Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #51
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest   Thursday, April 24 1997   Volume 02 : Number 051

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 11:51:58 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1946

> I support Malenkai's efforts to trim some of the fat from our rule
> set...  and hope he has better luck in doing so than I did.

I would support this efforts to if I could also see the ruletext that's 
trimmed away. All lot of those rule I haven't read before or voted 
for. And removing a rule is like bringing to back for voting. IMHO 
voting for something you don't know the effects is not good. So Im 
forced to vote "No" on a lot of Malenkai's proposes.  

> There are other rules that could possibly find their way under a similar
> axe -- let me ask the group a question.  Should a rule that is never
> used, that was put in merely because it was funny, or a pun, or a TMBG
> (or animaniacs) reference be protected?  Or can we start to cut some of
> those rules out?  I have in mind rules like Another truly deplorable pun
> and Thank you Yacko for starters.

I like "Thank you Yacko" :)
I think that rules that are never ammended, expended, old and without 
any effect should be brought back for voting.

CarsesraC

 

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 02:50:35 -0700
From: Joshua Nave <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1946

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > I support Malenkai's efforts to trim some of the fat from our rule
> > set...  and hope he has better luck in doing so than I did.
> 
> I would support this efforts to if I could also see the ruletext that's
> trimmed away. All lot of those rule I haven't read before or voted
> for. And removing a rule is like bringing to back for voting. IMHO
> voting for something you don't know the effects is not good. So Im
> forced to vote "No" on a lot of Malenkai's proposes.

There are frequently proposals that I feel similarly about -- for
example, every proposal dealing with Party Chess.  Since I don't feel
qualified to make a decision regarding party chess and since I don't
participate in party chess, I always vote present.  Just as I don't feel
comfortable voting FOR those proposals, I also don't feel comfortable
voting AGAINST them.

Narf

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 07:49:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1946

On Wed, 23 Apr 1997 [email-masked] wrote:
> I would support this efforts to if I could also see the ruletext that's 
> trimmed away. All lot of those rule I haven't read before or voted 
> for. And removing a rule is like bringing to back for voting. IMHO 
> voting for something you don't know the effects is not good. So Im 
> forced to vote "No" on a lot of Malenkai's proposes.  
	Do you have web access?  The rules are on the web....
	Would you vote "YES" on a proposal that didn't include the text of
the rules it was going to create?  'course not.  So there's no reason to
vote NO on malenkai's proposals, where the text is indeed there, you just
have to go look it up.  --Taking your analogy to bringing a rule back for 
voting a step further.
	If I had the time...  but I don't, so please please take the time
to look these rules up... it only takes a sec:

- -- 
Mohammed
votes for sale, A$ 45 each
Maybe very few funny wandering glamorous forgetful kings and con artists
were made for each other.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 07:49:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1946

On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, Joshua Nave wrote:
> There are frequently proposals that I feel similarly about -- for
> example, every proposal dealing with Party Chess.  Since I don't feel
> qualified to make a decision regarding party chess and since I don't
> participate in party chess, I always vote present.  Just as I don't feel
> comfortable voting FOR those proposals, I also don't feel comfortable
> voting AGAINST them.
	Almost everyone votes P on all partychess proposals.  It needs to 
become a spin-off.

- -- 
Mohammed
Maybe very few funny wandering glamorous forgetful kings and con artists
were made for each other.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:00:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1946

On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Apr 1997 [email-masked] wrote:
> > I would support this efforts to if I could also see the ruletext that's 
> > trimmed away. All lot of those rule I haven't read before or voted 
> > for. And removing a rule is like bringing to back for voting. IMHO 
> > voting for something you don't know the effects is not good. So Im 
> > forced to vote "No" on a lot of Malenkai's proposes.  
> 	Do you have web access?  The rules are on the web....

We're supposed to be keeping this game playable for those who have email
access every three days, although this guideline becomes more farcical by
the day.

I, personally, hate the WWW: so I generally vote on these proposals based
on my "understanding" of what they say.  This is where the simple addition
of a few comments from the author of a proposal could sway my decision. 

IB
just being helpful

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:27:21 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1946

Narf wrote:

> There are other rules that could possibly find their way under a
> similar
> axe -- let me ask the group a question.  Should a rule that is never
> used, that was put in merely because it was funny, or a pun, or a TMBG
> (or animaniacs) reference be protected?  Or can we start to cut some
> of
> those rules out?  I have in mind rules like Another truly deplorable
> pun
> and Thank you Yacko for starters.
> 
I would fully support the elimination of those two rules for starters,
and of many other rules in that category.  I voted against them in
the first place, however, and the swing votes will be from among those
who originally supported the measures.

ThinMan

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #51
***************************************