Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #29
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Friday, February 27 1998     Volume 03 : Number 029

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 01:49:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2730 rejected

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > Proposal 2730 - Thu 19 Feb 1998 13:42 EST
> > No CSR's Gonna Pull The Rug Out from Under This One
> > Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> > 
> > This is a Modest Proposal.
> > 
> > Amend Section 3 of Rule 1044 by relabelling subsection e as d, and
> > inserting the following text immediately after subsection c:
> > 
> > "d. A player may convert 10 Swingpoints into 1 Benefyt. Benefyts are
> > tradeable entities."
> > 
> > Amend subsection e of Section 3 of Rule 1044 by replacing all instances of
> > "(c)" with "(d)".

Congratulations people!   We now have each swinger with 3 benefyts each,
and NO WAY to get any more!

Why did people vote against this?

- -- 
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" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 02:05:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2732 rejected

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

Results of Proposal 2732
> 
> 18/25 votes: Quorum achieved
> 9/18 YES votes: Proposal rejected
> 
> > Proposal 2732 - Thu 19 Feb 1998 13:45 EST
> > Otzma for the Greedy
> > Illusion (Andrew Stefanski)

Unless people went to the trouble of emailing Illusion, this is simply not
fair.  E came up with the IRC, and I saw absolutely no-one on the group
complain about the "Gimme now!" Otzma Card.

When are people actually going to put critical responses to RFCs on the
group?  If that kind of criticism isn't around, then the reasons for
organising RFCs are fewer than I thought. (They'd only be good for the big
fix, we must have agreement first proposals).

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" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 02:23:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2750

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> 
Proposal 2750
> The Slakko Effect
> Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)
> 
> {{[ Admittedly, the name's a bit premature, but it could easily become
> appropriate soon. ]}}
> 
> Add the follwing text to the end of Rule 600.
> 
> If Cycle-Win CFJ A, which alleges that Player A has won a cycle, was
> distributed at least 14 days before Cycle-Win CFJ B, which alleges that
> Player B has won a cycle, yet Cycle-Win CFJ B becomes unappealable (with a
> final verdict of TRUE) before Cycle-Win CFJ A becomes unappealable (also
> with a final verdict of TRUE), then Player A has fallen victim to the
> Slakko Effect.

Interesting.  My CFJs were to confirm a win which took place before the
Cycle-Win CFJ rule came into being, so if mine is upheld, regardless of
any Cycle-Win CFJ which comes through, I won on January the 28th (or so).

- -- 
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" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 05:30:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2748

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> Party Chess may need a mechanism for the Swingers to adjust the value ofa
> piece whose capabilities were misjudged when it was first proposed without
> going through the whole proposal rigmarole for what is essentially
> fine-tuning the balance of Party Chess.  How would you feel about treating
> the Swingers collectively as a Rule-sanctioned organization, and then
> giving that organization the power to, as an organizational action, change
> the Material Values of Party Chess pieces as stated in the Rules?

The Swingers are already members of a Unique Organization ( which is
rule-sanctioned) called Party-Hall.

Since you brought it up - how about giving  Party-Hall a vote in proposals
that attempt to directly amend, create or repeal rules in the PartyChess
Rule Suite?

Either a Unity vote, or some internal super-majority perhaps?

Niccolo Flychuck
 > 
> > BTW, Guy, would you like to be the NAP Swinger?  There seems to be an
> > opening for one. :-)
> 
> I have submitted my nomination, as should become clear when the nomination
> period is over.  (Or do we still do nominations for Political Office that
> way?)
> 
> GF
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of acka-research-digest V3 #28
> **********************************
> 

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 08:50:40 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2732 rejected

> Unless people went to the trouble of emailing Illusion, this is simply
not
> fair.  E came up with the IRC, and I saw absolutely no-one on the group
> complain about the "Gimme now!" Otzma Card.
> 
> When are people actually going to put critical responses to RFCs on the
> group?  If that kind of criticism isn't around, then the reasons for
> organising RFCs are fewer than I thought. (They'd only be good for the
big
> fix, we must have agreement first proposals).
> 

I apologize for not putting up my complaints with this proposal, I have
been rather pressed for time.  I have not even had time to _vote_ on
several of the last proposals!  In any case, belatedly, I think the "Gimme"
Otzma Card is too powerful and will really mess things up when the auctions
come around.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 09:45:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Retractions

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
> 
> >  There is a "fewer" in the rule on retractions that should be a "less".
> 
> The only instance of fewer in rule 330 is used correctly.
> 

 No.  It reads:

No player who has been a member of Ackanomic for fewer than three weeks
shall lose any points as a result of this rule. This paragraph takes
precedence over the rest of this rule.

 A week is a continuous entity, so the word "less" is appropriate here.

 Wild Card.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:06:06 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Andrew Stefanski)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2732 rejected

> Results of Proposal 2732
> > 
> > 18/25 votes: Quorum achieved
> > 9/18 YES votes: Proposal rejected
> > 
> > > Proposal 2732 - Thu 19 Feb 1998 13:45 EST
> > > Otzma for the Greedy
> > > Illusion (Andrew Stefanski)
> 
> Unless people went to the trouble of emailing Illusion, this is simply not
> fair.  E came up with the IRC, and I saw absolutely no-one on the group
> complain about the "Gimme now!" Otzma Card.

	I never saw one complaint about my proposal.  Of course, I only saw two 
comments in general....

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 12:43:56 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposals 2730-32

I think I voted on all of these, earlier in the day the results were
announced. This may actually make a difference to the results of 2730.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 12:51:14 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Literature

> I'm considering adding to the literature list. The only thing is there
> are quite a few artists/works I want to add and I don't want it voting
> down because people disapprove of just one or two. So if you disapprove
> of any of these, could you please tell me so I can consider taking them
> off.

> Artist: Queen; the rock band
> Artist: Bob Dylan
> Work: Star Trek; the four TV shows and eight [is this right? Someone
> please say if it isn't] films.
> Work: Red Dwarf; the seven TV series and four novels.
> Artist: David Eddings
> Artist: Dire Straits
> Work: Casablanca
> Artist: Karl Marx
> Work: Blackadder; all four series
> Artist: Isaac Asimov
> Artist: REM
> Artist: Iain Banks; writing either as that or Iain M. Banks.

Looks good to me.  Although I've only read _The Wasp Factory_ for Banks.
And I'm not David Eddings' biggest fan, although since Beldin's Pants
are already here we might as well bring in the rest of them.

On a more practical note, who plans to use any of these for their
Proposals?  I keep meaning to try to come up with more Proposals that
are purely there to use some Literature, but never manage it.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Talking Heads:True Stories
Current Book--Katie Waitman:The Merro Tree
This is where international orange begins forever.  --billbill

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 12:51:18 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2732 rejected

> Unless people went to the trouble of emailing Illusion, this is simply not
> fair.  E came up with the IRC, and I saw absolutely no-one on the group
> complain about the "Gimme now!" Otzma Card.

> When are people actually going to put critical responses to RFCs on the
> group?  If that kind of criticism isn't around, then the reasons for
> organising RFCs are fewer than I thought. (They'd only be good for the big
> fix, we must have agreement first proposals).

Why don't we just consider RFC's to be like Proposal submissions, except
that they're actually public-vote Hearings?

When I put up an RFC, I don't necessarily expect that everybody who says
nothing about the idea will vote for it.  I think that is an unreasonable
assumption.  I look more for "Shouldn't you amend Rule X to fit with
this?"  One person objecting to an RFC would not cause me not to submit
it as a Proposal(unless it was, say, from an Officer whose duties it
would affect).  And if every person who is lukewarm to an idea posted this
on acka-research, that would be a waste of bandwidth IMHO.

RFC's are for getting the details right, especially for newer players who
don't know how things are usually done(trying to reinvent the Hearing, or
dump the work on some poor innocent Officer).  And, as you say, for big
rule fixes.  Otherwise, why not let the Proposal stand or fall on its own
merits instead of complaining(even if on another's behalf)that nobody
_said_ they didn't like it?

Asking why people didn't vote for a Proposal is perfectly valid, but
asking why they did so when not objecting to the RFC is less so.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Talking Heads:True Stories
Current Book--Katie Waitman:The Merro Tree
Every colour that's not black is a shade of off-white.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 12:53:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposals 2730-32

> I think I voted on all of these, earlier in the day the results were
> announced. This may actually make a difference to the results of 2730.
> 
> TGW.

You did in fact attempt to vote, but your submissions were sent about
an hour after the voting period had expired.

breadbox
Tabulator

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 12:56:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2732 rejected

On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> When I put up an RFC, I don't necessarily expect that everybody who says
> nothing about the idea will vote for it.  I think that is an unreasonable
> assumption.  I look more for "Shouldn't you amend Rule X to fit with
> this?"  One person objecting to an RFC would not cause me not to submit
> it as a Proposal(unless it was, say, from an Officer whose duties it
> would affect).  And if every person who is lukewarm to an idea posted this
> on acka-research, that would be a waste of bandwidth IMHO.

Well, you're right in that it would be a waste of bandwidth for everyone
who doesn't like it to object to it.  However, if _no_one_ objects to it,
that seems to be a signal that there's no-one who has a problem with it.
How else are people meant to interpret lack of criticism?

I would suggest the following bandwidth-conserving strategy.

If there is an RFC you don't like, but can't put your finger on where the
problem is, and no-one complains about it for 3 days or so after it is
sent, then you should at least register your objections so that the
submitter doesn't think that everyone is on board.

> Asking why people didn't vote for a Proposal is perfectly valid, but
> asking why they did so when not objecting to the RFC is less so.

Funny, I seem to remember something about people saying it was actually
more valid.  Am I right that I heard this once in discussion about why
people RFC, or did I just mis-remember?

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" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:08:08 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Literature

> On a more practical note, who plans to use any of these for their
> Proposals?  I keep meaning to try to come up with more Proposals that
> are purely there to use some Literature, but never manage it.

I have had a few ideas about bits of literature that could be worked into
proposals but have never got round to doing them. One of my problems is
that I'm not really familiar with most of the stuff on the literature
list (I've never even heard anything by TMBG, and hadn't even *heard* of
them before I joined Acka) and that's why I've suggested these. Not that
I'm familiar with all of these mind, namely Karl Marx and Casablanca
(which I haven't even seen but do know a few quotes from).

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:16:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2732 rejected

On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Well, you're right in that it would be a waste of bandwidth for everyone
> who doesn't like it to object to it.  However, if _no_one_ objects to it,
> that seems to be a signal that there's no-one who has a problem with it.
> How else are people meant to interpret lack of criticism?

Since often RFC's which were not criticized are voted down anyway, I would
say that the idea that lack of criticism should be interpreted to mean
that no one has a problem with the idea is a bad interpretation, since it
is not borne out in practice.

I would suggest that lack of criticism on an RFC be interpreted to mean
that if the RFC is submitted as a proposal, it is unlikely that there
will be a no-holds barred, Tammany bribing, Bonus Vote using, Amber Banana
eating, buying-off-everyone-you-can campaign organized to defeat the
proposal.  I believe this interpretation is supported by empirical
evidence.

I _did_ vote for the Gimme Card, but I still uphold the right of everyone
who voted against it to do so.

When I see an RFC that interests me, I might suggest ways to make the idea
better.  If I believe the idea is just plain irredeemable, I do not make
such suggestions.  Likewise, when people comment on my RFC's, I interpret
them as suggested improvements.  I generally interpret the lack of comment
as a sign that there is no one around who likes my idea enough to make it
better.

GF

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:57:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Retractions

On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:

> No player who has been a member of Ackanomic for fewer than three weeks
> shall lose any points as a result of this rule. This paragraph takes
> precedence over the rest of this rule.
> 
>  A week is a continuous entity, so the word "less" is appropriate here.

I agree that because a week is continuous, if it had referred to a single
week, "less than a week" would be appropriate.  But since weeks are also
countable, it's perfectly valid to refer to a specific number of weeks, in
which case "fewer" is the appropriate word as I see it (which is why I
proposed it that way.)  If a player has been a member of Ackanomic for a
number of entire weeks which is less than three, e falls into this
category.  

(Alternately, you could just create an organization called "Ackanomic for
fewer than three weeks," with yourself as a member, and get yourself
convicted.  :-))

- -Hubert

If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat? 

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 15:07:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2726 accepted

On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> Actually, I wonder about the literature thing, at least for the Van
> Morrison bit, because of Rule 205.  I suppose that changing the Literature
> List is not really a "Rule Change" for the purposes of Section 5), but
> maybe it should be.  Actually, some of that language could be cleaned

Rule 210 explicitly states that "The Literature list is not a Rule, nor
part of a Rule."  Maybe it should be, but I don't see why players
shouldn't be able to put an artist on the LL that they're going to be
quoting in the same proposal.  It might give the proposal a better chance
of being shot down if people simply don't want the artist or work on the
LL, but that, I guess, is the submitting player's decision.  [ Note that I
didn't try to place "Work: Deliverance" on the list in the first ASS RFC
for exactly that reason.  I do have *some* taste. :-]

> up, because it seems to prohibit scoring for "rule changes", rather
> than Proposals.  (Are there any other ways to change rules that allow
> one to score points?)

Beldin's Pants, I suppose... or the Games & Contests rule, since you can
score points as a result of a game.

- -Hubert

If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat? 

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 15:29:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Game: Word un-association (Start)

On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> are /dev/joe, Slakko and Hubert (oh, sod the treasure, I know I'll say it
> by accident eventually). 

Another one bites the dust.  :-)

Speaking of which, I will vote for your Literature additions if you
propose them.  Just to get it out in the open so I don't get my head
bitten off.

- -Hubert

If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat? 

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:03:43 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Re: Retractions

>  No.  It reads:

> No player who has been a member of Ackanomic for fewer than three weeks
> shall lose any points as a result of this rule. This paragraph takes
> precedence over the rest of this rule.

>  A week is a continuous entity, so the word "less" is appropriate here.

I think that we can probably read it as "less", and consider two weeks,
two weeks and six days, and two weeks, six days, twenty-three hours,
fifty-nine minutes, and fifty-five seconds all to be fewer than three
weeks.

But perhaps the CSRR could consider the change...

By the way, Wild Card, try to remember to put "Acka:" in your subject
lines.  It helps many people, and gives you less change of being
declared Postal.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--George Michael:Older
Current Book--Katie Waitman:The Merro Tree
'Outstay' is 'stout' in Pig Latin.  It's a brand of beer made for pigs.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:35:50 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposals 2730-32

> > I think I voted on all of these, earlier in the day the results were
> > announced. This may actually make a difference to the results of
2730.
> 
> You did in fact attempt to vote, but your submissions were sent about
> an hour after the voting period had expired.

Absolutely typical. I'm making quite a habit of doing things just after
the deadline. If any of these are resubmitted I'll almost certainly vote
for them. And as I said, I think 1 vote would make a difference to 2730
(but don't take my word for it; check).

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 18:27:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Retractions

On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, the one whose name under geis I not to mention am wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
> 
> > No player who has been a member of Ackanomic for fewer than three weeks
> > shall lose any points as a result of this rule. This paragraph takes
> > precedence over the rest of this rule.
> > 
> >  A week is a continuous entity, so the word "less" is appropriate here.
> 
> (Alternately, you could just create an organization called "Ackanomic for
> fewer than three weeks," with yourself as a member, and get yourself
> convicted.  :-))
> 
 Malenkai's loophole?

 Wild Card.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #29
**********************************