Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #212
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest   Wednesday, December 31 1997   Volume 02 : Number 212

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

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 08:30:31 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2552

> 
> Why does no-one like my proposals? Does anyone actually like this or
would
> I be better off just retracting the damn thing and being done with it.
> 
> 
> The Gingham Wearer (possibly).

I was gonna vote for it... actually, I think I already did.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 10:46:46 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2552

The Gingham Wearer wrote:

[Vynd wrote:]
>> This doesn't sound like a good idea to me.  There are plenty of perfectly
>> reasonable names that might happen to appear in the rules somewhere, and
>> it will be a serious pain to be constantly realizing after the fact that
>> someone made an illegal name change.  If people do like this idea, then I
>> at least suggest that you more clearly define what is meant by "string".
>
>Why does no-one like my proposals? Does anyone actually like this or would
>I be better off just retracting the damn thing and being done with it.

We're persecuting you.  There is a secret, unspoken [oops!] prejudice against
gingham in Ackanomic.  Even if you change your name, you are forever
stigmatized.  :^)

SOME ACTIONS:

I hereby create a trinket, The Scarlet 'G', valued at A$5.  It is a six-inch
tall capital 'G', Roman typeface, cut from scarlet felt.  It it designed to
be sewn onto the left breast of a shirt, cloak, jacket, or other garment for
the upper body.  In small letters on the back is written "Love, H. P."

I give The Scarlet 'G' to The Gingham Wearer.

END OF ACTIONS

Seriously, though, partly you're dealing with getting over the newbie hump.
It is hard to understate the importance of game custom in a mature game of
Nomic, such as this one.  To a large extent that custom is unwritten,
although I recommend a thorough reading of the CFJ and CFCJ archives if you
have the time.  It takes some time to pick it up, and while you are working
on that it is harder to judge what may be an appropriate rule change.

Also, apart from Custom, each nomic has a distinct culture.  I imclude in
that category the kind of practices that are in no way enforced by the rules,
but which are favored by the players (or a majority of them, at least).
Things like a preference for avoiding administrative overhead.  Like allowing
as much player freedom as possible, within certain rather fuzzy bounds.  Like
an ongoing pressure to simplify, or at least clarify, the rules.  Like a
bias against partial fixes.

Malenkai's loophole (the problem you are trying to address with the particular
proposal that prompted this thread) has been with us for a long time, and
probably will continue.  Your proposal might have made it more difficult to
surf that loophole, but it would not, I think, have eliminated it.  Moreover,
the amount be which the proposal shrunk Malenkai's Loophole might not have
been as great as you think.  I suggest that you take a look at CFJs 452 and
453 for some potentially relevant material.  (It was on the precedent set
by these decisions that breadbox was making his arguments against the success
of your "no other players" scam attempt.)

As Vynd pointed out, your proposal would introduce some administrative
overhead and potential game-harfing headaches.  The benefits of the proposal
are, in my opinion, small, although that probably was not your opinion of it
when you wrote it.  One way to try to avoid this kind of problem is to submit
your ideas first as a request for comment (RFC) to the public forum.  It is
true that RFCs do not usually generate as much discussion as actual proposals,
but if you RFC first and get no negative comments, then you can at least ask
"why didn't you bring that up in RFC?" if you get negative comments on the
proposal.  (Don't necessarilly expect that this will ensure your proposals
of passage, however; it is frequently the case that people who see nothing
in specific wrong with an RFC but just in general don't like it will not
comment.)

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 18:37:28 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2552

ThinMan wrote:

> We're persecuting you.  There is a secret, unspoken [oops!] prejudice
against
> gingham in Ackanomic.  Even if you change your name, you are forever
> stigmatized.  :^)

Damn, I knew it. What if I leave the game and rejoin at a different e-mail
address? :-)

> SOME ACTIONS:
> 
> I hereby create a trinket, The Scarlet 'G', valued at A$5.  It is a
six-inch
> tall capital 'G', Roman typeface, cut from scarlet felt.  It it designed
to
> be sewn onto the left breast of a shirt, cloak, jacket, or other garment
for
> the upper body.  In small letters on the back is written "Love, H. P."
> 
> I give The Scarlet 'G' to The Gingham Wearer.
> 
> END OF ACTIONS

How kind!

> Seriously, though, partly you're dealing with getting over the newbie
hump.
> It is hard to understate the importance of game custom in a mature game
of
> Nomic, such as this one.  To a large extent that custom is unwritten,
> although I recommend a thorough reading of the CFJ and CFCJ archives if
you
> have the time.  It takes some time to pick it up, and while you are
working
> on that it is harder to judge what may be an appropriate rule change.

Yeah, I know that's a problem. This is actually my first ever game of nomic
(having first heard of it about a day before I joined) so the problem's
even worse than that. I might get round to reading the CFJ archives
sometime, who knows; I've only just got to grips with (most of) the rules.
:-)

<SNIP>
 
> As Vynd pointed out, your proposal would introduce some administrative
> overhead and potential game-harfing headaches.  The benefits of the
proposal
> are, in my opinion, small, although that probably was not your opinion of
it
> when you wrote it.  One way to try to avoid this kind of problem is to
submit
> your ideas first as a request for comment (RFC) to the public forum.  It
is
> true that RFCs do not usually generate as much discussion as actual
proposals,
> but if you RFC first and get no negative comments, then you can at least
ask
> "why didn't you bring that up in RFC?" if you get negative comments on
the
> proposal.  (Don't necessarilly expect that this will ensure your
proposals
> of passage, however; it is frequently the case that people who see
nothing
> in specific wrong with an RFC but just in general don't like it will not
> comment.)

I've decided I can't be bothered with RFCs for basic proposals, it's just
to much effort. If I lose points I lose points.

The Gingham Wearer (possibly).

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #212
***********************************