Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #179
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Sunday, November 23 1997     Volume 02 : Number 179

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:07:43 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Proposal

> Title: Someone Better Fix That "Misteak"

> #begin Proposal

> Amend Rule 342, "Spelling Bee", by appending the following SUBER-delimited
> text to it:

> Any holder of a Unique Office may post a public message asking the
> Web-Harfer to initiate a flight of the Spelling Bee, and specifying at
> least one stinging.  No player may post such a message if they have posted
> such a message in the last seven days.

You _could_ just ask.  :-)  I have been meaning to do this for a while;
maybe I'll try to find some time for it this week.  In any event, I think
this Proposal would be unnecessary.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Double:Tomorrow
Current Book--Janette Oke:Once Upon A Summer
"You can't do this to me!  I have a right to free association!"

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:33:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposals 2391 and 2392

I find myself compelled to comment on two of the recent proposals.

Proposal 2391 "Study Leave": I like the idea of a vacation not cutting
short a Scholar's term. However, this proposal does not account for
what should happen if a student submits a guess during the Scholar's
vacation. Since vacations can last for months, this is a real problem.

Proposal 2392 "Drips Under Pressure": This proposal does not explain
who decides if an Expert's area of expertise is relavant to the CFJ or
not. I presume that call should be left up to the CotC, but I think it
would be wise to make that explicit.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:36:20 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

> Proposal 2394
> When The Chips are Down
 
> {{ Each player who possessed a Processing Chip one second before the
> passage of Proposal 2367 are awarded 1 A$ for every such Chip e owned
> at that point. }}
> 
> Amend Rule 594.13, "Blueprint: Oscar", Rule 594.15, "Blueprint:
> Cheez-Whiz", Rule 594.17, "Blueprint: Silver Spaceship", and Rule 594.18,
> "Blueprint: BWG Laser", to remove the sentence "Raw materials of 1
> processing chips are required." from each.
> 
> Amend Rule 594.16, "Blueprint: Pulse Laser", to remove the sentence
> "Raw materials of 2 processing chips are required."

My proposal that reorged the blueprints should have already removed
these lines.  Is there a reason it did not?

> Amend Rule 594.20, "Blueprint: Null Gadget", to remove the sentence,
> "Raw materials of 0 processing chips are required."

I have argued both publically and privately that this rule does not
exist.  I guess it doesn't much matter, since it doesn't do anything
but make more work for people, sort of like proposal 2393 :-)

One question about 2393, while I'm here -- (besides 'what's the point?' :-)
Why not all of the judgement rules?

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:49:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

> > Proposal 2394
> > When The Chips are Down
>  
> > {{ Each player who possessed a Processing Chip one second before the
> > passage of Proposal 2367 are awarded 1 A$ for every such Chip e owned
> > at that point. }}
> > 
> > Amend Rule 594.13, "Blueprint: Oscar", Rule 594.15, "Blueprint:
> > Cheez-Whiz", Rule 594.17, "Blueprint: Silver Spaceship", and Rule 594.18,
> > "Blueprint: BWG Laser", to remove the sentence "Raw materials of 1
> > processing chips are required." from each.
> > 
> > Amend Rule 594.16, "Blueprint: Pulse Laser", to remove the sentence
> > "Raw materials of 2 processing chips are required."
> 
> My proposal that reorged the blueprints should have already removed
> these lines.  Is there a reason it did not?

<grovelling>

My apologies to both Malenkai and Alfvaen. I thought I had got all of
them, but it looks like these slipped my mind at the time. They are in
fact not supposed to be there.

</grovelling>

> > Amend Rule 594.20, "Blueprint: Null Gadget", to remove the sentence,
> > "Raw materials of 0 processing chips are required."
> 
> I have argued both publically and privately that this rule does not
> exist.  I guess it doesn't much matter, since it doesn't do anything
> but make more work for people, sort of like proposal 2393 :-)

It looks like Alfvaen was working off of a slightly outdated copy of
the 594 Rule Suite. But at the time that I corrected those, I failed
to make a public statement that the 594 suite had contained errors.

Again, I apologize for the mistakes. At the time Proposal 2344 passed,
I harfed its effects under some time constraints, and though I tried
to be careful, it *was* a huge change and a few things slipped by me.

The next time we have one of these reorgs, I promise to be much better
prepared for it.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:58:50 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

> It looks like Alfvaen was working off of a slightly outdated copy of
> the 594 Rule Suite. But at the time that I corrected those, I failed
> to make a public statement that the 594 suite had contained errors.

It seems that the current copy of that rule suite on muppetlabs does
not reflect the removal of those rules, or my browser's cache 
algorithm is seriously brain damaged.

> Again, I apologize for the mistakes. At the time Proposal 2344 passed,
> I harfed its effects under some time constraints, and though I tried
> to be careful, it *was* a huge change and a few things slipped by me.

Well, those proposals are prolly overly complicated, and can be a pain
to harf.  No need to apologize :)

BTW, is there any reason we need "Modesty and Pride"?  P2393 is a CSR,
and is not even designated as Modest.  If that is strategy, fine, if
not, then "Modesty and Pride" seems to be a rule that is more
work than fun, and perhaps its time has come.  RFC?

Secondly, anyone for blowing away Tammany, or increasing the minimum
to 100?  The amount is so trivial, if I wasn't too lazy to type in the
command, I would have an undeserved extra vote every time.  As it stands
now, it is working out that proposal authors are getting an extra vote
for free.  RFC?

Malenkai

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #179
***********************************