Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #220
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Friday, January 9 1998      Volume 02 : Number 220

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:52:58 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2577

I'll start with your proposal.
I quote:
{{[the recent ad hoc committee has demomstrated the flaws of that
structure. More work for the harfers, more complexity, and virtually
everyone got a crack at the issue at hand anyway, and there is risk of 3
days in gaol for being selected. Replace ad hoc with hearings, and remove
all those problems, PLUS, its replaced with a well-run, reuseable
structure, AND the size and complexity of the rules is reduced.]}} 

You start by making, as you say, a flat-out statement of fact,that the
recent ad-hoc Committee has deminstrated the flaws of that structure. 
This is trivially false, as the Committee is running and performing the
task it has been appointed to do. What do you base this statement on?

the 3 days s Gaol - I don't like this either, I never supported it, and
the way to get rid of this is by mending the rule rather than repealing
it.  Furthermore, nowhere do you explain how Ad Hoc Committees are less
re-usable than Hearings.  
As for being well run, my view point is that a group of players are able
to conduct a short, simple discussion and voting without a rule telling
them which leg to pick up each of the step of the way. The current
Commitee demonstrates that this is indeed so.

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> > > > You resigned on principle,
> 
> Fist of all, the statement, "You resigned on principle," is
> false.
> 
> Niccolo:
> 
> > I draw this conclusion from a statement made by you to the entire
> > Committee, 
> 
> Notice the "statement" is not quoted.  The statement, presumably,
> which was made to the entire list, not just the committee as
> implied above, was:
> 
> > As do I.  As hoc has got to be replaced with hearings.

Ok, then I was mistaken by thinking this was a message to the committee.

It was my opinion that you resigned on principle. I am sick and tired of
taking this verbal beating from you every couple of months.

> 
> I have a right to insist on facts or retract on any statement
> made, especially when I know the statement is untrue.  Would
> you prefer if I let false statements about me pass?

How about just responding with :"you are wrong. This statement is false"?
It is much less antagonizing then insisting, for all practical purposes,
demanding, facts.

> That is all I ask, nothing personal.  For once, admit you are
> wrong, or show the humility to retract.

I have admitted many times that I was wrong. and if you feel that I am
wrong about something, first and foremost about yourself. Asking for a
correction takes no more than a single sentence.

 > 
> > I am calling a Politeness Moon on the statement following the line
> > representing Malenkai's signature. Specifically:
> > " wondering how e will dodge this direct question :)"
> 
> Whether or not I am judged polite does not change your
> continued behavior in this regard.  I came on strong because
> I am just sick and fed up of your untrue statements in this 
> intellectual context.  People's untruebluffs need to be called,
> or they will continue to make them.  Rather than have the  
> grace to retract the false statement, Niccolo presses the fight on.

You have a lot of gall calling for grace.  You explain why it was ok for
you to come on strong - but I must bow out with grace. 

> I guess the smiley didn't help keep this debate civil. :)  
I didn't think your response to me was civil. Nor do I think your second
letter is very civil.

> > Basically, once again you take a statement I made and re-interpret it to
> > make it look like a personal attack against you.
> 
> Once again you make a another false statement. 
I don't see how this is false. And if need be, I shall dredge through the
archives - it will probably ruin the game for everyone, you and me
included.
For now I shall do with a single example. You mentioned my behavior on
Internomic, I'll cite the case as I recall it, and you think you should
challenge my presentation of the facts, go ahead, do it.

The case I believe you refer to was when I submitted an SFJ through New
Rishonomic as to the status of New Rishonnomic. Approx. a day later,
having mistakenly read the rules to mean that only voting members can
submit CFJs, I posted a message saying that it appears the Moderator
subscirbes to the interpretation that the younger nomic is the voting
member refered to in the rule [the younger nomic being the one with two
n's, whose name got into the rules by a typo I made in a proposal]

Your response to this was that I should back the accusations I make with
facts.

I got very ticked off by this, since I made no accusations, I was making
an observation, that I thought Malenkai chose to harf just one thread,
something that I happen to think is a very legitimate thing to do, if the
other is trivial to reconstruct.  I made one private response, to you
Malenkai, where I stated that I am not going to be dragged into a personal
fight with, and that you should presenting youself as a martyr ( you
presented my observation as an 'accusation') and I posted a public
response stating pretty much what I stated in this paragraph.

Now, the appropriate response to my mis-observation would have been:
"the voting or non voting status New Rishonomic is irrelevant to
submitting an SFJ. It's only been one day since you sent it."etc.

Calling it an accusation was outrageous!

I think that is one very good exmple. I think you acted in a very similar
manner here. 

Had you stopped after the first paragraph, it would have been a very
appropriate response. But you went on to list my "crimes against society"
and added that most provocative remark at the end.
What contribution did that make to the point you were trying to make?
How did it further the dicussion?
You have chosen to challenge not only the false statement - you have
chosen to challenge much more than that. 

And all this talk about OTHERS, other players, etc. It has no place here.
Have you been asked to represent a group of people - if so, I ask that you
state it up front. If not, please speak for yourself. I think that would
also constitute a practice of integrity.

> ask for facts or retract.  I was sarcastic in my challenge, true,
> because you have never retracted a false statement, and have a 
> track record of dodging the questions.  

You were unnecessarily sarcastic. As for your two statement about me, they
are false.

>I will not do that in  the future.
Thank you. I think that way you will achieve your goal of keeping
discussion civil.

> 
> > The first time you did that I nearly left Acka over this - is that what
> > you want me to do?
> 
> It was another player, not me, that suggested the above in
> response to your conduct of this nature. 

I don't recall seeing this on the public forum. If anyoen feels that way,
they should this directly to me, either in public, or in private.

>       If you stay I would 
> appreciate it if you retract untrue statements when you are asked
> to,
You have already stated that you will do this sarcastically in the future.
So it remains for me to respond that I will appreciate it if you ask,
rather than demanding and listing a 'rap sheet'.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 08:48:06 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2577

> You start by making, as you say, a flat-out statement of fact,that the
> recent ad-hoc Committee has deminstrated the flaws of that structure.
> This is trivially false,

The recent committee demonstrated that it is more work than hearings,
and more bandwidth is wasted by people resigning that do not want
to partcipate.  Moreover, the threat of Gaol is a major flaw as well.
In hearings, no bandwidth is wasted by those who do not wish to
participate.  Once again, as ThinMan says, you use the idiom 
"trivially false" to denounce my arguments without any substance of
your own.  I'm sick of it Uri.

> the 3 days s Gaol - I don't like this either, I never supported it, and
> the way to get rid of this is by mending the rule rather than repealing
> it. 

The fact that you don't like it does not make it less of a flaw.
Indeed, it supports the veracity of my claim that the rule is flawed.
Since its functionality is basically the same as hearings, the solution
I chose to propose was to eliminate the poorer implementation, IMO,
and put it up for vote.  Why to you say the proper way to write my
proposals is what you want?  Whenever I propose something that repeals
one of your rules, you start one of these debates with false 
or unsubstantiated statements.  Malenkai does not repeal your rules,
the voters do.  Take your case to the voters, not me.  My opinion 
of the rule is already formed.  Your false statement spoke nothing 
of the merits of the proposal.  It had no possible result but to 
inflame.

> Furthermore, nowhere do you explain how Ad Hoc Committees are less
> re-usable than Hearings.

That is because I did not claim that they were.  I claimed that they
were more complex, and they are.  I speak from experience, having 
harfed both.  Once again he makes an inaccurate statement in a debate,
implying that there is some need to explain that Ad Hoc is more
reuseable.  Where is this coming from?

> It was my opinion that you resigned on principle. I am sick and tired of
> taking this verbal beating from you every couple of months.

There is a difference between opinion and fact.  If you do not like
to engage in debate, make no false statements about my motivation.
I reiterate my request for a retraction of your false statement.

> Your response to this was that I should back the accusations I make with
> facts.
> 
> I got very ticked off by this, since I made no accusations, I was making
> an observation, that I thought Malenkai chose to harf just one thread,

Like I said at the time, you should have asked me privately for
clarification before making a public insinuation about my neutrality
as moderator.  You spend word after word telling me how to act, yet 
do not once examine your own conduct.  Even a neutral party from another
nomic observered that  your response was "paranoid" at the time.  Is
e wrong too?

> Now, the appropriate response to my mis-observation would have been:
> "the voting or non voting status New Rishonomic is irrelevant to
> submitting an SFJ. It's only been one day since you sent it."etc.

Once again, telling me the appropriate response.  Your appropriate
behaviour is to retract your false statements, and to stop making 
them.

> And all this talk about OTHERS, other players, etc. It has no place here.

I have stated that other players have also observed this problem with
your conduct.  It does have a place here.  A search of the archvies 
for "482" will reveal them.

> I don't recall seeing this on the public forum. If anyoen feels that way,
> they should this directly to me, either in public, or in private.

ThinMan wrote on December 8th:

> It is that sort of statement that really irritates me.  Perhaps Niccolo
> has such a high opinion of himself that he believes his argumentation,
> such as it is, to be infallible.  Only such a belief, at least with
> respect to this particular case, could justify a claim such as the
> above.  I should hope Niccolo would have learned from experience,
> however, that, at least in Ackanomic, the Courts do not always agree
> with him.  I don't mind an assertion that the CFJ is false, but to
> suggest that it is _trivially_ false is to claim that all possible
> arguments for its truth, and especially those already presented, are
> so weak as to be beneath consideration.  I will optimistically assume
> that it is not Niccolo's intent to irritate, annoy, or offend other
> players, and therefore alert him that irritating, annoying, and/or
> offending other players is what he is doing.  I will realistically
> suggest, however, that if my optimism is misplaced then Niccolo is more
> than welcome to leave.

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:19:05 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2577

My POV regarding Ad Hoc Committees is this:

In many ways they're like a Hearing where only seven players get to vote.
Except that they take up to a week longer to work.  And _that's_ if
discussion takes place, the putative advantage of Ad Hoc Committees.
So they're less democratic, because not everybody who may be interested has
an opportunity to vote, or even have input.

And, let's face it, it _is_ possible to have discussion during a Hearing,
or prior to a Hearing.  Maybe there's not as much time for it, but by the
same token the decision is rendered more swiftly.

However, I can see Niccolo Flychuck's point(made some months ago now, but
still relevant)about having Ad Hoc Committee's do things that would
otherwise be done by the Senate.  The Commission d'Arts is something that
may still be better done by an Ad Hoc Committee; it worked well enough when
we did it.  CPPIA's could be better done as Hearings, but there may be
other things that are not.  But there may be another solution for
Commissions d'Arts, too.

I decided to vote for the removal of Ad Hoc Committees, but would consider
other alternatives as well, for things that can't be as easily replaced by
Hearings.

And I will also note, for the sake of rhetoric, that while the CPPIA
was really an inappropriate usage for an Ad Hoc Committee in the first
place, it was originally proposed, IIRC, by Malenkai, who is not Ad Hoc
Committees' greatest fan.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Skinny Puppy:Addiction(Dog House Mix)
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

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

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 18:47:18 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2577

> And I will also note, for the sake of rhetoric, that while the CPPIA
> was really an inappropriate usage for an Ad Hoc Committee in the first
> place, it was originally proposed, IIRC, by Malenkai, who is not Ad Hoc
> Committees' greatest fan.

I'm not sure what the point of this is, but for the sake of rhetoric
I will offer my comments.  First of all, it is Acka, not Malenkai,
that causes rule changes.  Secondly, and more importantly, at the
time there was nothing to playtest Ad Hoc (or if there was, it
was that Tower thing, and I did not think that would likely
come up), and I am not so narrow minded to at least give a 
questionable rule a try before proposing to can it, if there is a
reasonable way to do so.  (In many cases, such as Synod and Controlling
Interest, there was no easy way to do so).  What if CPPIA showed 
Ad Hoc was *better* than hearings?  Then I would propose canning
hearings and converting to ad hoc.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 21:29:26 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2577

On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> My POV regarding Ad Hoc Committees is this:
> 
> 
> However, I can see Niccolo Flychuck's point(made some months ago now, but
> still relevant)about having Ad Hoc Committee's do things that would
> otherwise be done by the Senate.  The Commission d'Arts is something that
> may still be better done by an Ad Hoc Committee; it worked well enough when
> we did it.  CPPIA's could be better done as Hearings, but there may be
> other things that are not.  But there may be another solution for
> Commissions d'Arts, too.

At the time, I was against the idea of stripping the Senate of some of its
duties, such as Commission d'Arts and Internomic voting.  I must say
however, that in these two cases the changes have worked out well.  The Ad
Hoc Silver Moon committee was large enough to get broad input, but small
enough to be able to select four choices to be submited for voting on by
the nomic as a whole.  Hearings have proven to be an excellent forum for
Internomic proposals.  Anyone who is interested can vote, but if you
aren't interested in internomic, or even in a particular internomic
proposal, not voting will not lead to quorum failures or jail time or any
of that business.

I would say that these demonstrate two different kinds of situations where
a decission needs to be reached, one where an Ad Hoc Committee works well
and one where it would be, at best, unneccesary.  Where a subject of some
interest needs to be decided, such as Silver Moon candidates, but it is
impractical to take suggestions from everyone in the game, an Ad Hoc
Committee does a good job.  It is large enough to get a broad spectrum of
players together, small enough to reach decisions without too much
trouble.

Hearings give everyone a say, which is something we should probably always
try for if possible.  But where there are many possibilities to discuss
they are impractical.  Internomic proposals, and I think also the CPPIA,
are something that will work well in this format.  There is really no
need for an Ad Hoc Committee to deal with this sort of thing, and at least
in some cases it might be counter-productive.  Players who aren't
interested are going to be leaving the committee or not contributing,
which the Hearing format deals with much better.

> 
> I decided to vote for the removal of Ad Hoc Committees, but would consider
> other alternatives as well, for things that can't be as easily replaced by
> Hearings.
> 

I think I will be voting against it myself.  It is a useful method of
dealing with certain specific issues.  At the moment I think it is
overused.  I would rather see it reformed than removed however.

> And I will also note, for the sake of rhetoric, that while the CPPIA
> was really an inappropriate usage for an Ad Hoc Committee in the first
> place, it was originally proposed, IIRC, by Malenkai, who is not Ad Hoc
> Committees' greatest fan.
> 

An interesting point, yes.

> 
> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
> Current Song--Skinny Puppy:Addiction(Dog House Mix)
> Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
> The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
> 

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #220
***********************************