Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #235
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Sunday, January 25 1998     Volume 02 : Number 235

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

Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 23:10:07 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2635

> Proposal 2635
> Le Grand Dalmuti
> Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain)
> 
> Create a new rule, number 1101, to read as below.
> 
> "A player who has a score greater than 0 and greater than all the other
> players will also be known as 'Le Grand Dalmuti'.
> 
> If a player who is not Le Grand Dalmuti gains points such that it makes
> their score equal to that of Le Grand Dalmuti, then Le Grand Dalmuti's
> score shall be increased by 4 points.
> 
> If a player's score overtakes Le Grand Dalmuti's score, thereby becoming
> Le Grand Dalmuti themselves, the player(s) with the lowest score will
> get a bonus number of points equivalent to one half the score of the new
> Le Grand Dalmuti's."

As a former scorekeeper, I can only say this:

No. No way. Absolutely not. Keeping track of players going below -60 was
bad enough, but doable since few players ever had a score that low.  Way
back when, the gnome buddy was almost impossible to keep track of whenever
there was any competition for the low score. This is another gnome.
Kill it now.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 10:23:44 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2635

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > Proposal 2635
> > Le Grand Dalmuti
> > Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain)
> 
> As a former scorekeeper, I can only say this:
> 
> No. No way. Absolutely not. Keeping track of players going below -60 was
> bad enough, but doable since few players ever had a score that low.  Way
> back when, the gnome buddy was almost impossible to keep track of whenever
> there was any competition for the low score. This is another gnome.
> Kill it now.

Ummm, /dev/joe, shouldn't we wait for the opinion of the current
Scorekeeper on this?  After all, if e likes it, why not?
Personally I think that scoring is due for a bit of a fun shake-up.
There's nothing wrong with trialling a system like this provided that the
Scorekeeper is not against it.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 12:55:34 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2609 accepted

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> 
Results of Proposal 2609
> 
>     NO:
> Slakko               (SPAM)

I would like to point out that this was not a deliberate anti-vote.  My
reason for voting against this proposal was that it was not worth
proposing.  Such a simple change, which had no effect on the spirit of the
rule, and which was likely to have such widespread support, should IMHO
have been handed over to the CSRR to be distributed as a CSR.  That's what
CSRs are for.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 05:12:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2610 accepted

> Results of Proposal 2610
> 
> 17/22 votes: Quorum achieved
> 13/16 YES votes: Proposal accepted
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Proposal 2610 - Sun 18 Jan 1998 00:30 EST
>> This Must Be Stopped
>> Slakko (Duncan Richer)
>> 
>> This is a Modest Proposal.
>> Repeal Rule 594.21 {{[It is far too dangerous.]}}

I wish to congratulate Slakko on his fourth Null Proposal. His
expertise on the subject is unparalleled.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 14:00:59 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2610 accepted

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > Results of Proposal 2610
> > 
> > 17/22 votes: Quorum achieved
> > 13/16 YES votes: Proposal accepted
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> >> Proposal 2610 - Sun 18 Jan 1998 00:30 EST
> >> This Must Be Stopped
> >> Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> >> 
> >> This is a Modest Proposal.
> >> Repeal Rule 594.21 {{[It is far too dangerous.]}}
> 
> I wish to congratulate Slakko on his fourth Null Proposal. His
> expertise on the subject is unparalleled.

Question: Wasn't Rule 594.21 created from the Discovery that ThinMan made
on Saturday the 17th?
That was what I was trying to stop, and according to Rule 594 a Discovery
becomes a Blueprint, and hence a new rule in the Blueprint Rule Suite, 7
days after it is made.

Please check the logs on this one.

Yours,
Slakko
 -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 06:04:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2610 accepted

>> I wish to congratulate Slakko on his fourth Null Proposal. His
>> expertise on the subject is unparalleled.
> 
> Question: Wasn't Rule 594.21 created from the Discovery that ThinMan made
> on Saturday the 17th?

Yes, I just realized that a few minutes ago. I originally thought you
were trying to get rid of the BWG Shotgun Attachment.

My apologies.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 14:38:47 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2638

> {{Transfer 5 points from else...if to Slakko [For thinking of this and
> doing most of the work]}}
> 
> {{Transfer 1 point from else...if to Fortunato [It's my fault he lost a
> point on that last CFCJ I filed.]}}

Will this have the desired effect or not? I don't think points are
transferable so I'm not sure if it will. I'll leave it to those more
knowledgeable than myself, I think.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 14:39:49 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2641

> Proposal 2641
> A humble token of our appreciation
> else...if (Henry Towsner)
> 
> Create a new rule entitled "Harfer Day" reading as follows:
> 	The 20th of February will be know as Harfer Day.  Some time during
> the calender week containing Harfer-Day the President may give a speech
> commemerating the hard work of the Harfers throughout the history of
> Ackanomic.  If e does so, e will recieve 5 points for it.  This day will
> not count towards the time limit for a harfer to complete eir duties. 
All
> players are encouraged to personally thank the harfers who make Ackanomic
> possible on this day.  The holder of each of the following positions will
> recieve 10 points for each of the following positions they hold on Harfer
> Day:
> 	Chess Umpire
> 	Clerk of the Courts
> 	Count Tabula
> 	Financier
> 	Map-Harfer
> 	Post Master
> 	Promoter
> 	Registrar
> 	Rule-Harfer
> 	Scorekeeper
> 	Tabulator
> 	Treasure Harfer
> 	Trinket Harfer
> 	Undead Harfer
> 	Web Harfer
> 	Assistant Web Harfer

<SNIP>

Do you seriously think that these are worth the same amount? I find it
quite amusing that were this to pass I would receive twenty points on
harfer day for doing practically nothing (I'm the treasure harfer with a
still-not-up-to-date-treasure-page and assistant web harfer in charge of
the-gallery-refusing-to-show-Antimatter's-portrait (could anyone who knows
more HTML than me try to explain why this is the case)). I think I quite
like the idea in principal but think some of these points totals are wonky.
I'd suggest leaving it at ten points for the more difficult positions (e.g.
web harfer, scorekeeper, etc. and reducing it for the others. Also, why
have you chosen these offices only? What about the ambassador, illuminatus,
and most of all the speaker.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 14:33:39 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2640

> Proposal 2640
> Godwin Austen
> Alfvaen (Aaron Humphrey)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> Amend Rule 251, "Player Names", by changing "three to twenty characters
> in length" to "two to twenty characters in length".
> 
> {{ Reduce Alfvaen's score by four points; increase K 2's score by four
> points. [Since I can't claim any credit for the idea, but I myself would
> prefer to type "K2" instead of "K 2"...]}}

Will K 2 be allowed to change eir name to K2 if this passes? Isn't there a
rule saying that no entity is allowed to have the same primitive form as a
player's former name? Would this include the name of a player attempting to
change his name  to something with the same primitive form as eir previous
name? I think it probably would prevent the name change but I'm not sure.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 13:15:39 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2641

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2641
> A humble token of our appreciation
> else...if (Henry Towsner)
> 

> 
> If any player attempts an action on harfer day which would cause work for
> any of these positions (including, but not limited to, voting, making a
> proposal, finding/burying a treasure, making a trinket, etc. etc., but
> expressly not including sending a public message which does not perform an
> action or the act of paying the standard harfer fee) then that player must
> pay the standard harfer fee, and will be considered horribly impolite for
> the next week.  All players are encouraged to sneer at a player who does
> this.

This last bit doesn't really seem fair.  After all, if the President makes
his speech at 6pm, a lot of people who made trinkets or whatever before
the speech are still going to be penalized.  I like the basic concept but
why not just dump the penalties.  Heck, harfing the penalties will
probably create a ton of work as it is.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 19:06:30 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2635

> > > Proposal 2635
> > > Le Grand Dalmuti
> > > Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain)

> > No. No way. Absolutely not. Keeping track of players going below -60 was
> > bad enough, but doable since few players ever had a score that low.  Way
> > back when, the gnome buddy was almost impossible to keep track of whenever
> > there was any competition for the low score. This is another gnome.
> > Kill it now.

> Ummm, /dev/joe, shouldn't we wait for the opinion of the current
> Scorekeeper on this?  After all, if e likes it, why not?
> Personally I think that scoring is due for a bit of a fun shake-up.
> There's nothing wrong with trialling a system like this provided that the
> Scorekeeper is not against it.

I confess to having voted YES for it despite my not having fully understood
how it works.  Also, I've got the highest score at the moment, so whatever
it is will probably happen to me first.  :-)

If it gets too complicated, though, I might have to get rid of some of my
other Offices.  (I'm already planning on resigning as President sometime soon,
and will probably also put up Trinket-Harfer up for grabs; still not sure
about Financier, Undead-Harfer, and Web-Harfer, though.  If anyone has a
hankering to do these, let me know.)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Pete Townshend:Face The Face
Current Book--Tanith Lee:Dark Dance
I put this moment here.

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #235
***********************************