Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #17
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Sunday, February 15 1998     Volume 03 : Number 017

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

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 18:43:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2716

> Proposal 2716
> La grande fromage

> {{[Just out of interest, does anyone know if I've got the gender of fromage
> right in the proposal's title?]}}

I think it's Le Grand Fromage, although someone (like CnH) has 
prolly already correctly answered the question.

> Create a new rule with the following CAMEMBERT delimited text:

[...]

I think the idea is cool, but the implementation and details
need some more thought.  The idea I was thinking of had the same
structure, except the cheeses would be unique, and the conditions
would remain unspecified.  (see prev comments by me about the
'mithril grapefruit' a while back).  Perhaps some blending of
ideas is possible.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 18:53:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2708 rejected

On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Results of Proposal 2708
> 
> 14/25 votes: Quorum achieved
> 8/15 YES votes: Proposal rejected

Can I just say that no-one raised any objections when I RFCd this.
That's the whole _point_ of an RFC.  Please actually _object_ - it looks a
mite vindictive otherwise.
>     NO:
> Malenkai             (Vulcan)
> The Gingham Wearer   (Klingon)
> ThinMan              (Vulcan)
> K 2
> Vynd                 (Vulcan)
> Niccolo Flychuck     (MetaMorph)
> Tammany                                 [K 2 bribed Tammany A$26]
> 
> > Proposal 2708 - Sun 08 Feb 1998 14:17 EST
> > Newspaper Mama
> > Slakko (Duncan Richer)

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 18:57:54 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2708 rejected

> Can I just say that no-one raised any objections when I RFCd this.
> That's the whole _point_ of an RFC.  Please actually _object_ - it
looks a
> mite vindictive otherwise.

I'm sorry if it seems that way. I didn't comment because I just didn't
really like the idea. There was nothing wrong with the implementation or
anything. If I had have commented it would just have been to say, "No, I
don't like this", which seems a bit pointless to me. If you would prefer
it if I did then I shall try to do so on any of your RFCs in the future.

TGW.

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

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 19:07:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2708 rejected

On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> > Can I just say that no-one raised any objections when I RFCd this.
> > That's the whole _point_ of an RFC.  Please actually _object_ - it
> looks a
> > mite vindictive otherwise.
> 
> I'm sorry if it seems that way. I didn't comment because I just didn't
> really like the idea. There was nothing wrong with the implementation or
> anything. If I had have commented it would just have been to say, "No, I
> don't like this", which seems a bit pointless to me. If you would prefer
> it if I did then I shall try to do so on any of your RFCs in the future.

Well, actually, that is sometimes the comment that needs to be made.  If
there is no kind of comment from anyone claiming that the idea shouldn't
happen, then it seems reasonable to suppose it will be proposed.  So why
not do something about it?

Besides, as far as I could see the proposal didn't really do anything to
discriminate against non-Newspaper owning people - because for A$25 you
can start your own newspaper.  I thought it would become a survival of the
fittest, as people who write "good" Newspapers receive money for it, and
so keep doing it, while those who don't have the time to devote to it, or
the quality of articles, stop doing it.

Currently owning a Newspaper is owning a money pit.  It does nothing for
you, and if you don't do something every month it folds.  And, once it has
folded, you can simply switch to Samizdat production and save yourself a
bundle.  There must be some reason for having official newspapers, other
than just to be official and not underground.

K 2's actions seem particularly pointless.  Why spend A$25 or more to get
Tammany to vote against, when by voting for you can then spend the A$25
on a Newspaper which _makes_you_money_.

Just my opinions,

Yours,
Slakko
Paranoid President a la Gumball
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 19:19:07 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2708 rejected

> Well, actually, that is sometimes the comment that needs to be made. 
If
> there is no kind of comment from anyone claiming that the idea
shouldn't
> happen, then it seems reasonable to suppose it will be proposed.  So
why
> not do something about it?

I personally see RFCs as a useful way to get bugs out of proposals. If
there is nothing wrong with its implementation then it may as well be
proposed and have the populace of Acka able to decide on it. This is
probably down to my own disregard for points than anything else though; I
don't really care if my proposal gets rejected or not proposed. Either
way, it never becomes part of the rules.

> Besides, as far as I could see the proposal didn't really do anything
to
> discriminate against non-Newspaper owning people - because for A$25 you
> can start your own newspaper.  I thought it would become a survival of
the
> fittest, as people who write "good" Newspapers receive money for it,
and
> so keep doing it, while those who don't have the time to devote to it,
or
> the quality of articles, stop doing it.

As I said, I just didn't particularly like the idea. One reason could be
that I don't like rules where a player has to declare eir allegiance to
another, since this is effectively saying e doesn't like the other
papers.

> Currently owning a Newspaper is owning a money pit.  It does nothing
for
> you, and if you don't do something every month it folds.  And, once it
has
> folded, you can simply switch to Samizdat production and save yourself
a
> bundle.  There must be some reason for having official newspapers,
other
> than just to be official and not underground.

How's this for a brief idea. All newspaper owning players receive a
certain amount of money when officer salaries are paid. If a player
believes a newspaper is only existing to exploit this rule then e can
call a hearing which could destroy the newspaper (this should be reserved
to a paper which is published once a month with only one article reading,
"someone did some sort of public action today"). I'm not overly sure if I
like this or not, but feel free to develop it if you want. It at least
seems less objectionable to me than your last one.

> K 2's actions seem particularly pointless.  Why spend A$25 or more to
get
> Tammany to vote against, when by voting for you can then spend the A$25
> on a Newspaper which _makes_you_money_.

Surely that's up to K 2.

TGW.

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

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 19:19:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2708 rejected

>I'm sorry if it seems that way. I didn't comment because I just didn't
>really like the idea. There was nothing wrong with the implementation or
>anything. If I had have commented it would just have been to say, "No, I
>don't like this", which seems a bit pointless to me. If you would prefer
>it if I did then I shall try to do so on any of your RFCs in the future.
	I can't speak for Slakko, but I would personally like to know if
people dislike my RFC's, and if possible, what parts they like, or that I
could change to improve it.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 19:27:05 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Token proposal.

Would anyone who voted against this like to make any suggestions, or
does it just not make anyone happy?  *I* thought it was a good idea :)

- ------------------
Aaron Keesler
Lotus Notes Administrator
Intranet Administrator
Adtran, Inc.
- ------------------

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

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 20:10:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2716

>> > Sorry, no. But a really harfy proposal like that has to be enjoyed no
>> > matter what!
>
>> Does this count as an official designation of harfiness by CnH, our
>> current harfmeister? 
>
>Since there are three Harfy proposals right now, that would be illegal,
>so since it is ambiguous it is best to construe it otherwise.

It unfortunately was not. I should have kept a "free" designation... But
they were also worthy. Well, if the first one does not pass, then I'll make
this one Harfy.  : )

CnH

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

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 20:10:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2721

>
>{{All players who have won an infinite number of times in any other nomic
>gain one cycle win.

What a coincidence, I've just founded a nomic 5 seconds ago, I was the only
player and by the first rule I won an infinite number of times! Wow, I'm
going to win a cycle in Acka.   ; )

Ah... no...

CnH

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #17
**********************************