Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #180
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Monday, November 24 1997     Volume 02 : Number 180

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 02:22:01 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposals 2391 and 2392

On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> 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.

I agree with breadbox on this one.  I think this should only be possible
for relatively short vacations, perhaps 14 days or so.  If longer, the
machine should leave.  You can set things up so any guesses submitted in
the scholar's absence are judged in the order recieved after he returns.
it would also be nice to have something explicit in there about what
happens if the Scholar returns from vacation early.  I do kind of like the
idea, but with all of these other issues to deal with it may be a little
more complicated to implement than it is worth.

> 
> 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.
> 

Once again I agree with breadbox, this wouldn't work very well as worded.
However, I'm not sure if I'm very keen on the idea, even if it was
rewritten.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 02:32:35 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> 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?

I don't really see how this creates all that much extra work.  Is it
really that much of a bother to the scorekeeper to note if a proposal was
modest or grandiose?  Modesty is one of the few tools we have to deal with
anti-voting, at the moment which I also rather like and don't really want
to see go either.  True, there are sometimes proposals that deserve to be
modest and aren't, but that doesn't indicate to me that the rule isn't
being used.

> 
> 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?
> 

Well, when I proposed the price drop, the profits from Tammany went to
Organized Crime.  I was also much poorer then, and was having trouble
getting my proposals to pass. :)  In any event, uping the price certainly
seems reasonable, although if some of the, shall we say less wealthy,
members of Acka were to object I might change my mind.  Removing it from
the rules entirely is a toss up for me, I think its kind of neat, but I
can also see that its a pain.

> Malenkai
> 

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:37:04 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposals 2391 and 2392

On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> 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.
> 
Right, I'll admit I didn't quite cover this when I came up with 2391.
As the rules would stand after this, no guess would be acknowledged unless
the Scholar came back within 3 days of it being posted, in which case
things would act as normal.  Other guesses would just not be answered.
Would people like me to retract and resubmit?  Or should we accept this
and then modestly modify it?  (Perhaps limiting the length of such a
Scholarship-preserving Vacation to 28 days, and limiting the Scholar to
one such vacation per term as Scholar).

Yours,
Slakko

 --
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
"... and entirely motivated by hormones.  Works for me!" --  Freakazoid!
http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/27/Index.html <----- Imperial Nomic 27

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:40:19 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> > 
> 
> Well, when I proposed the price drop, the profits from Tammany went to
> Organized Crime.  I was also much poorer then, and was having trouble
> getting my proposals to pass. :)  In any event, uping the price certainly
> seems reasonable, although if some of the, shall we say less wealthy,
> members of Acka were to object I might change my mind.  Removing it from
> the rules entirely is a toss up for me, I think its kind of neat, but I
> can also see that its a pain.
> 
If only authors are using Tammany, and they're using it cheaply, then that
tends to indicate that other people don't care about the proposals enough
to worry about Tammanising them.  Perhaps we should keep the cheap price,
but discourage authors from using it themselves, e.g. If one of the people
who submitted a Tammany Bribe was the author of the message, or in the
same Party as the author, and that person was successful in getting
Tammany to vote as e wished, then the Author shall receive 2 fewer points
than e would otherwise receive if the Proposal is accepted, and shall lose
2 more points than e would otherwise lose if the Proposal is rejected.

Yours,
Slakko

- --
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
"... and entirely motivated by hormones.  Works for me!" --  Freakazoid!
http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/27/Index.html <----- Imperial Nomic 27

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:34:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[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.

Hm. Dunno what's up; they are certainly not there right now.

> 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?

Well, I have to admit that I sometimes enjoy the fun of playing the
odds of anti-voting. "Modesty and Pride" allows authors to choose
whether or not they want to avoid that becoming an issue. Of course,
I'm not one of the officers for whom that rule creates work.

> 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?

Whether or not the vote is "undeserved" depends on you definition, I
guess.

But I like Tammany. The fact that Tammany can only provide one vote
seems to be a good safeguard against abuse, while still being
potentially useful, and the extra work that rules creates for me is
trivial. I would certainly understand if people want to see the
minimum increase, however.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:42:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposals 2391 and 2392

>> 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.
> 
> Right, I'll admit I didn't quite cover this when I came up with 2391.
> As the rules would stand after this, no guess would be acknowledged unless
> the Scholar came back within 3 days of it being posted, in which case
> things would act as normal.  Other guesses would just not be answered.
> Would people like me to retract and resubmit?  Or should we accept this
> and then modestly modify it?  (Perhaps limiting the length of such a
> Scholarship-preserving Vacation to 28 days, and limiting the Scholar to
> one such vacation per term as Scholar).

28 days is *much* too long. Many Scholars don't last 28 days in
toto. And if they posted 28 days worth of *ping*s in one shot, it
seems highly likely that at least one student would have a guess very
soon afterwards. And what about Magic Letters?

As much as I like the idea of a Scholar being able to preserve eir
term through a vacation, I don't like the idea of the Scholar not
being around to respond to the students. So, I'm afraid that my
personal preference would be to just keep things as they are.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:23:31 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 2390

> Proposal 2390
> Too Much
> Malenkai (Randy Hall)
> 
[...]

> "
> Should the Mad Sculptor not publicly post such a description within
> three 
> days of being selected, e shall lose one point and the description
> shall
> become "it is green".
> "
> 
ROFL!

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:49:41 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 2374 accepted

>     YES:
> /dev/joe            (Vulcan)
> Slakko              (SPAM)
> breadbox
> ThinMan             (Vulcan)
> Fortunato           (SPAM)
> Balsamic Dragon     (SPAM)
> 
How's _that_ for an unholy combination of party-affiliated voting?

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:21:37 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

> I don't really see how this creates all that much extra work.  Is it
> really that much of a bother to the scorekeeper to note if a proposal was
> modest or grandiose? 

No offense intended, but try doing some of the work of this game,
and you will see it.

My argument is more for capacity to do work, which is very limited.
I'm always trying to rearrange that capacity so more fun things can be
harfed with the same work capacity, and fixing the complex scoring 
system seemed like a good work/fun tradeoff; ie, I was trying to gauge
how fun modesty was in relation to its work effort, that is all.  If
we could dump the scoring system, and replace it with hidden adjendas,
for example, with the same work capacity, that might be a good deal --
replace relatively uninteresting stuff with something perhaps more
interesting.

Since people seem intent on keeping these stale work-causing rules, but
on not increasing the work capacity, we can prolly count on limited
new development.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 19:56:47 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2397

> Proposal 2397
> The Spelling Exchequer

> Other texts may also be considered Miscellaneous Submissions 
> for the purposes of this rule, and the Spelling Exchequer is
> not required to refuse any text submitted to em.

I'm not sure I understand this section.  Is this the same as
"may accept"?
 
> Unless the author has specifically requested otherwise, the Spelling
> Exchequer shall only make corrections or suggestions that are
> concerned with errors of grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

Does this allow the SE to neuter non-gender-neutral language?  I
remember this was quite a holy war many moons ago :)  Does this allow
the SE to add words that are not in the OD?

> When the Miscellaneous Submission is a text that is to be privately
> sent to another Office, the player submitting the text may choose to
> allow it to be Directly Forwarded. A player doing so must indicate
> this wish, and specify the intended final recipient unambiguously.

To avoid potential scams, I would prefer restricting this forwarding
ability so that the SE may not be the 'player submitting' in the
above.  Don't ask me why, but there is no legitimate reason for
the player that is the SE to be permitted to do this forwarding,
therefore all potential reasons are scams :)

Secondly, I would prefer an explicit list of documents 
that the SE is permitted to alter.  Sort of along the lines of the
'that which is not expressedly permitted is prohibited' vibe used
in internet security.

Of course, none of these reasons will cause me to vote against it;
I am personally interested to see whether tools intended to fix
spelling and grammar could be used to pull off a scam (and I'm not
intending to imply that this proposal is scam bait; any long proposal,
especially one empowering alteration of official documents, is).

Malenkai
Expert in Loophole Surfing

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:46:09 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposals 2391 and 2392

> 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.

I wondered about that, too.  I figured that that could perhaps be left
for CFJ to decide, sort of like the question of whether two CFJ's or
Proposals are close enough to invalidate one of them--often it's obvious,
but it may always be disputed.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Boston:Greatest Hits
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
We hurt the ones we love the most; it's a subtle form of discipline

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:49:09 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

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

I dunno.  I was just taken with the idea of moving things into rule
suites, and those are the ones that occurred to me.  I'm honestly curious
as to whether people would rather keep the rules separate or not.

I've always thought it very odd that the CFJ rules in the 200's were done
that way, as a bunch of separate short ones; if they weren't to be melded
into a single Rule, then perhaps making them a Rule Suite would give them
an explicit unity.  What other rules would you suggest?  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Boston:Greatest Hits
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
Thunder makes the noise; lightning's got that poise.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:50:54 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

> <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>

Ah.  And here I'd just thought that somehow Malenkai's phrasing had managed
to not quite match those rules for some reason.

> 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 can't be that outdated; I think I downloaded it no more than a day
before I authored those Proposals.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Love & Rockets:Sweet F.A.
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
A fool and his monkey are soon parted.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:54:57 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

> 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?

I'm just really bad sometimes at remembering to make my proposals Modest,
sometimes.  Also, there is a difference between a Proposal and a CSR--it
takes more people to vote down a Proposal.  :-)  I'd say that Modesty and
Pride does not add to the difficulty of Scorekeeping appreciably, so don't
take it out on my account(though I won't miss Processing Chips...)

> 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?

Yes, I think the limit could go up.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Love & Rockets:Sweet F.A.
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
Corrugated iron is really groovy.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:57:46 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

> If only authors are using Tammany, and they're using it cheaply, then that
> tends to indicate that other people don't care about the proposals enough
> to worry about Tammanising them.  Perhaps we should keep the cheap price,
> but discourage authors from using it themselves, e.g. If one of the people
> who submitted a Tammany Bribe was the author of the message, or in the
> same Party as the author, and that person was successful in getting
> Tammany to vote as e wished, then the Author shall receive 2 fewer points
> than e would otherwise receive if the Proposal is accepted, and shall lose
> 2 more points than e would otherwise lose if the Proposal is rejected.

This is an interesting idea as well.  It is true that I will often just
pay Tammany to give my Proposals a better chance of passing...  I'd even
go for an all-out prohibition on authors using it.  Of course, then they
could always strike arrangements with other players to bribe Tammany in
their place, but then there was the Bonus Vote scam as well, so why get
too worried?  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Love & Rockets:Sweet F.A.
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
This is a bicycle with no brakes or horn.  --billbill

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:02:58 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

> > I don't really see how this creates all that much extra work.  Is it
> > really that much of a bother to the scorekeeper to note if a proposal was
> > modest or grandiose? 

> No offense intended, but try doing some of the work of this game,
> and you will see it.

'E's right, you know.  It does give one a different perspective.  It also
takes a lot of the fun out of it--I used to love waiting for the scores
and PE pages to be updated, to see how I was doing.  Now that I do it
myself, a lot of the suspense is gone.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Love & Rockets:Sweet F.A.
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
Giant purple watermelons!

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:06:34 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

> I dunno.  I was just taken with the idea of moving things into rule
> suites, and those are the ones that occurred to me.  I'm honestly curious
> as to whether people would rather keep the rules separate or not.

I *really* would rather them not be rule suites.  Rule suites, IMO, are
for what I call pseudo rules -- things that are not core to the game but
need rule-like treatment.  The judgement rules should be right out there.

Your proposal would not make them a rule suite, but still do not like 
that particular renumbering anyway.
 
> I've always thought it very odd that the CFJ rules in the 200's were done
> that way, as a bunch of separate short ones; if they weren't to be melded
> into a single Rule, then perhaps making them a Rule Suite would give them
> an explicit unity.  What other rules would you suggest?  :-)

That is the way they were in the initial rule set.  I was specifically
referring to rule 218 in my comment.  For some reason you renumbered
211-217 and not 218.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:11:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

> > No offense intended, but try doing some of the work of this game,
> > and you will see it.
> 
> 'E's right, you know.  It does give one a different perspective.  It also
> takes a lot of the fun out of it--I used to love waiting for the scores
> and PE pages to be updated, to see how I was doing.  Now that I do it
> myself, a lot of the suspense is gone.  :-)

There was part of my point I failed to make.  Alfvaen and breadbox and
others who have harfed are really talented players.  I personally would
rather them spend their time on content and playing rather than busy
work.  I guess this is a bit selfish, in case they *prefer* the work of
the game to playing.  I know from my perspective I would rather spend
my acka hours on playing than working, so why not toast the complexity
from the ruleset and let those who harf play more.  That is all the
point I was really trying to make, I suppose.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:14:50 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

> > I dunno.  I was just taken with the idea of moving things into rule
> > suites, and those are the ones that occurred to me.  I'm honestly curious
> > as to whether people would rather keep the rules separate or not.

> I *really* would rather them not be rule suites.  Rule suites, IMO, are
> for what I call pseudo rules -- things that are not core to the game but
> need rule-like treatment.  The judgement rules should be right out there.

> Your proposal would not make them a rule suite, but still do not like 
> that particular renumbering anyway.
 
Fair enough.  I hereby retract Proposal 2393.  It just seemed like a good
idea at the time.  I should submit a CSR to Vynd sometime anyway, in
conjunction with another Spelling Bee flight.  :-)

> > I've always thought it very odd that the CFJ rules in the 200's were done
> > that way, as a bunch of separate short ones; if they weren't to be melded
> > into a single Rule, then perhaps making them a Rule Suite would give them
> > an explicit unity.  What other rules would you suggest?  :-)

> That is the way they were in the initial rule set.

Yes, I suppose that's true.  Seems silly today, though.

> I was specifically
> referring to rule 218 in my comment.  For some reason you renumbered
> 211-217 and not 218.

218 seemed extraneous to me.  (Has it ever been used?  I'm tempted to
rule UNDECIDED on my next CFJ just to give it a workout.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Love & Rockets:Sweet F.A.
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
What's gonna happen to Chess Piece Face?

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:33:13 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

> 218 seemed extraneous to me.  (Has it ever been used?  I'm tempted to
> rule UNDECIDED on my next CFJ just to give it a workout.  :-)

it was used once, and of course the result was INVALID; how likely
is it to get several people together and reach a verdict in 7 days.
It should either be repealed or fixed.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:40:30 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

> > 'E's right, you know.  It does give one a different perspective.  It also
> > takes a lot of the fun out of it--I used to love waiting for the scores
> > and PE pages to be updated, to see how I was doing.  Now that I do it
> > myself, a lot of the suspense is gone.  :-)

> There was part of my point I failed to make.  Alfvaen and breadbox and
> others who have harfed are really talented players.  I personally would
> rather them spend their time on content and playing rather than busy
> work.  I guess this is a bit selfish, in case they *prefer* the work of
> the game to playing.

I think it's almost a tossup, for me.  Recently, with working full-time
and all, I've had little time to play(but I did manage to bang out a
few Proposals this weekend), but mostly I don't mind the work.  I seem to
recall clamouring for Offices from when I first joined.  But then, I think
I play Nomic for different reasons than many people...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Christine Lavin:Future Fossils
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
We hurt the ones we love the most; it's a subtle form of compliment

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #180
***********************************