Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #27
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest   Wednesday, February 25 1998   Volume 03 : Number 027

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

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 02:13:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Towsner wrote:

> #submit proposal Greenspan Lives

Go straight to nomicbot.  Do not pass go, do not collect 200 Treasury
Bonds.  This one's fit for the proposal queue.

Good work else...if!

Oh - one spelling fix - it is "reciprocal".

- -- 
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: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 04:03:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appellate Reform

On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> 
> >Perhaps if the judges asked the
> > opinions of other players, it would be more fun and go faster.
> 
> I somehow doubt that asking the opinions of some other players would have
> the effect of speeding up deliberation.  The difference in speed between
> one player and two players is significant - do we really want to slow it
> down further with 4 or 5 opinions?
>
Sounds like an Ad-Hoc Committee :)

NF

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

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 14:42:39 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2724 accepted

> Results of Proposal 2724
> 15/25 votes: Quorum achieved
> 11/14 YES votes: Proposal accepted

>     ABSTAINED:
> /dev/joe             (Vulcan)

I voted on this proposal Sunday.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:14:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2725 accepted

Oh, hell. Why do I even notice these things?

> Proposal 2725 - Tue 17 Feb 1998 04:01 EST
> Were Did all those Weapons and People Come From?
> Malenkai (Randy Hall)
> 
> [...]
> 
> Amend rule 1250.18, "Ye Olde Rusty Lantern" to replace:
> 
> "
> it is a non sequitur from the previous bit of the story,
> "
> 
> with:
> 
> "
> it is a non sequitur from the previous bit of the story, it is (or contains
> details) that are inconsistent with previous parts of the story,
> "

The first string quoted above does not appear in Rule 1250.18. A
string very much like it does -- one with the comma replaced by a
semicolon. I think this means the proposal's effect fails, but I'm
trolling for arguments to the contrary.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:24:51 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2743

> Create a new Rule, titled "Acka-Dot Trade Organisation.", which reads as
> follows:
> 
>  {{This rule is a member of the Transnomicial Trade Pacts Rule Suite if
> such exists.))

Not only did this proposal end up before the other one, so Trade Pacts
will not exist by the time this one is created, but you also inadvertently
used )) instead of }} to close off this section, resulting in the entire
rule being enclosed in {{ }}.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 17:37:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2725 accepted

>The first string quoted above does not appear in Rule 1250.18. A
>string very much like it does -- one with the comma replaced by a
>semicolon. I think this means the proposal's effect fails, but I'm
>trolling for arguments to the contrary.
	I'd say it's an unambiguous spelling error.  There's no question
that he means that sentence, so it can be safely ignored.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 17:42:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2725 accepted

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Towsner wrote:

> >The first string quoted above does not appear in Rule 1250.18. A
> >string very much like it does -- one with the comma replaced by a
> >semicolon. I think this means the proposal's effect fails, but I'm
> >trolling for arguments to the contrary.
> 	I'd say it's an unambiguous spelling error.  There's no question
> that he means that sentence, so it can be safely ignored.

Just because it is an unambiguous spelling error, does that mean we can
ignore it?  I don't think so.

Rule 340 refers to "the meaning of a word which is unambiguously
misspelled".  It says nothing about erroneous punctuation.

I think this means we have to interpret it as a Null Proposal.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
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: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 19:20:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2725 accepted

>> The first string quoted above does not appear in Rule 1250.18. A
>> string very much like it does -- one with the comma replaced by a
>> semicolon. I think this means the proposal's effect fails, but I'm
>> trolling for arguments to the contrary.
> 	I'd say it's an unambiguous spelling error.  There's no question
> that he means that sentence, so it can be safely ignored.

But can we call this a "spelling error"? I dunno.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 19:45:51 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Trinket Creation.

> > E couldn't put it in the fuel input end, because it wasn't aimed at an
> > unsheltered player.  So it should still be in Alfvaen's possession.

> This is true iff that Laser had never been aimed at any player since its
> creation.  Otherwise it would still be aimed at the last player.  Veal Fan
> [note correct spelling]'s attempt to re-aim it failed, not eir attempt to
> fuel it.  Not having been a member of Ackanomic long enough, I don't know
> who, if anyone, that laser was previously pointing at.  The task of
> determining so would probably fall to... (drumroll, please) the Speaker.

I think that it was actually already aimed at Slakko from Malenkai's
farewell Hosing.  So I didn't actually have to re-aim it, and if I did,
then while it failed it was still aimed at Slakko.  So my attempt to
place a trinket in the input end failed, and I still have that trinket.

- --
- --Veal Fan(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Firesign Theatre:Everything You Know Is Wrong!
Current Book--Katie Waitman:The Merro Tree
The mirrors would do well to reflect further.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 22:12:15 -0500 (EST)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2725 accepted

> The first string quoted above does not appear in Rule 1250.18. A
> string very much like it does -- one with the comma replaced by a
> semicolon. I think this means the proposal's effect fails, but I'm
> trolling for arguments to the contrary.
>
> breadbox

A spelling error?

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

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 22:12:20 -0500 (EST)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Trinket Creation.

> This is true iff that Laser had never been aimed at any player since its
> creation.  Otherwise it would still be aimed at the last player.  Veal Fan
> [note correct spelling]'s attempt to re-aim it failed, not eir attempt to
> fuel it.  Not having been a member of Ackanomic long enough, I don't know
> who, if anyone, that laser was previously pointing at.  The task of
> determining so would probably fall to... (drumroll, please) the Speaker.
>

I beleive Malenkai aimed it at Slakko just before e left (or didn't). It was
succesful at that time....

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

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 22:42:51 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2742

> Proposal 2742
> Otzma Fix.
> Wild Card (Jonathan David Amery)

> This is a Grandiose Proposal.

First of all, this is probably likely to make people vote against it.
Maybe people don't always notice whether a Proposal is Modest or not,
but Grandiosity tends to get noticed.  :-)

> Amend rule 1240.1 ["Definition of Otzma Cards"] buy adding the following
> FIX-delimited text between the string "purposes of R516" and the string
> "IV. Otzma Card Types."

> FIX
> h. During the Otzma day in which they are created and also during the
> Auction mentioned above in part g. each Otzma card is considered to be on
> display in the Museum and is considered not to be in the Treasury for any
> purpose.
> FIX

Secondly, I don't think that the above is really a good solution.  I have
a Proposal(which, due to the frobness of the Proposal queue, I don't think
I've submitted yet)which will fix the solution more generally.  (For any
item which is unowned and being auctioned...)

- --
- --Veal Fan(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Les Rita Mitsouko:The No Comprendo
Current Book--Katie Waitman:The Merro Tree
Arguments with furniture are rarely productive.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 22:42:54 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2746

> Proposal 2746
> hello, andy johnson
> rufus (David Scheidt)

> Move the last sentance of section (vi) of Rule 404, "Offices, Impeachment"
> to the end of section (iv).  {{ [Currently, if a Capitol officeholder is
> Impeached, he loses his office either way!]}} 

Actually, I just checked into this the other day, and that sentence was
supposed to have been added to section (v) instead of (vi) by Malenkai's
Capital Offices proposal months ago.  So this will move an entirely
different sentence there...

> Append the following "-delimited text to section (vi) of Rule 404,
> 'Offices, Impeachment'.  "  If the IP is rejected because fewer than1/2 of
> all active players voted in the IP, those players who did not vote in the
> IP receive a Puppet Head, should such an entity be defined elsewhere in
> the rules."

I oppose this.  I don't think there's really a reason to penalize
people with Puppet Heads(which may make them non-voting, or else make
them waste bandwidth)just for not voting in an IP.  I mean, what next?
Witchhunts?

If people are concerned that the higher number of players make it too
hard to impeach someone, then perhaps the quorum should be 10 players
or 1/2 of the total players.  The idea is just not to impeach someone
on one vote...but to penalize someone for not voting at all(is there
a PRESENT vote for IPs?)seems wrongheaded.

- --
- --Veal Fan(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Les Rita Mitsouko:The No Comprendo
Current Book--Katie Waitman:The Merro Tree
Where the world goes by like a human hair

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

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 23:15:39 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2746

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> Actually, I just checked into this the other day, and that sentence was
> supposed to have been added to section (v) instead of (vi) by Malenkai's
> Capital Offices proposal months ago.  So this will move an entirely
> different sentence there...
D'oh!  Hey, Mr. Rule-Harfer, is the web page wrong?  

> I oppose this.  I don't think there's really a reason to penalize
> people with Puppet Heads(which may make them non-voting, or else make
> them waste bandwidth)just for not voting in an IP.  I mean, what next?
> Witchhunts?

Burning people for not voting in an IP seems a bit extreme.

> 
> If people are concerned that the higher number of players make it too
> hard to impeach someone, then perhaps the quorum should be 10 players
> or 1/2 of the total players.  The idea is just not to impeach someone
> on one vote...but to penalize someone for not voting at all(is there
> a PRESENT vote for IPs?)seems wrongheaded.

I think that participation in IPs is as important as voting in proposals.
One of the things that this proposal would have done is add a Present
vote.  (Which, as I didn't change the acceptance criteria to reflect this,
is indistinguishable from no.  D'oh again.)

I retract this proposal, due to the silly mistakes.  I still think this
needs fixing, and will submit a corrected proposal, unless there is stron
objection.  

I create a trinket called the D'oh!  It is a big green inflatible hammer,
perfect knocking one's self over the head with.  It has the value of
A$10.

I knock myself over the head with the D'oh!

rufus

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #27
**********************************