Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #48
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest    Monday, April 21 1997    Volume 02 : Number 048

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

Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 13:01:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1941

> Proposal 1941
> Fewer Electoral Ties
> Guy Fawkes
	This won't have the intended effect, because the methods aren't 
applied in order; instead, the rules for individual offices get to 
specify which method is applied-- and generally only one.  
	(I apologize to those of you on acka-voting-digest; you can get 
the proposal text ahead of time by going to 
http://www.cbu.edu/~jorendor/props.cgi#P1941 or by sending
#read p 1941  to the bot.

> Insert the following
> 
> 1) Recount: Count Tabula shall once again tally the votes and announce 
> the election's winner(s) as described in sections (f) and (g) above, 
> except that this time, votes by non-Player entities shall not be counted.
	I like the idea, but I would like it more if it applied to *all* 
elections, before any other tiebreakers happen.

- -- 
Mohammed
Last year a babbling kid ran over giant Americans.

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

Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 14:01:29 -0400
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1941

Mohammed wrote:

> > Proposal 1941
> > Fewer Electoral Ties

>         I like the idea, but I would like it more if it applied to *all*
> elections, before any other tiebreakers happen.

Mohammed is right, except I dislike the idea :).  It takes 50% of the fun
out of the EBS.  The solution I was going to propose was to resolve the
tie via a Duel by default, that seems harfier.  If 3 or more players 
are tied (which has never happened, I don't think), I don't really care
how it is done.

Malenkai
Expert in Offices

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

Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 14:47:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1941

On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > Proposal 1941
> > Fewer Electoral Ties
> > Guy Fawkes
> 	This won't have the intended effect, because the methods aren't 
> applied in order; instead, the rules for individual offices get to 
> specify which method is applied-- and generally only one.  

Actually, this proposal will have the intended effect, which is to 
place another possible tiebreaker into the rules.  Whether anyone wishes 
one or more of the rules to employ it was deliberately left as another 
matter.

If Malenkai wishes to add Dueling as another possible tiebreaker, I would 
support such an attempt.

Most of the individual office rules _don't_ specify tiebreakers; (only 
the Speaker -- completely new election -- and the Senate -- tiebreaker 
cast by ProConsul (Speaker) -- have tiebreakers specified by their 
rules.  The heart of the way ties are currently handled is in the final 
clause of R402, which states that in the absence of a tiebreaker being 
specified by the rule which defines an Office, then the Random method 
shall be used.

Personally, I like the Random method for its simplicity, even if it is 
rather unHarfy.  This proposal merely wished to set up another 
possibility.  (Admittedly, the title could have reflected that a lot 
better :)

Guy Fawkes

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #48
***************************************