Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #221
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Saturday, January 10 1998    Volume 02 : Number 221

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

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 03:43:21 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka:  org  stuff

Everyone talks about the reform of organizations, but no one ever does
anything about it.  (Mark Twain.)

It seems to be that there is, if not consensus, at least a strong
majority opionion that the org rules need some reform.   All the attempts
to fix them have failed.  It seems to me that in large part that the
organization reforms failed because they were attempted n a more or less
monolithic manner, which had to be voted up or down together.  So, it
would appear that to make anything happen it need be done in  smaller
chuncks, which  are not dependent on (the entire set of) others passing.  
To me, the most pressing issues are single player orgs, and org powers
which are tradable.  less pressing, is the seperation of orgs into
political, social, commercial, and religious cleasses, as well as a number
of smaller changes.

rufus

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

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 09:24:52 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Orgs RFCs, 1st simple fix

On Sat, 10 Jan 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Section 2 becomes the following:
> > 
> > 2. Organization Disbandment 
> > A Grouping is disbanded if it has existed for more than 7 days.
>  I am not sure I like this, other than that it is fine by me.
The reason behind this is to stop people creating Groupings, have them
languish because no-one else wants to join, and have the player/entity
list cluttered with moribund Groupings.  If you can't get two other people
to join you within a week, why are you trying to form the Organization in
the first place?

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

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

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 12:59:31 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2577

Since some players may not read acka-research, I am posting this on both
lists.
A couple of days ago I posted my opinion that Malenkai resigned from the
recent Ad Hoc Committee on principle. Malenkai corrected me on that point.
I take Malenkai at his word.

It is no longer my opinion that he resigned on principle.

Uri Bruck
aka
Niccolo Flychuck
and now for the rest of my reply:

On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> > 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?  

No, I don't want you to write your proposals the way I want. In a previous
letter you wrote that if I want a discussion I should discuss the merits
and flaws of the proposal up for vote. That's what I'm doing. When I write
that the propor way to propose is, I am pointing out what I see as a flaw
in the proposal - I'm not telling you how to act.

> 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.

I thought you wanted to make this discussion civil. As a first step in
that direction I seperated the debate about the proposal from that other
discussion. I am discussing the merits of the proposal. You wrote that my
disagreeable statement had nothing to do with the proposal.

 > 
> > 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.
In the prolog to the proposal you write :"
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 want to replace Ad Hoc with a well-run,reuseable structure. In plain
English this means that they are not a well-run, reuseable structure.

>  I claimed that they were more complex, and they are.
You claim that as well

> > 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
And like I said at the time, and in my previous letter as well, I made no
insinuation, I made an observation, and I did not imply anywhere that your
choice was a bad one, or that you wrong to make that choice.

> 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?
I will exercise academic integrity and not comment about a person who does
not read this forum.

> > 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:

Thank you for looking up the archives for me.
I guess I'll have to direct this question at ThiMan - do you want me to
leave Ackanomic?

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 14:23:43 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Orgs RFCs, 1st simple fix

Section 1 seems fine at first look. I'll have to compare it to the current
rule for more commentary. Section 2 seems to call for a lot of tracking,
although I can't make up my mind which would be more tracking, as you
propose, or by letting Groupings go on like orgs  do now.

Another thing I am missing here handling current single -player Orgs. I
don't think they should los their property when such a proposal passes,
and any proposal to eliminate single player orgs should also explicitly
transfer the property of the org to the respective members, and refund
them for any Organizational Powers they may own.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Sat, 10 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Aim of this proposal: Eliminate single player orgs.
> 
> Amend R1003 as follows:
> 
> Section 1 becomes the following:
> 
> 1. Forming an Organization 
> Any Player may form a new Grouping by announcing its name publicly.
> (Its name must be a legal name.) When this happens, that Player becomes
> the Founder of the new Grouping and its only member.  The only action a
> Grouping can perform is to admit new members.  It does so by unanimous
> public vote of all existing members being in favour.
> When a Grouping has 3 members, it becomes a Player-sanctioned Organization. 
> The Founder of the Grouping becomes the Founder of the Organization.
> 
> Alternatively, an Organization may be created and defined by other Rules.
> Such Organizations are called Rule-sanctioned Organizations. A
> Rule-sanctioned Organization does not necessarily have a Founder. 
> Any player may request membership in an Organization. The Organization may
> then grant the request as a public action. When a request for membership
> is granted, the player becomes a member of the Organization. 
> A player-sanctioned Organization may, as a public action, give a
> particular member the ability to grant any request for membership in that
> Organization, without waiting around for the consent of the rest of the
> members. A player-sanctioned Organization may also, as a public action,
> establish an open admissions policy, which means that anyone can join that
> Organization at any time. 
> 
> Section 2 becomes the following:
> 
> 2. Organization Disbandment 
> A Grouping isdisbanded if it has existed for more than 7 days.
> A Player-sanctioned Organization is disbanded upon it having 1 or
> fewer members.
> [3 needed to form it, but 2 needed to keep it alive.]
> 
> The rules may call for the disbandment of an Organization. Whenan
> Organization or Grouping is disbanded, everything owned by the
> Organization or Grouping is transferred to the Treasury, and the
> Organization or Grouping is then no more. 
> 
> Comments anyone?
> 
> --
> 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: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 15:05:42 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2555 accepted

>     YES:
> ThinMan             (Vulcan)
> K 2
> The Gingham Wearer  (SPAM)
> Rex Mundi
> else...if           (SPAM)
> Slakko              (SPAM)
> Fortunato           (SPAM)
> Balsamic Dragon     (SPAM)
> Vynd                (Vulcan)
> rufus               (SPAM)
> /dev/joe            (Vulcan)
> Niccolo Flychuck    (MetaMorph)
> Vulcan Unity Vote
> SPAM Unity Vote
> SPAM Unity Vote

Am I correct in thinking that this is the first ever proposal in which one
political party gained two unity votes?

> > Proposal 2555 - Fri 02 Jan 1998 03:50 EST
> > Neural Processing Units are Interrupt Driven
> > Malenkai (Randy Hall)

If so it certainly seems appropriate that Malenkai wrote it. Especially
since it gained unity votes for both SPAM and their traditional rivals
Vulcan. Who else could write a proposal garnering such cross party support?
Malenkai will be sorely missed.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 07:42:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2555 accepted

> Am I correct in thinking that this is the first ever proposal in
> which one political party gained two unity votes?

No, it's not. Multiple unity votes was first introduced well over a
year ago, and it happened at least once before.

It may be the first time since parties changed into Organizations with
Big Tents. There was a time inbetween there, I think, where we
reverted to single unity votes for a while.

In any case, it is definitely the first time since I became Tabulator
(last August).

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 18:58:41 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2577

I agree with Alfvaen on his commentary, both the quoted and the unquoted
portions here.

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

> 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.

Just look how long it took to get the Internomic vote out of the Senate's
hands and back to the people, and how many Senate repeal attempt failed.
At some point someone commented that I have a vendetta against the Senate
- -  I didn't, I just think it is a flawed rule.
When several attempts to repeal it, or significantly amend it failed, I
stopped trying.

> 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.

CCPIA is one of the least suitable decisions for Ad Hoc Committees. It's
really a Hearing rule.

> 
> 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 can see Alfvaen's point here that often it is better to repeal a
structure and start fresh rather than trying to amend it - especially when
it's a non-game critical structure such as this one.
I voted against the Repeal. Malenkai pointed out that it is  he who is
repealing 'my' rules, but Ackanomic. I never claimed otherwise. I would
like to point out that most of the proposals to repeal 'my' rules in the
past failed.
If this repeal fails as well, I will propose some amendments to Ad Hoc
Committees to lessen the work load (It is also recorded in the acka
archives that I always volunteered to Offices created by rules I proposed,
and held them for a long time)

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> 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: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 20:30:14 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2560 accepted

>Results of Proposal 2560
>
>    NO:
>The Gingham Wearer   (SPAM)
>
>Proposal 2560 - Sat 03 Jan 1998 11:14 EST
>Down the river2
>The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)
	May I ask why?

- --
- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	"For there never was yet philosopher
	That could endure the toothache patiently"
	-William Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, act 5, scene 1

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

Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 01:31:54 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2560 accepted

> >Results of Proposal 2560
> >
> >    NO:
> >The Gingham Wearer   (SPAM)
> >
> >Proposal 2560 - Sat 03 Jan 1998 11:14 EST
> >Down the river2
> >The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)
> 	May I ask why?

Certainly you may ask. It's because I'm a moronic fool who doesn't vote
carefully enough. If that had made a difference I think I probably would
have shot myself, or submitted a proposal whereby I lost all my points, or
something like that. As it is I get a proposal accepted at the eleventh
attempt (whoopee!) which must surely be a record for longest time before a
player had a proposal passed.

The Gingham Wearer, off to check eir votes on other proposals.

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

Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 01:36:06 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2560 accepted (revue)

> Yes, the voting results for proposal 2560 contained an error. Here is
> the corrected report.

I was just about to say! I went to check my voting and discovered that I
had in fact voted yes. Maybe I'm not quite as ham fisted as I thought.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 22:05:10 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2561 rejected

>Some of us would rather not have Acka have a state religion.
>Ever since we invented Churches in Acka, more than a year ago, we've
>had freedom of religion here, and some of us would like to see it stay
>that way.  And witchhunts, to say the least, are old and beaten into the
>surface of the hemispherical earth, already.
	I don't think this would seriously reduce freedom of religion.  The
founder of the religion would have only a limited ability to create creeds,
and wouldn't be able to actually prevent other religions.  Personally, I
though it would make witchhunts more interesting.

>I don't see Vynd's tammany bribe as "going out of his way to shoot down
>a proposal he knew otherwise would pass", but rather "going out of his
>way to make sure a really bad proposal doesn't pass."  If I had "known
>the proposal would pass otherwise" (a characteristic you assign to Vynd,
>though you provide no evidence of Vynd's ability to read other players'
>minds) I probably would have done the same.
	When the original proposal failed, it only failed because Slakko
and I were on vacation and didn't get our votes in on time.  I noted this
when I re-proposed it.  Had everyone voted the same (not an especially
unreasonable assumption) it would indeed have passed.  Presumably Vynd knew
this, and it was bribing Tammany which prevented it from passing.

- --
- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	"For there never was yet philosopher
	That could endure the toothache patiently"
	-William Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, act 5, scene 1

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

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 21:21:37 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2561 rejected

Towsner wrote:
> 	When the original proposal failed, it only failed because Slakko
> and I were on vacation and didn't get our votes in on time.  I noted this
> when I re-proposed it.  Had everyone voted the same (not an especially
> unreasonable assumption) it would indeed have passed.  Presumably Vynd knew
> this, and it was bribing Tammany which prevented it from passing.

Around here, especially with points for anti-voting, that assumption is less
reasonable than you might think, aside from the possibility of new players
voting who weren't even in the game the last time, and people who voted
before forgetting to vote this time and vice versa...

If Vynd made this assumption, and it was close enough to being true, and
he bribed Tammany because of the assumption, then he's made a very
successful play.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 22:27:32 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2561 rejected

>Around here, especially with points for anti-voting, that assumption is less
>reasonable than you might think, aside from the possibility of new players
>voting who weren't even in the game the last time, and people who voted
>before forgetting to vote this time and vice versa...
	There's was a one vote margin.  If anyone anti-voted it would fail,
But yes, yes, new players would have thrown it off.

>If Vynd made this assumption, and it was close enough to being true, and
>he bribed Tammany because of the assumption, then he's made a very
>successful play.
	I'm aware.  He had every right to make that play, and I respect him
for it.  But I found it very annoying since I happened to like that
proposal.  (In practice, I'll probably forgive him.  I'm not very good at
holding grudges overnight, so at worst I'll switch to voting against his
proposals when I don't care instead of for them, and probably not even
that.)

- --
- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	"For there never was yet philosopher
	That could endure the toothache patiently"
	-William Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, act 5, scene 1

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #221
***********************************