Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #226
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Thursday, January 15 1998    Volume 02 : Number 226

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:44:13 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2599

> Proposal 2599
> Take Off To The Great White North

> As Slakko has demonstrated, if the BWG Laser's money-draining can be
> avoided by mere trinket creation, why penalize orgs? 

Exactly for the reason demonstrated to neuter the loophole.  If 
you are going to do this, you should just repeal the rule.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:21:56 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2599

>> Proposal 2599
>> Take Off To The Great White North
>
>> As Slakko has demonstrated, if the BWG Laser's money-draining can be
>> avoided by mere trinket creation, why penalize orgs? 
>
>Exactly for the reason demonstrated to neuter the loophole.  If 
>you are going to do this, you should just repeal the rule.

Quite so.  Except in very unusual circumstances, I am against going back
and "fixing up" the effects of a loophole surf.  Even when it seems to have
"harmed" an "innocent."  Let SPAM and Odo get their money out of Slakko if
they can.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:59:12 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2600

- ----------
> From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Acka: Proposal 2600
> Date: Thursday, January 15, 1998 8:36 AM
> 
> Proposal 2600
> Anti anti-votes
> The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)
> 

> 
> {{[I noticed that this was one of Malenkai's departing wishes (or maybe
> just wishes) and I tend to agree with him that anti-voting isn't all that
> great. I feel that people concentrating on their points as opposed to the
> actual proposals could result in several proposals passing that are
flawed
> or not wanted or useful, wanted proposals being rejected. I'm not going
to
> go so far as e suggested and remove points all together, however.]}}
> 
> 

Can I mention that, as a player who has received a lot of points for
voting, I have never, that I can recall, voted in a particular way simply
to get points.  
I see the anti-voting system as being useful for three reasons:

1.  It encourages people to vote.  I admit that I would probably not have
been as vigilent about voting were it not for possible point gain.  (Though
the observant will note that I almost always vote present on party-chess
proposals because I don't know enough about the game to have an opinion.)

2.  It allows for more uncertainty as to whether a proposal will pass.  I
think this adds to the suspense and intrigue in the game.  It provides an
almost random factor that must be accounted for when one is tallying how
many votes they think they can get.

3.  It means that people don't block vote as much as they would otherwise. 
Excepting the recent spate of SPAM unity votes, anti-voting decreases party
unity to the point where there will rarely be a clear, omnipresent majority
of people who always vote the same way.

Just my two cents,

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:12:57 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2599

On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, John Bollinger wrote:

> >> Proposal 2599
> >> Take Off To The Great White North
> >
> >> As Slakko has demonstrated, if the BWG Laser's money-draining can be
> >> avoided by mere trinket creation, why penalize orgs? 
> >
> >Exactly for the reason demonstrated to neuter the loophole.  If 
> >you are going to do this, you should just repeal the rule.

The other version of the loophole this fixes is if an Org with an open
membership policy is attacked by a player joining it while Hosed.  With
that loophole exposed, no-one would ever have an open membership policy.
It needs fixing.

Mind you, I think that my individual sneakiness needs to be fixed too.
If the player has any trinkets other than the one transferred by the BWG,
then they should be cashed in a random order until the player has A$79
when money is demanded.

> Quite so.  Except in very unusual circumstances, I am against going back
> and "fixing up" the effects of a loophole surf.  Even when it seems to have
> "harmed" an "innocent."  Let SPAM and Odo get their money out of Slakko if
> they can.

I don't have your money!  It's in John's house, and .. and Bill's house...

Don't forget that I lost A$158 in
that BWG Laser too.  I was going to propose the restitution to the orgs
myself, but thought that coming from me it wouldn't have any credibility.
I'm glad Alfvaen was willing to see justice done.

Given that my membership fee proposal failed, and even if it had
succeeded it would have allowed people to leave rather than pay the fee, I
fail to see how an Organization will ever get money out of a player.

Especially SPAM.  I gave SPAM its original A$300 to get a Big Tent and
become a Party, so the fact that I drained it of A$158 accidentally is
really neither here nor there.

I seriously doubt that a majority of this populace will ever support a
proposal which gives organisations coercive power to steal money from
players.
- --
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, 15 Jan 1998 17:34:08 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2599

> >> Proposal 2599
> >> Take Off To The Great White North
> >
> >> As Slakko has demonstrated, if the BWG Laser's money-draining can be
> >> avoided by mere trinket creation, why penalize orgs? 
> >
> >Exactly for the reason demonstrated to neuter the loophole.  If 
> >you are going to do this, you should just repeal the rule.
> 
> Quite so.  Except in very unusual circumstances, I am against going back
> and "fixing up" the effects of a loophole surf.  Even when it seems to
have
> "harmed" an "innocent."  Let SPAM and Odo get their money out of Slakko
if
> they can.

How about if a player unable to pay has the chartreuse goose transferred to
em, or if it is impossible to create trinkets while hosed?

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:09:50 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2599

>> Let SPAM and Odo get their money out of Slakko if
>> they can.
>
>I don't have your money!  It's in John's house, and .. and Bill's house...

:-)

>Don't forget that I lost A$158 in
>that BWG Laser too.  I was going to propose the restitution to the orgs
>myself, but thought that coming from me it wouldn't have any credibility.
>I'm glad Alfvaen was willing to see justice done.

It's simply that I don't agree that returning the orgs' money is just.  I
particularly don't consider it to be in the spirit of the game.  Clearly
some disagree.  I just don't like the idea of "Oops, something bad happened.
But don't worry, we'll wave our magic proposal wand and fix it as good as new."
Live with the consequences, whether intentional or not.

>Given that my membership fee proposal failed, and even if it had
>succeeded it would have allowed people to leave rather than pay the fee, I
>fail to see how an Organization will ever get money out of a player.
>
>Especially SPAM.  I gave SPAM its original A$300 to get a Big Tent and
>become a Party, so the fact that I drained it of A$158 accidentally is
>really neither here nor there.
>
>I seriously doubt that a majority of this populace will ever support a
>proposal which gives organisations coercive power to steal money from
>players.

You mistake me.  I don't think there is any way that an organization can
force money out of a player.  I don't think there should be any such way.
I was thinking more along the lines of diplomacy.  If the members of SPAM
and/or Odo are sufficiently upset about these events, then I am certain
that they can come up with ways to apply pressure.  If they're not so
upset, then why bother with giving back the money in the first place?

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:16:10 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2599

> 
> You mistake me.  I don't think there is any way that an organization can
> force money out of a player.  I don't think there should be any such way.
> I was thinking more along the lines of diplomacy.  If the members of SPAM
> and/or Odo are sufficiently upset about these events, then I am certain
> that they can come up with ways to apply pressure.  If they're not so
> upset, then why bother with giving back the money in the first place?
> 
> 
> ThinMan

Sure, we can come up with a way to apply pressure, but there's no getting
water out of a stone.  We'll just vote ourselves the cash back :)

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:19:03 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

> 	Here's my suggestion for an enhanced emergency powers system:
> 	Create a rule numbered 0, with the following DREAM delimited text:
> DREAM
> 	A player may announce that they believe an Alternatively Defined
> Reality by informing all players of this belief (for example by sending it
> to the main mailing list.)  An ADR must be a series of facts about the game
> state.  The ADR will be "dubious" for one week.  During that week, players
> may disbelieve it by informing all players that they are doing so.  If, at
> the end of the week, at least one quarter of all players whose status as
> playes is unquestioned have disbelieved it, then it will be discarded and
> the player who initially believed it will lose 15 points.  However if this
> does not happen, then the game state will be changed such that the
> statements specified in the ADR are true.  This rule takes precedence over
> all other rules.
> 	(ADR's should consist of statements, such as "no player commited a
> crime between date x and date y"  If this passed, then it shall be true
> that no player commited a crime during that period.

I would announce "I believe an Alternatively Defined Reality where I am
the only player whose status as a player is unquestioned."  Then I'd be
the only one who would be able to disbelieve it.  I'd put in other stuff
too, like my score going to the Magic Number...

So yeah, a Hearing might work better.  Maybe a CRD type of one, with a
3/5 majority required.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--The Sound of Music Soundtrack
Current Book--Charles Dickens:Great Expectations
Due to budget cuts, all clouds will be lined with zinc.

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #226
***********************************