Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #194
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Tuesday, December 9 1997     Volume 02 : Number 194

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

Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 22:32:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2477

> Proposal 2477
> Breaking Judicial Deadlock
> Malenkai (Randy Hall)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> {{[The question was raised recently as to why there
> are 2 justices.  I think it's good as it forces a
> search for the truth, at least until consensus is 
> reached.  But what if there is a deadlock?  The following
> allows a third justice to be brought in if the 2 justices
> can at least agree that there is deadlock, and agree on
> the player to bring in.]}}

This is an interesting idea.

One the one hand, I like it, because it's always nice to have options.
One the other, I have to admit that *not* having any options has, on
occasion, been a powerful motivator to find consensus.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:32:31 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 2364

On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> > Proposal 2364 - Wed 12 Nov 1997 14:45:02
> > Weighty Matters to Discuss
> > Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> > 
> > Append the following text, delinated by FREUNLEVEN, to Rule 1230.3:
> > FREUNLEVEN
> > The preceding sections of this rule may be amended as follows:
> > The Chess-Umpire may mail to the acka-chess mailing list a Suggested
> > Reweighting Scheme.  If no Swinger objects to this Suggested
> > Reweighting
> > Scheme within 7 Days of its submission to the list, then this rule
> > will be
> > amended accordingly to accomodate the Suggested Reweighting Scheme.
> > However, the change to the rules will not occur until a Swinger other
> > than
> > the Chess-Umpire posts a general public message saying that the scheme
> > has
> > not been objected to.  This message must be posted after the 7 day
> > limit
> > has passed.
> > FREUNLEVEN
> > 
> I must strenuously object to any provision that allows the rules to
> be changed by a subset of the playership.  Haven't we seen enough
> demonstrations yet of why this is bad?

> 
> ThinMan
> Evil Overlord of Ackanomic (retired)

Ummm, Thin Man, did you realise that this didn't actually happen.  Check
the proposal number.

> 

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:37:42 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 2364

Slakko wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> > I must strenuously object to any provision that allows the rules to
> > be changed by a subset of the playership.  Haven't we seen enough
> > demonstrations yet of why this is bad?
> 
> > ThinMan
> > Evil Overlord of Ackanomic (retired)
> 
> Ummm, Thin Man, did you realise that this didn't actually happen.
> Check
> the proposal number.
> 
Hey!  Don't confuse me with facts!

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:44:37 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 2364

On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> 
> Slakko wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> > 
> > > I must strenuously object to any provision that allows the rules to
> > > be changed by a subset of the playership.  Haven't we seen enough
> > > demonstrations yet of why this is bad?

Good question.  So you want it to go to unanimous acceptance and 100%
quorum for proposals?

> Hey!  Don't confuse me with facts!
That's going in the sig quote file.

- --
Duncan "will confuse people with facts for food" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:03:33 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Gizz

> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 12/97     205   68.3    0.41
> > 
> >   (Cleaning my mailbox)
> >   205 messages, and 68.3 average per day, over a 31-day period?  Or
> > was that the max?  (A message at midnight?  Possible...)
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question, but that was 205 messages
> per the first N days of december, when I posted that message.

  The question is: what does the second number signify?

___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
Change Nomic!   http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~chatham/nomicfaq.html
If man had been meant to fly, he would have invented airplanes.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 14:15:06 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Gizz

On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, A.K.A. TheWiz wrote:

> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 12/97     205   68.3    0.41
> > > 
> > >   (Cleaning my mailbox)
> > >   205 messages, and 68.3 average per day, over a 31-day period?  Or
> > > was that the max?  (A message at midnight?  Possible...)
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand your question, but that was 205 messages
> > per the first N days of december, when I posted that message.
> 
>   The question is: what does the second number signify?

I read the whole line as

12/97  205  68.3  0.41
12/97: Month
205: No of messages received so far this month
68.3: No of messages per day so far for the month (205 in 3 days)
0.41: Total size of all messages for the month in megabytes

- --
Duncan "confusing people with facts since earlier today" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:17:34 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 2364

Slakko wrote:

> > > > I must strenuously object to any provision that allows the rules
> to
> > > > be changed by a subset of the playership.  Haven't we seen
> enough
> > > > demonstrations yet of why this is bad?
> 
> Good question.  So you want it to go to unanimous acceptance and 100%
> quorum for proposals?
> 
That would be an extreme application of the principle.  As far as I am
concerned, it is sufficient that all players have a vote.

> > Hey!  Don't confuse me with facts!
> That's going in the sig quote file.
> 
I'm honored.  But I don't think that's original with me.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 14:23:36 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 2364

On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> That would be an extreme application of the principle.  As far as I am
> concerned, it is sufficient that all players have a vote.

Well this actually still leaves the rules with a number of subset
conspiracies.
> > > Hey!  Don't confuse me with facts!
> > That's going in the sig quote file.
> > 
> I'm honored.  But I don't think that's original with me.
Yabbut the original involves "with the" before facts.  Yours is the
shortest version I've seen so far.

- --
Duncan "!confuse(facts)" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:34:43 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 2364

> > That would be an extreme application of the principle.  As far as I
> am
> > concerned, it is sufficient that all players have a vote.
> 
> Well this actually still leaves the rules with a number of subset
> conspiracies.
> 
There's no help for it.  Anyone who can pull one off deserves what he
gets.  If you want to allow the weighting scheme to be modified then
put it into a seperate document that doesn't have the force of a rule,
ala the Postal Code and Zuriti'ili guidelines.  Or give the entire
playership the opportunity to object, ala CSRs.

> Duncan "!confuse(facts)" Richer aka
> 
:-)

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 14:42:49 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2476

> FLOWING
> 7) Let the common location known as the Ackanomian River, referred to as
> the river, exist deep in the wilds.  No player may enter the river, as it
> is a rapidly moving stream with many rocks.  No player may cross the
river
> or otherwise move from one side to the other except as specified in the
> rules. [It is possible that with the proper equipment, one could
> white-water raft down the Ackanomian River]

> 
> 7b)  This section takes precedence over all rules regarding land,
buildings
> or transportation.
> FLOWING
> 

I'm voting no on this because it means that you couldn't fly over the
river, which doesn't make any sense.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 19:48:19 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2476

On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> > 
> > 7b)  This section takes precedence over all rules regarding land,
> buildings
> > or transportation.
> > FLOWING
> > 
> 
> I'm voting no on this because it means that you couldn't fly over the
> river, which doesn't make any sense.

Actually, note that 7b) is a section.  Therefore it has no effect on 7)
Or is it, and does it?  What are the relevant CFJs on the meaning of the
word "section"?  Or is it a _weasel word_ (Dum Dum Dummmmm!)

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 20:21:58 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Complacence

>    Alfvaen(Bond-Harfer, Scorekeeper Financier, and doubtless soon to
> be President once again)

Look at the state of this. Arrogance and complacence. Is this who we
want as our president?

The Gingham wearer

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

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 20:31:02 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Complacence

On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> >    Alfvaen(Bond-Harfer, Scorekeeper Financier, and doubtless soon to
> > be President once again)
> 
> Look at the state of this. Arrogance and complacence. Is this who we
> want as our president?

end (null campaign);

Of course not.

As President, you want someone who will not be buffeted by the winds of
fortune.  I am that person (after all, I was the only one not affected by
the last Tornado).

As President, you want someone with a firm commitment to the continuance
of great gameplay in Acka (I'm doing that too - warning you of the curse
of the Bee Ack).

As President, you want someone with a strong party machine, who won't be
intimidated by other parties who want things done their way.  I am that
player, and SPAM is that Party!

Who wants a Christmas Vacation?  I will give it to you!

VOTE Slakko
VOTE Slakko

Thank you for your time.
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:56:24 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2462

Thin Man wrote a lot about what was wrong with my proposal. I hereby
retract proposal 2462. I'm going to resubmit a modified version fairly
soon but before I do does anyone have any further comments about it.
Also, what do you think would be a reasonable reward for someone who
manages to get one through? I just don't want anything like that
remaining in the rules, that's all. Incidentally, I actually meant any
time after thirty days have passed. That way if you manage to get one
through you get thirty days to exploit it, which I thought was some
reward.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 21:46:53 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2364

> > > > Hey!  Don't confuse me with facts!

> > > That's going in the sig quote file.

> > I'm honored.  But I don't think that's original with me.

> Yabbut the original involves "with the" before facts.  Yours is the
> shortest version I've seen so far.

Okay, how about:

No me fact with confuse!

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Sheila E.:Sex Cymbal
Current Book--Philip Jose Farmer:Dayworld Breakup
I used to chain smoke, but I couldn't keep my chain lit.

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #194
***********************************