Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #182
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest   Wednesday, November 26 1997   Volume 02 : Number 182

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 07:29:54 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2405

> Proposal 2405
> Grand Dramatic Win Condition Rejig
> Slakko (Duncan Richer)

> This is a Grandiose Proposal.
> [You'd better believe it, buster!]
> [The aim of this proposal - to unify all the different winning methods
> without completely going round the twist, and thereby to make changes to
> the methods of achieving a win much simpler - just come up with different
> ways to get Subers, and make existing ways worth less Subers or none
> altogether!]

The big problem I have with this Proposal is pretty much the same as
breadbox's--I don't like the numbering.  As far as I can tell, most of the
Rules introduced here manipulate Subers, which doesn't make them conflict
with any other Rules, and if Rule 666 didn't have sufficient precedence,
then a lot of previous wins might never have occurred, or at least the next
cycles wouldn't have started.

Also, I'll oppose any attempt to renumber Rule 666, because there's
tradition behind it.

> FREAKAZOID
> Players may only receive Subers as described in this Rule, but when they
> do receive them according to this rule, "received" is to be interpreted as
> in Rule 51.  The following are the only ways to receive Subers:
> a) Whenever there is a unique player who has more than the Magic Number of
> points in eir possession, e shall receive 20 Subers.
> b) A player whose score divides (MN-1) without remainder, where MN is the
> Magic Number, may Take The Box.  When a player Takes The Box, e receives
> 30/N^2 Subers, rounded down, where N = (MN-1)/P, MN is the Magic Number,
> and P is the player's score when e Took The Box.
> [e.g. Magic Number 257.  A player on 128 may Take the Box, as 256/128 = 2.
> Doing so would earn em 7 subers (= 30/2^2 rounded down)]

There should maybe be something here about how e can't Take the Box again
until eir score changes.  Otherwise someone with 128 points could Take the
Box three times and get 21 Subers...

> c) Whenever a verdict of TRUE is reached on a Paradox Win CFJ, the player
> who submitted it shall receive 18 Subers, provided e is a voting player at
> the time the verdict ceases to be appealable.
> d) The instant after a player receives the title of "Sage o' Doe Gas", e
> shall receive 15 Subers.
> e) When the End of the World occurs as specified in Rule 1320, the active
> non-vacationing player who has donated most A$ to the Round Earth
> Restoration Society when the Earth was made Round shall receive 20 Subers,
> if a unique qualifying person exists.  If no unique qualifying person
> exists, then the same amount of Subers will be received by each player
> who, if the other players did not exist, would qualify as a unique
> qualifying person.  This number will be the minimum number required for at
> least one player to reach exactly 20 Subers.  If no players qualify, then
> all players in the game, voting, non-voting or vacationing, but not On
> Ice, shall receive 10 Subers for witnessing the End of the World.

These bits could almost go into the corresponding Rules, as long as you
specified here that "other rules may specify other ways to obtain Subers".
Also, there's the Malenkai's Loophole thing--you should start off by saying
something like {{All existing Subers are destroyed}}.

> Create a new Rule, numbered Rule 52, entitled "Excessive Subers", with
> text as delimited by REMOVE below:
> 
> REMOVE
> If at any time 2 or more players each possess 20 or more Subers each, then
> every player in the game will have eir number of Subers possessed reduced
> to (19/m) of their Suber total immediately prior to the application of
> this rule, rounded down, where m is the largest number of Subers held by
> any player prior to the application of this rule.

You should give an example here.  So you're saying that if two players had
25 Subers, say, that very player would have eir Suber total reduced by a
factor of 19/25?  I didn't grok this the first time I read it...

> If at any time only 1 player possesses 20 or more Subers, but e also
> possesses the Chartreuse Goose, then the player will lose 25 Subers or all
> eir Subers, whichever is less, and the Chartreuse Goose shall then go
> Somehwere Else.
      ^^ sting!
> REMOVE

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Debbie Gibson:We Could Be Together
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
Even Occam occasionally cut himself shaving.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 14:48:37 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2405

On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> The big problem I have with this Proposal is pretty much the same as
> breadbox's--I don't like the numbering.  As far as I can tell, most of the
> Rules introduced here manipulate Subers, which doesn't make them conflict
> with any other Rules, and if Rule 666 didn't have sufficient precedence,
> then a lot of previous wins might never have occurred, or at least the next
> cycles wouldn't have started.

What if I fix the numbering to the 150s rather than the 50s?
That way winning the game is "more important" than anything else except
how the game is run.
> 
> Also, I'll oppose any attempt to renumber Rule 666, because there's
> tradition behind it.

Not even to 166.6?
> 
> > FREAKAZOID
> > b) A player whose score divides (MN-1) without remainder, where MN is the
> > Magic Number, may Take The Box.  When a player Takes The Box, e receives
> > 30/N^2 Subers, rounded down, where N = (MN-1)/P, MN is the Magic Number,
> > and P is the player's score when e Took The Box.
> > [e.g. Magic Number 257.  A player on 128 may Take the Box, as 256/128 = 2.
> > Doing so would earn em 7 subers (= 30/2^2 rounded down)]
> 
> There should maybe be something here about how e can't Take the Box again
> until eir score changes.  Otherwise someone with 128 points could Take the
> Box three times and get 21 Subers...

That was the flaw I discovered just before I retracted it.  My intent is
to have the player's points reset to 0 when they Take the Box.  Any update
of this will do that.

 > 
<other Suber earning bits deleted>
> 
> These bits could almost go into the corresponding Rules, as long as you
> specified here that "other rules may specify other ways to obtain Subers".
> Also, there's the Malenkai's Loophole thing--you should start off by saying
> something like {{All existing Subers are destroyed}}.

Okay - the Malenkai Loophole will be fixed.  However, I think that, if
these Subers are the way to determine who wins the game, then it would be
easiest to keep track of them if only one rule has the job of determining
when people get them.

> 
> > REMOVE
> > If at any time 2 or more players each possess 20 or more Subers each, then
> > every player in the game will have eir number of Subers possessed reduced
> > to (19/m) of their Suber total immediately prior to the application of
> > this rule, rounded down, where m is the largest number of Subers held by
> > any player prior to the application of this rule.
> 
> You should give an example here.  So you're saying that if two players had
> 25 Subers, say, that very player would have eir Suber total reduced by a
> factor of 19/25?  I didn't grok this the first time I read it...

This makes sure that neither player wins.  
Example: Four players, A, B, C, D.  An event sets the Suber totals as
follows:

A 25
B 21
C 10
D  2

Because two players have over 20, we scale down by a factor of 19/25.  The
new totals become:

A 19
B 15
C 7
D 1

If I had said round up - we get 19,16,8,2.  Which do you prefer?  I'm
willing to write it either way.

That way nobody wins, and the limit of Subers is a fixed 20, but when two
or more people get to 20 or more, everybody is proportionately set back to
enable the cycle to continue.

> 
> > If at any time only 1 player possesses 20 or more Subers, but e also
> > possesses the Chartreuse Goose, then the player will lose 25 Subers or all
> > eir Subers, whichever is less, and the Chartreuse Goose shall then go
> > Somehwere Else.
>       ^^ sting!
That was the second bug I discovered.

Glad to see there aren't insuperable difficulties to be overcome with this
rule.

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
"Begone, fools, and give me the bird."
"We'd love to, but the Fox censors won't allow it."

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 06:56:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2405

> What if I fix the numbering to the 150s rather than the 50s?
> That way winning the game is "more important" than anything else except
> how the game is run.

If you're hesitant to place any lower than that for precedence
reasons, then what rule do you feel it needs precedence over? As
Alfvaen pointed out, the "Winning the Game" rule currently does just
fine as Rule 666.

> Okay - the Malenkai Loophole will be fixed.  However, I think that,
> if these Subers are the way to determine who wins the game, then it
> would be easiest to keep track of them if only one rule has the job
> of determining when people get them.

True. And it would probably also make the Scorekeeper's job a lot
easier if only one rule listed all the ways that people could earn and
lose points. But permitting any rule to determine that gives the
system a lot more flexibility.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:05:16 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2405

On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > What if I fix the numbering to the 150s rather than the 50s?
> > That way winning the game is "more important" than anything else except
> > how the game is run.
> 
> If you're hesitant to place any lower than that for precedence
> reasons, then what rule do you feel it needs precedence over? As
> Alfvaen pointed out, the "Winning the Game" rule currently does just
> fine as Rule 666.

I'm not particularly hesitant - if people are that worried about me moving
things out of the 600s then I can rejig it then and there if necessary.  I
just thought that a number reorg would indicate some priorities in the
"feeling" of the game.  If you don't want to do that, then just let me
know.

> 
> > Okay - the Malenkai Loophole will be fixed.  However, I think that,
> > if these Subers are the way to determine who wins the game, then it
> > would be easiest to keep track of them if only one rule has the job
> > of determining when people get them.
> 
> True. And it would probably also make the Scorekeeper's job a lot
> easier if only one rule listed all the ways that people could earn and
> lose points. But permitting any rule to determine that gives the
> system a lot more flexibility.

Well I could always submit it without the "this is the only rule that can
do it" clause, but still with the collection of those methods in the one
rule.  That combines the flexibility of Subers going into other rules with
the initial simplicity that comes from having all the ways to earn Subers
in the one rule.

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
"Begone, fools, and give me the bird."
"We'd love to, but the Fox censors won't allow it."

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:02:18 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC

Remember my attempt to enable Scholars to keep the machine of *ping* if
they went on vacation?  How about this: (not necessarily going to be the
exact rule text):

A scholar can select a non-vacationing player to become their Graduate
Student.  They must pay the Graduate Student A$10 to do so, and the
Graduate Student must accept the appointment.  If the Scholar goes on
vacation, the machine will only teleport if the Graduate Student is on
vacation at the same time.  If the Scholar is Vacationing, but the
Graduate Student is not, the Grad Student has the responsibility of
sending public messages when the machine goes *ping*.  If the machine is
lost due to tardiness in these matters, then the Graduate Student must pay
A$20 to the Scholar.  On selection of a Grad Student, the Scholar sends
them privately the decoded truth of the machine.  Neither player may
reveal it to any other player until it becomes publically knowable from
that point on.

Suggestions? Comments? Flames?

- --
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
"Begone, fools, and give me the bird."
"We'd love to, but the Fox censors won't allow it."

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:58:14 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2405

Slakko wrote:

> I'm not particularly hesitant - if people are that worried about me moving
> things out of the 600s then I can rejig it then and there if necessary.  I
> just thought that a number reorg would indicate some priorities in the
> "feeling" of the game.  If you don't want to do that, then just let me
> know.

Some of my comments about the winning reorg.  The following may seem a
bit critical, but my objections are more with implementation than the
concept, which I like in principle.  Also, sorry for the length :)

I am personally against moving that stuff out of the 600s.  I don't
buy the argument that winning is more important than the rules
between number 160 and 599; on the contrary, most of that infrastructure
is *more* important than winning, at least to me -- especially the
judgement rules.  Admittedly, some of the gizz in the 300s can be toasted,
(and I intend to do so once you folks stop playing with the rule numbering
rule :-)).  Also, why do the rules have to be ordered by "importance", in
the first place, and what precedence problem does this reorg solve?

Secondly, how is having all the winning stuff in one rule better than
having it in one section, assuming the same amount of content is
involved?  Admittedly, the Museum and End of World wins are *not* there
now, but both those rules are platypusses (or is that platypi?); perhaps
they should be moved to the 600s if having the wins in one place is more
important than Museum in Locations and EoW in Harf or Physics or whereever
it is.

I am also against the following in your proposal:

1) taking away the slam dunk win for paradox CFJs.  Winning on the spot with
a PWCFJ is one of the most beautiful things in nomic, IMHO.

2) Making the Sage o'Doe Gas worth 15 Subers.  I wrote into that rule the
ability to get the title of Sage o'Doe Gas *without* winning at all, if
the proposal is modest.  I'd like to keep that; no one is ever going to
vote for a palindromic proposal that will give a win, IMO, but they may do
so for just a quirky title, and I think going for that title is cool, 
without the pressure of winning.  I would keep it 0 or 20 Subers, as it is
now (I admit that I did not *carefully* read your proposal, and it is 
possible that you did this, and I missed it).

3) Making GAD 2 Subers.  For something that is sheer luck :) Since the
Subers are worth *so* much more than the points for winning, it also may
affect the dynamics of the game, but I haven't thought about it too much.
One Suber seems appropriate.

I think the subgame thing is a good idea in general, but you *must* collar
it to allow only X Subers per month to be created via this method.  Your
subgame provision is total scam bait in implementation :-)

4) Awarding Subers for party chess.  Party chess *already* provides too
much of an award in terms of swingpoints, but at least they are tradeable.
Party chess was designed for organizational (team) interaction  -- to award
an *individual*, non-tradeable thing for *individual* skill an activity
that is not open to everyone to participate in is poor game design, IMO.
Again, I have not analyized the mathematics of this in detail, how does 15% 
of a win relate to the current payoff structure?  The fact that this is 
*in addition*, individual, and non-tradeable, is enough for me though. 
Winning is an individual thing, PC is an organizational thing.

Some general thoughts:

a) Add some whitespace between each item in the rule, it makes it easier to
sift through.

b) Remove all that precedence language, unless it is absolutely necessary.
Alot of precedence language indicates poor understanding of how the rule
interacts with the rest of the ruleset.  A past elder (Mohammed) spent alot
of time removing alot of the unnecessary precedence language in the rules,
and I think they are better for it (yes, if you can believe it, the rules
are now simpler than before :)).

c) I am against more scorekeeping tokens in general.  First we had points.
Then, at the period when most nomics shed points, we *added* another type
called A$s.  Then we added swingpoints, followed some time later by 
processing chips.  Fortunately processing chips have recently been purged.
My ideal nomic would have 0 scorekeeping tokens, but I think most people
like points, so mabye we can get it down to 1.  The Suber seems just another
scorekeeping token in the hopper, going against the trend.  While this
objection alone would not cause me to vote against the proposal, I thought
I'd share that with you anyway.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:59:39 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

> A scholar can select a non-vacationing player to become their Graduate
> Student.  They must pay the Graduate Student A$10 to do so, and the
> Graduate Student must accept the appointment. 

I am personally against things that *force* a person to do something,
or a circumsrtance from which a player cannot abdicate.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 20:27:41 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

> Remember my attempt to enable Scholars to keep the machine of *ping* if
> they went on vacation?  How about this: (not necessarily going to be the
> exact rule text):

> A scholar can select a non-vacationing player to become their Graduate
> Student.  They must pay the Graduate Student A$10 to do so, and the
> Graduate Student must accept the appointment.

No, I don't think the Graduate Student should be obligated, but if e
doesn't, e should return the A$10.  In other words, the Scholar should
have the Student's consent(publicly expressed)first.  (And who gets
the Pedestal of *ping*?)

> If the Scholar goes on
> vacation, the machine will only teleport if the Graduate Student is on
> vacation at the same time.

It's a good thing this isn't exact, because this is bad phrasing.  :-)
This way, it looks like even if someone finds the Truth, they don't get
the Machine until the Scholar returns.

> If the Scholar is Vacationing, but the
> Graduate Student is not, the Grad Student has the responsibility of
> sending public messages when the machine goes *ping*.  If the machine is
> lost due to tardiness in these matters, then the Graduate Student must pay
> A$20 to the Scholar.  On selection of a Grad Student, the Scholar sends
> them privately the decoded truth of the machine.  Neither player may
> reveal it to any other player until it becomes publically knowable from
> that point on.

Sounds sorta like Treasure Custodianship.  Better make sure that the
Grad Student cannot guess the Truth after having been chosen.

I think it's an interesting idea, though.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Material Issue:International Pop Overthrow
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
We can't land in Texas--there's no breathable air.

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #182
***********************************