Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #81
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest     Monday, June 9 1997     Volume 02 : Number 081

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 17:16:26 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2062

> Proposal 2062
> I'm Late, I'm Late, For A Very Important Date 
> Create a new rule, numbered 381, named "Procrastination", whose text is as
> follows(delineated by LONGINES):

[...]

> LONGINES

I've never understood the use of these artificial delimiters, but in
this case, one of the delimiters is missing.  If the proposal is accepted,
one of 2 things will happen:

1) It will be applied as intended, as if the delimiters where not there,
or were specified correctly.

2) It will be applied incorrectly, because of the missing delimiter.

In either case, it seems like using them is unnecessary, or possibly
harmful.  Just an observation.

I also note that this proposal, if implemented as intended, could create
some of the SVH sort of ambiguity, I believe, but I have to think about
it more.

Malenkai
naturally curious
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 16:35:09 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2062

> > Proposal 2062
> > I'm Late, I'm Late, For A Very Important Date 
> > Create a new rule, numbered 381, named "Procrastination", whose text is as
> > follows(delineated by LONGINES):
> 
> [...]
> 
> > LONGINES
> 
> I've never understood the use of these artificial delimiters,

In my case, it's just one of those creative outlet things, because I
have fun, and hope to mildly amuse some people, with my choice of
delimiter.  Also, it helps remove ambiguity be clearly delimiting what
"the following text" is suppose to be, which would be important if there
were multiple rule changes.  I probably use them more than I need to,
though, you're right.  :-)

> but in
> this case, one of the delimiters is missing.

D'oh!  I hereby retract Proposal 2062.

> I also note that this proposal, if implemented as intended, could create
> some of the SVH sort of ambiguity, I believe, but I have to think about
> it more.

What kind of ambiguity?  I'm curious, and would welcome comments before I
resubmit it.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--The Barbusters:Light of Day
Current Book--Steven Brust:Five Hundred Years After
This joke is tired of laughing.

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 18:50:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2062

> What kind of ambiguity?  I'm curious, and would welcome comments before I
> resubmit it.

Like I said, I have not thought it through all the way.  Here was my
initial thought:

A period expires.  In my usual efficient self, I reassign the duty
within one hour.  Then, in one more hour, the previous assignee responds.
It could get ugly if the entity is a one time thing as opposed to a
rotating thing (SVH vs Phoebe).

You're rule claims precedence over other rules, but I have an *incredibly*
narrow definition of precedence conflict when I am judge, so I doubt 
your rule would handle this case, because it regulates timing, but
not redistribution. 

Malenkai
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 20:45:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Harf

Lo!  And harken!  I have come, Players of acka, to inform you that
proposals 2045 and 2059 are harfy.  Pay attention!

As long as I have your attention, I just noticed that my proposals 2039
and 2040 are still listed as up for voting on the acrobot website.  I
retraced them a few days ago, but let me take this opportunity to retract
them again, just to make sure it takes.

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 20:43:53 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2062

> > What kind of ambiguity?  I'm curious, and would welcome comments before I
> > resubmit it.
> 
> Like I said, I have not thought it through all the way.  Here was my
> initial thought:
> 
> A period expires.  In my usual efficient self, I reassign the duty
> within one hour.  Then, in one more hour, the previous assignee responds.
> It could get ugly if the entity is a one time thing as opposed to a
> rotating thing (SVH vs Phoebe).

> You're rule claims precedence over other rules, but I have an *incredibly*
> narrow definition of precedence conflict when I am judge, so I doubt 
> your rule would handle this case, because it regulates timing, but
> not redistribution. 

Hmmm.  Then perhaps there should be a clause that it's "too late" if action
has already been taken presuming that they failed in their duty.

I'd also like to be absolutely clear on what kinds of things would be
affected by the rule and which wouldn't.  The Phoebe post is the prototype
case I'm thinking of, of course.  I wouldn't want it to affect Proposal
voting, or any voting at all, in fact.  But what about CFJ acceptance and
verdicts?  As I wrote the proposal, they would be considered open to
procrastination, as a time-limited duty of a single player.

I'm no longer sure about this proposal, and perhaps I'll sit on it for a
bit.  (It was the only good Literature idea I could think of, though...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--The Jazz Butcher:Bloody Nonsense
Current Book--Steven Brust:Five Hundred Years After
Active hornet's nest will make construction unnecessary.

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #81
***************************************