and all of that,
>but I remember a time when a proposal was a proposal was a proposal and
>they were all by their very nature, fun.
>
>Nothing is going to break if a proposal you don't like passes.  I for one
>am actually sick to death of the collaborative nature of Ackanomic.  The
>game was muych more fun a year ago when it was free wheeling... (someone
>who's been here a while, please jump in and help me out).  If I want to
>submit a proposal without an RFC, thats my right.  It's my proposal.
>
>Oh shit, I lost my train of though.  I had something very important to say
>here, and I can't remember what.... something about going back to the good
>old days, I'm sure.

snowgod, I think you've hit what's been annoying me for a while right on the
head. As you say, elitism isn't the perfect word, but there is an
_effective_ elite. This may come with experience but it's also a mind set.

It's an establishment kind of thing. The same object of rebellion people in
the sixties had. Acka is no longer a game tittering on the edge with no
identity and no safe future. Acka is now a respectable game that's endured
and created a name for itself. With that comes a desire to hold a status quo
rather than experiment. Certainly, there's less to lose in experimenting
when there is nothing or little to lose. This new mindset in Acka is both
good and bad. Has advantages and disadvantages. We may need to explore ways
to recapture the youthful exuberance of a fresh rule set somehow, while
retaining the experience of the old.

RFC is my pet peeve and I can see it's yours too to some extent. Sure, I
feel kind of naughty and bad when a rule I created creates problems because
I missed a comma somewhere in there (or badly defined something) but it's
part of the fun imho. If every proposal had a bug in them it might be quite
interesting in a different sort of way.

Some of the most interesting arguments slash discussions recently have been
about things that have passed and caused "problems". This may seem like a
far cry from what the Calvin of a few months ago said about wanting a
perfect rule set, but I don't really see these views as incompatible. Rules
can be patched, the language refined. The only bugs I strongly object to are
the ones that would do spectacular harm to the rule set and the game.
Anything else is fair game.

Looking quickly at the rest of my mail, I see the comments by Mohammed. I
think he may be right (I hate to say it, but I predicted something like that
almost a year ago) and we'll end up in Townships. As this is Acka research,
perhaps the township discussion should be revived. Robert Sevin, please fire
the opening shot.   ; )

[puts on flame proof clothing and ducks for his life]

I'm rushing to get to an exam. Sorry if my thoughts are incoherent. Well,
you guys would be used to that by now.    : )

Calvin N Hobbes
almost ready to make a guess on the cgi thing

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

Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 00:06:37 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 374 (Malenkai)

CnH wrote:
> RFC is my pet peeve and I can see it's yours too to some extent. Sure, I
> feel kind of naughty and bad when a rule I created creates problems because
> I missed a comma somewhere in there (or badly defined something) but it's
> part of the fun imho. 
>
> Some of the most interesting arguments slash discussions recently have been
> about things that have passed and caused "problems". This may seem like a
> far cry from what the Calvin of a few months ago said about wanting a
> perfect rule set, but I don't really see these views as incompatible. Rules
> can be patched, the language refined. The only bugs I strongly object to are
> the ones that would do spectacular harm to the rule set and the game.
> Anything else is fair game.

I agree with this 100%. I think many of the most interesting and 
entertaining situations this game has produced have been unintended 
effects from mistakes in rules.

Of course, engineering such situations artificially would be
farcical. But if a proposal with problems passes, when an RFC might
have eliminated those problems, this need not be a catastrophe. On
the contrary, the effects might give us all a laugh.

Bascule

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

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:19:02 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 374 (Malenkai) 

>
>Of course, engineering such situations artificially would be
>farcical. But if a proposal with problems passes, when an RFC might
>have eliminated those problems, this need not be a catastrophe. On
>the contrary, the effects might give us all a laugh.
>
>Bascule

Yeah, maybe thats whats really bugging me.  A lot of us have forgetten how
to laugh at ourselves.

snowgod
let the revolution begin

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

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 21:00:07 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1929

> Proposal 1929
> Loosening the Rule Change Necktie

> 1.  [Move the retroactivity ban up.]  Amend Rule 101 ("The Game of
> Ackanomic") by inserting the following sentence just before the last
> paragraph:
> 
> No rule may generate any effect that applies retroactively to a time
> before the generation of the effect.
> 
> 2.  Amend Rule 103 ("Proposals and Rule Changes") by renaming it to
> "Proposals" and changing its text to read:

This proposal will break the statute of limitations I added to the crime
rule, which claims precedence over the rule 103 retroactivity ban
specifically.  Even if the 103 is changed to 101 based on the spelling
rule or the bad pointer fixup amendment that may or may not have passed,
it will not work due to rule 101's godlike precedence.  Since the 
statute of limitations had broad-based support, and allows easier fixup
of a botched game state, I encourage retraction of this proposal, or
voting no.

Malenkai

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #45
***************************************