Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #63
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest    Tuesday, May 20 1997    Volume 02 : Number 063

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

Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 20:25:09 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2010

> Proposal 2010
> Literature
> Vynd

Excellent stuff. This has my vote.

Bascule

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

Date: 19 May 1997 17:25:22 CST/CDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #62 

breadbox asked me to explain the "repair" of P 2002.

As it is currently written, if player A places the Widget in its
non-effectual state (tweaked or frobbed, I forget which at the moment)
and then trades it, the new owner will be unable to tweak or frob the
Widget because its last state was set by "a player other than its
current owner".  I doubt this was actually the intent of the rule.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 16:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #62

> breadbox asked me to explain the "repair" of P 2002.
> 
> As it is currently written, if player A places the Widget in its
> non-effectual state (tweaked or frobbed, I forget which at the
> moment) and then trades it, the new owner will be unable to tweak or
> frob the Widget because its last state was set by "a player other
> than its current owner".  I doubt this was actually the intent of
> the rule.

It certainly was not the intent, but I have to disagree with your
reading. The section that Proposal 2002 is modifying currently states:

> The Widget will automatically change its state to tweaked if it is
> in the frobbed state when any of the following are true:
> 
> [...]
> 
> 2) the Widget's current state was set by a player other than the
> current owner [as opposed to an automatic state change];

First, if the Widget is tweaked (i.e., in its "non-effectual state")
when it is traded, then this section does not apply, and nothing
happens.

Now, your reading of it seems to be that when the new owner then
attempts to frob it, section 2 will force it to become tweaked because
its tweaked state was not set by the current owner. But what clause 2
refers to is *not* the previous tweaked state, but its current state.
And its current state refers to the newly frobbed state, because the
opening clause says "if it *is* in the frobbed state when". Since this
state was in fact set by the current owner, this condition will not
apply, and nothing untoward happens.

I realize that this wording is less than transparent, but I still
prefer it to the wording in Proposal 2002, because it is general to
any sort of changing of hands, and not just the case where it is
traded.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 17:58:11 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #62 

>breadbox asked me to explain the "repair" of P 2002.
>
>As it is currently written, if player A places the Widget in its
>non-effectual state (tweaked or frobbed, I forget which at the moment)
>and then trades it, the new owner will be unable to tweak or frob the
>Widget because its last state was set by "a player other than its
>current owner".  I doubt this was actually the intent of the rule.
>
>Guy Fawkes

No, but ti's a loophole I have considered taking advantage of :)

Nacho Guy

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

Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 21:18:12 CST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: RFC

While I know that non-voting Players may not make Proposals,  I would
like (from time to time) to throw out some ideas in the hope that
someone MAY Propose them formally.

The first has to do with the RFC system.  I would like to see Players who
RFC and then have other Players submit Proposals based on those RFC's get
partial credit if the Proposal passes.  Undoubtedly,  to be fair,  if the
Proposal fails,  the originator of the RFC should also take a portion of
the penalty.  The penalty should not be equal to the reward because the
auithor of the Proposal IS more responsible for the passage or failure
of a Proposal than the person who gave em the idea.

This is not just a scam to allow non-voting Players such as myself to
accumulate Points for Proposals,  although with the increasing number of
non-Voting Players,  it woulod help all of us.  There are a number of
Voting Players who come up with wonderful ideas and RFC them just to
watch eir ideas become Proposals under another's name.  The Internomic
Trade Protocol comes to mind.

I doubt this idea will get much support gfrom the traditionalists,  or
any of the others out there,  but I will continue to throw out ideas for
the increase of Harf or the general improvement of Acka.  Please note
that my copy of the Ruleset is rarely up to date or accurate,  so be
kind when you comment on the post.

Thank you,  one and all
HC

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #63
***************************************