Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #196
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Thursday, December 11 1997    Volume 02 : Number 196

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 06:08:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2489

> Create a new rule numbered 100, entitled 
> "Game State Harfer", with the following text:
> 
> "
> The Game State Harfer is an optional Office with
> one seat.
> 
> The Game State Harfer, as a public action, may
> make changes to the rules and the game state
> by unambiguously describing the change(s) to
> be made.  The changes are applied at the time
> of the action.
> 
> This rule has precedence over all rules, except
> that it defers to rule 101.
> 
> {{Malenkai is appointed to the office of Game State
> Harfer.}}
> "

"Harfing the game state": Is *that* what we're calling it now?

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:10:12 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2489

> "Harfing the game state": Is *that* what we're calling it now?

Just having a little fun :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 14:42:45 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2445 rejected

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Results of Proposal 2445
> 
> 17/21 votes: Quorum achieved
> 6/18 YES votes: Proposal rejected

Well, so much for a re-org.  I guess everyone wants the winning conditions
to remain pretty much inviolate.

Oh, BTW, I think I must have set the record number of points lost for
getting an idea rejected - approx 22 at last count.

I wouldn't mind knowing if those who did reject this did so because of the
principle or because of the method.
Also, AFAIK, the only effective change this proposal made to gameplay was
the introduction of "Taking the Box".  Was this why people voted NO?

If you voted NO because I didn't actually change anything, then what would
you have liked changed?

(If we are ever going to reform winning conditions into something once
again manageable, then I would gladly appreciate some responses on how to
do this in a way that gets support.)

Yours,
Slakko

>     NO:
> Red Barn
> ThinMan             (Vulcan)
> Malenkai            (?)
> breadbox
> else...if           (SPAM)
> Rex Mundi
> Fortunato           (SPAM)
> K 2
> Crackfoo            (Harf)
> mr cwm              (SPAM)
> Vynd                (Vulcan)
> two-star            (MetaMorph)

- --
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: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 14:44:46 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2490

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2490
> Bandwidth Moon
> Malenkai (Randy Hall)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> If the result is the former, the player is guilty of Bandwidth-Wasting
> Gizz, and becomes Hosed for 3 days as with a BWG Laser.  If the result
> is the latter ... well, the result won't be the latter.

I would like to know how people would be able to vote for this when it
clearly introduces a contradiction into the ruleset.  Namely, that if the
result is the latter it won't be the latter (how does that make sense?)
- --
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: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 11:37:18 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2489

> The Game State Harfer, as a public action, may
> make changes to the rules and the game state
> by unambiguously describing the change(s) to
> be made.  The changes are applied at the time
> of the action.
> 
> This rule has precedence over all rules, except
> that it defers to rule 101.
> 
> {{Malenkai is appointed to the office of Game State
> Harfer.}}
> "

  "What?"
  Why would anyone besides Malenkai desire this?  Admittedly Malenkai
can probably be trusted, but remember the fuss over Vulcan?

___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
The good, the bad, and the unmentionable.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:23:15 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2445 rejected

>I wouldn't mind knowing if those who did reject this did so because of the
>principle or because of the method.
>Also, AFAIK, the only effective change this proposal made to gameplay was
>the introduction of "Taking the Box".  Was this why people voted NO?

As a matter of fact, yes, this was probably the largest reason why I voted
against.  I don't see a lot of point in changing the details while leaving
most everything fundamentally the same.

>If you voted NO because I didn't actually change anything, then what would
>you have liked changed?

>(If we are ever going to reform winning conditions into something once
>again manageable, then I would gladly appreciate some responses on how to
>do this in a way that gets support.)

Who says winning conditions aren't manageable?  Anyway, to answer the question,
I find myself more and more in favor of a major overhaul wherein points and
A$ are combined into one type of "currency", which one earns via various game
actions and can expend to make certain kinds of changes to the game state,
such as creating a trinket or making a discovery, or winning.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 17:36:20 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2445 rejected

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> >I wouldn't mind knowing if those who did reject this did so because of the
> >principle or because of the method.
> >Also, AFAIK, the only effective change this proposal made to gameplay was
> >the introduction of "Taking the Box".  Was this why people voted NO?
> 
> As a matter of fact, yes, this was probably the largest reason why I voted
> against.  I don't see a lot of point in changing the details while leaving
> most everything fundamentally the same.
> 
> >If you voted NO because I didn't actually change anything, then what would
> >you have liked changed?
> 
> >(If we are ever going to reform winning conditions into something once
> >again manageable, then I would gladly appreciate some responses on how to
> >do this in a way that gets support.)
> 
> Who says winning conditions aren't manageable?  Anyway, to answer the question,
> I find myself more and more in favor of a major overhaul wherein points and
> A$ are combined into one type of "currency", which one earns via various game
> actions and can expend to make certain kinds of changes to the game state,
> such as creating a trinket or making a discovery, or winning.

Given the Trinket crisis which may or may not have been perpetrated, I
find this a hard idea to accept.  When everything is combined into one
currency, there is no way to isolate problematic areas quickly when there
is a crisis of these proportions.  I thought that the split-level Subers
thing would still enable that, e.g. a Crisis Resolution Document could
simply reduce the numbers of Subers obtained from certain actions.

As it is, currently it may be possible to create effectively unlimited
wealth.  Any time that happens, a game with only a single "currency" goes
down the tubes.  A game with multiple distinct ways of playing can block
the problem off, after some minor haemhorraging, and continue.

Just my A$2.

- --
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: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 13:47:09 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2489

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, A.K.A. TheWiz wrote:

> > The Game State Harfer, as a public action, may
> > make changes to the rules and the game state
> > by unambiguously describing the change(s) to
> > be made.  The changes are applied at the time
> > of the action.
> > 
> > This rule has precedence over all rules, except
> > that it defers to rule 101.
> > 
> > {{Malenkai is appointed to the office of Game State
> > Harfer.}}
> > "
> 
>   "What?"
>   Why would anyone besides Malenkai desire this?  Admittedly Malenkai
> can probably be trusted, but remember the fuss over Vulcan?
> 
> 

Trusted to only abuse his power within certian limits, perhaps.  This is
either the beginings of some kind of scam, or a joke. :)

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 13:51:54 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2445 rejected

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> Who says winning conditions aren't manageable?  Anyway, to answer the question,
> I find myself more and more in favor of a major overhaul wherein points and
> A$ are combined into one type of "currency", which one earns via various game
> actions and can expend to make certain kinds of changes to the game state,
> such as creating a trinket or making a discovery, or winning.
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> 

I've already said why I didn't like the whole subers thing, and it was for
pretty much the same reasons as ThinMan.  The current system works fine so
far as I'm concerned, I didn't see any point in just changing some of the
details.

As far as a single currency is concerned, this is an idea I've found
myself mulling over some recently as well.  I figured we could keep points
and dump A$, converting rules which called for A$ over to points.  This
would, of course, require a ridiculous amount of work.  An exchange rate
rule could perhaps ease such a change...

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 14:35:48 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2445 rejected

>Given the Trinket crisis which may or may not have been perpetrated, I
>find this a hard idea to accept.  When everything is combined into one
>currency, there is no way to isolate problematic areas quickly when there
>is a crisis of these proportions.  I thought that the split-level Subers
>thing would still enable that, e.g. a Crisis Resolution Document could
>simply reduce the numbers of Subers obtained from certain actions.

What are points good for?  Winning, principally, and bond dividends (getting
money).  Which of these things can one not accomplish with access to
unlimited money?  How, exactly, would perpetuating the current situation
or even adding the "Suber" level change that?  What difference would it
make if points and A$ were the same thing?

>As it is, currently it may be possible to create effectively unlimited
>wealth.  Any time that happens, a game with only a single "currency" goes
>down the tubes.  A game with multiple distinct ways of playing can block
>the problem off, after some minor haemhorraging, and continue.

Sorry, I don't buy that.  In the first place, we have fail-safe rules that
are independant of any kind of currency system.  We are now seeing them
exercised for the first time.  ( Cool! :-)  In the second place, I don't
see how an infinite amount of unified currency would be any worse than an
infinite amount of A$.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:16:06 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2445 rejected

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, John Bollinger wrote:

> What are points good for?  Winning, principally, and bond dividends (getting
> money).  Which of these things can one not accomplish with access to
> unlimited money?  How, exactly, would perpetuating the current situation
> or even adding the "Suber" level change that?  What difference would it
> make if points and A$ were the same thing?

It would make it possible to achieve the Magic Number a large number of
times in a rather short space of time.  The current money wins appear to
be one-offs, or at least finite number of wins per person.  The Magic
Number is the default win and therefore can be accomplished any natural
number of times.
(Therefore unlimited money does not allow one to win the game 3 times
within 2 minutes.  Unlimited creation of points does.)

> >As it is, currently it may be possible to create effectively unlimited
> >wealth.  Any time that happens, a game with only a single "currency" goes
> >down the tubes.  A game with multiple distinct ways of playing can block
> >the problem off, after some minor haemhorraging, and continue.
> 
> Sorry, I don't buy that.  In the first place, we have fail-safe rules that
> are independant of any kind of currency system.  We are now seeing them
> exercised for the first time.  ( Cool! :-)  In the second place, I don't
> see how an infinite amount of unified currency would be any worse than an
> infinite amount of A$.

Simply because you cannot buy points.  Money affects certain types of wins
currently, but it is not able to give you all of them.  We could cordon
off the money based wins temporarily to give us time to fix the game,
while not affecting the non-money based wins.

With an infinite amount of unified currency, there must be a period during
which the whole system has to be fixed at once, and quickly.  If you just
prevent a win, then there is a whole period of time when no-one can play
for a win in any way at all.  I don't like to see this, I would rather
always have one kind of win open.

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

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #196
***********************************