Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #144
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest   Wednesday, September 10 1997   Volume 02 : Number 144

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 15:19:19 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Witchhunt RFC

This should fix Sanctuary of Salvation so that it can only be granted by
another player, and only after a Witchhunt has been called.

Rex Mundi.

This is a modest RFC.

Amend the last paragraph of rule 1307, Ackanomic Middle Ages, to read in
full:

After a Witchhunt has been called on a player, another player who is a
member of a Church may save that player from being burned as a witch, or as
a heretic, provided e posts a public message (before the Witchhunt is
resolved) saying 'I am running to the Church', then the name of the Church
of which e is a member, then 'and I hold the Altar by the Horns for'
followed by the name of the player e is saving. This is called granting
Sanctuary Of Salvation.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 08:54:20 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2288 rejected

> Results of Proposal 2288

> 10/19 votes: Quorum just barely achieved
> 4/7 YES votes: Proposal rejected

>     ABSTAINED:
> Alfvaen            (Harf)

Arrggh!  I can't believe I did that!  Are you sure you didn't miss my vote
somewhere?

I guess I just get confused without Acrobot around to check on what I've
voted for and what I haven't.  :-/

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Change of Heart:Little Kingdoms
Current Book--Ray Aldridge:The Emperor of Everything
[The road]twisted like a snake that had swallowed a Slinky...  --Joel Rosenberg

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 14:10:37 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC "What's the point?"

I think the idea of assigning one's own points to Proposals has some
potential.  It might be worth a try.  I'd ask that the default point total
be left at ten, though, for the simple reason that many people probably
will forget at first.  The same way people forget to renumber new rules
they create.  :-)

> RFC
> What's the Point?
> Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)
> 
> Amend the text of Rule 207 (Scoring When a Proposal's Voting Results are 
> Accepted), Section III to read in full (delimited by ***):
> 
> ***
> 
> A Proposal prefaced with "Value: " followed by an integer has a Value 
> equal to that integer.  All other Proposals have a value of zero.
> 
> When a Proposal is accepted, its author receives points equal to that 
> proposal's Value.  When a proposal is rejected, its author loses points 
> equal to one-half that proposal's Value (rounding down).

Which is a bit better than previously, but what the heck.

> This paragraph will repeal itself exactly one week after its introduction 
> to the Rules.  A proposal prefaced by "This is a Modest proposal" has a 
> Value of 5.  A proposal prefaced by "This is a Grandiose proposal" has a 
> Value of 16.  A proposal neither preface has a Value of 10.  A proposal 
> with both Prefaces is invalid.  [This allows players to write proposals 
> as they always have until the fate of this proposal is known.]

> ***
> 
> Delete sections V and VI of Rule 207, and renumber section VII of that 
> rule to V.

> Repeal Rule 207.1 (That's just silly)  [If you think silliness is worth 
> points, add to your proposal's value.]

Well, I think that the challenge of trying to put a given phrase into your
proposal is part of the fun of it.  I'd say leave this one there.

> Repeal Rule 207.3 (Foolishness) [Same reasoning as silliness.]

I never really saw the point of this one(though I'll certainly try to take
advantage of it...)

> Repeal Rule 209 (Modesty and Pride)

> Repeal Rule 210 (Literature) [Add to value if the quote is clever.]

Unless you want to keep "Great Works" around.

> [Anti-voting doesn't fit well with a self-evalutation system of scoring, 
> so it has been eliminated.  I decided to keep things like parades, the 
> Brass Monkey, and the Harfmeister, since these are so much a part of Acka 
> culture, and are really something that cause scoring based on the 
> proposal's existence rather than its content, so the "add value if it's 
> worth it" argument was weak here]

I always kinda liked anti-voting, since that way you get some recompense
for the the Proposal not having passed or failed like you wanted it to.
Theoretically, that is...  But I do understand that it's inconsistent.
And, what the heck, it'll make the Scorekeeper job less complicated.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Henry Badowski:Baby Sign Here With Me
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
The covers of some books are too far apart.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 14:12:11 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: acka: Witchhunt RFC

> This is a modest RFC.

> Amend the last paragraph of rule 1307, Ackanomic Middle Ages, to read in
> full:

> After a Witchhunt has been called on a player, another player who is a
> member of a Church may save that player from being burned as a witch, or as
> a heretic, provided e posts a public message (before the Witchhunt is
> resolved) saying 'I am running to the Church', then the name of the Church
> of which e is a member, then 'and I hold the Altar by the Horns for'
> followed by the name of the player e is saving. This is called granting
> Sanctuary Of Salvation.

This should work, I think, O Ashen One...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Henry Badowski:Baby Sign Here With Me
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
I was on a roll, until I slipped on the butter.

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 16:21:19 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC "What's the point?"

> > Repeal Rule 210 (Literature) [Add to value if the quote is clever.]
> 
> Unless you want to keep "Great Works" around.

Keep literature, keep the silly phrase.  Making the rules generic, as 
was done with orgs, makes them boring.  Besides, the ways to score
are more interesting than scoring itself.  Gathering points, and
hence putting energy into the scoring system, seems like something we
should have outgrown by now...

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 16:43:12 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC "What's the point?"

> Keep literature, keep the silly phrase.  Making the rules generic, as 
> was done with orgs, makes them boring.  Besides, the ways to score
> are more interesting than scoring itself.  Gathering points, and
> hence putting energy into the scoring system, seems like something we
> should have outgrown by now...
> 
> Malenkai

Hear Hear!

And assorted scruffly noises from the peanut gallery...
Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 19:59:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC "What's the point?"

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > > Repeal Rule 210 (Literature) [Add to value if the quote is clever.]
> > 
> > Unless you want to keep "Great Works" around.
> 
> Keep literature, keep the silly phrase.  Making the rules generic, as 
> was done with orgs, makes them boring.  Besides, the ways to score
> are more interesting than scoring itself.  Gathering points, and
> hence putting energy into the scoring system, seems like something we
> should have outgrown by now...
> 
> Malenkai
> 

Well, personaly I am against the reworking in it's entirity.  I just don't
see any benefit from it.  The points rules are somewhat cumbersome, but
they work ok.  Yeah, I know lots of people don't like anti-voting, but
that's no reason to scrap everything.  Frankly I hate the idea of being
called upon to place a specific value on my proposals, or no value at all.

There are a few possible results of this, as I see it.  One is that people
start evaluating proposals very closely to decide if they are "worth" the
points that they are asking for.  I don't think anyone wants that.
Another is that people stop caring how many points a proposal brings it's
author (or at least how many points other people's proposals bring in) so
long as it isn't ridiculous.  This would probably lead to everyone giving
themselves points that fall within a certain accepted range, say 0 to 12,
that would be little different in it's effects from the system we use
today.  Another more extreme possiblity would be that the point system
would be treated more or less as a joke, and I would then join Malenkai in
calling for it's repeal. 

And thus far I ahve only been talking about what I think would happen if
you made the less extensive changes Malenkai and Balsamic Dragon are
talking about.  If you cut things such as "That's just silly" or
Literature, I believe we would loose a lot of color from our proposals and
rules (well OK, maybe not a LOT of color, considering how much we have).
I mean, really, would anyone here feel comfortable asking for more points
for their proposal because it had the phrase "There is no Dana, only Zuul"
in it?  Or because they threw in some Tolkein quotes? I'm not saying that
people would stop including such things in their proposals, but we would
lose part of what, in a way, officially welcomes such goofy nonsense to 
Acka.

Finally, I ask you to consider what effects this might have say, 4 or 5
months from now.  By then, it is likely that a number of our current
players will have left, and new ones will have come in, and be continuing
to come in.  This new system is, in my opinion, much less accessible to
new players.  With the people who are reading this now, everyone has some
idea how much proposals "should" be worth, because the rules have told us
what that number was for so long.  Once the RFCed changes have had time to
sink in, however, it will become much more difficult for someone new to
Acka to really judge what kind of points they should be asking for on a
proposal.  They will either jump right in and quite possibly get slapped
down for violating whatever the new "customary" values are, or they'll
have to sit and wait for perhaps quite longer than they want so they can
figure out how things work.

This is, I might add, one of the main reasons I am so vehemently against
the idea of removing the points system from Acka.  Sure, most of the long
time, hard core players won't really miss them.  But they are one of the
few things about Acka that are relatively simple to understand and
game-like.  Who wants to join a game where they don't understand how they
are supposed to win.

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #144
***********************************