Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #33
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Tuesday, March 3 1998      Volume 03 : Number 033

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 04:51:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2758

Looks like I"m gonna have to resubmit 2758 anyway, due to the bug Slakko
unearthed. So I'd appreciate people letting me know which version of
handling small Orgs they prefer. 
I prefer doing away with the entirely, but as I wrote before, I'm willing
to compromise on neutering them.
Other comments are also appreciated.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Towsner wrote:

> >but many of them didn't (shell#1-shell#n among others)
> 
> 	Only shell#10 will get broken up.  The others have 3 members
> apiece.  Besides, I'll get $1050 if shell#10 is destroyed.  Another A$25 is
> no big deal.
> 
> - --
> - -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran
> 
> 	<[email-masked]>
> 
> 	Success is the child of audacity.
> 		-Benjamin Disraeli
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 12:49:10 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Reduced anti voting

You probably remember how around about the time of Malenkai's first
leaving the game I was campaigning for the elimination of anti voting.
This got resoundingly shot down, as did a proposal to eliminate anti
voting on modest proposals. I've just had another idea along similar
lines: what if we create a new "size" of proposal and not have anti
voting on that? We could call it something like minuscule proposals, or
tiny proposals, and have them only score one or two points for the author
(plus or minus depending on whether or not it passes) and don't have any
anti voting on it.

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 12:57:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Reduced anti voting

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> You probably remember how around about the time of Malenkai's first
> leaving the game I was campaigning for the elimination of anti voting.
> This got resoundingly shot down, as did a proposal to eliminate anti
> voting on modest proposals. I've just had another idea along similar
> lines: what if we create a new "size" of proposal and not have anti
> voting on that? We could call it something like minuscule proposals, or
> tiny proposals, and have them only score one or two points for the author
> (plus or minus depending on whether or not it passes) and don't have any
> anti voting on it.

IMHO, four classes of proposals is too much.
Perhaps we should abolish Grandiose at the same time, and rebase it as
follows:

Standard:  +12/-8, +3 anti
Modest:    +6/-4, +1 anti
Pointless: +3/-2, 0 anti.

Interestingly, this would bring the net penalty for a new player failure
to -2 regardless of the type of proposal.  Under this suggestion, standard
and modest increase _slightly_, but their anti-voting situation does not
change.  The penalty for failure of a Standard increases as well under
this, while that for a modest actually falls (to encourage modesty).

Comments?

- -- 
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: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 13:11:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Reduced anti voting

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> IMHO, four classes of proposals is too much.
> Perhaps we should abolish Grandiose at the same time, and rebase it as
> follows:
> 
> Standard:  +12/-8, +3 anti
> Modest:    +6/-4, +1 anti
> Pointless: +3/-2, 0 anti.

I've just thought.  This gives us a chance to _completely_ overhaul the
points for proposals system to include harfy, foolish and all that into
the system.  It would look a bit bizarre at first, but it simplifies all
the treatment of different rules into a coherent concept. 

Here we go:

The labels Modest and Grandiose are abolished.
Instead, we have proposal Category Numbers:

Category 0: +0/-0, 0 anti.
Category 1: (equiv to Tiny): +3/-2, 0 anti.
Category 2: 6/-4/1
Category 3: 12/-8/3
Category 4: 18/-12/5
Category 5: 24/-16/7

and so on so that if n > 5, 
Category n: 6(n-1)/-4(n-1)/2n-3
for acceptance/rejection/anti-voting.

Default category for a proposal is category 3.
A player may nominate their proposal to be in a category below 3 in the
same way as they currently denote modesty, i.e.

This is a Category 2 Proposal.

If a proposal is foolish, it is considered one category higher.
A harfy proposal accepted is treated as one category higher.
A Great Work is treated as 3 categories higher if accepted.
A Literary Work is treated as 1 category higher if it contains at least 3
distinct pieces of Literature if accepted.
A proposal containing the "cows eat grass" phrase is treated as one
category higher if accepted.

A proposal made Boring falls 3 categories, down to a minimum of 0.

So examples of combinations:

Standard foolish harfy accepted: Category 5 (+24)
Modest Literature accepted: Category 3 (+12)
Modest Foolish rejected: Category 3 (-8)
Standard foolish harfy 3-word-phrase Great-Work accepted: Category 9 (+48)

Suggestions?
- -- 
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: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 15:19:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Reduced anti voting

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> I've just thought.  This gives us a chance to _completely_ overhaul the
> points for proposals system to include harfy, foolish and all that into
> the system.  It would look a bit bizarre at first, but it simplifies all
> the treatment of different rules into a coherent concept. 

I raised this idea last fall, and it received almost no support.  My idea
was to enclose all proposal-based scoring into a single principle -- you
decide how much you think your proposal is worth (perhaps from 0 - 20
points) and then all other proposal based scoring (rejection penalties,
anti-voting, etc.) is based on fractions of your bet.

I really liked that idea -- it replaced all the clunky equipment of
bonuses we'd added over the months with a single, simple principle of
self-evaluation;  if you think a proposal containing references to items
on some list is worth extra points, give those points to your proposal; if
you put in extra hard work on it, adjust your point request to fit;  if
working phrases involving the culinary habits of certain ungulates is in
your opinion, worth extra points, add them to your desired score for the
proposal, and let the rest of Acka decide whether your proposal really is
worth that much.

Another idea I tossed that received a similarly lukewarm welcome (this
one was RFC'd shortly after I joined the game) was that anti-voting
scoring would be based on the number of people that anti-voted.  I forget
the exact schedule, but it was something like 10 points for the only
anti-vote, 5 for being one of two, 3 for being one of 3, 2 for being one
of 4, 0 for being one of 5, then -1 (yes, a penalty) for every two
players (rounded down) who anti-voted if six or more players anti-voted.
I felt this would make for some interesting voting games that wouldn't
necessarily lead to all the rejections of perfectly good proposals we were
having at the time (a higher passage requirement, along with party unity
votes on NO votes and anti-voting bonuses that were as great for Modest
proposals as for standard ones, made this a rather marked problem at the
time).  This idea received a fairly negative welcome as an RFC, with
people saying that the populace of Acka should be allowed to vote their
conscience.  I responded that this policy put players without a conscience
at a marked disadvantage, which won me a few friends on the Underworld
party, but otherwise was just a witty remark to eulogize a dead idea.

But no ideas are truly dead in Acka.  Who knows? -- some day even the
Voting Gnome may rise again.  If you want to incorporate part of either of
these ideas into yours, feel free to.

Guy Fawkes
feeling old

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 16:22:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Reduced anti voting

>Instead, we have proposal Category Numbers:
>
>Category 0: +0/-0, 0 anti.
>Category 1: (equiv to Tiny): +3/-2, 0 anti.
>Category 2: 6/-4/1
>Category 3: 12/-8/3
>Category 4: 18/-12/5
>Category 5: 24/-16/7
>etc. etc.
	I like it, but instead of having an unlimited number of categories
(which strikes me as just begging for a scam), how about just having
catagories one through 5 (category 0 has no risk, so we shouldn't allow
it), and giving each a name.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 16:44:46 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 155 (TRUE (upheld))

> Fourthly, the Court believes that the proper interpretation of the
> guideline in question ("Zuriti'ili is never committed simulataneously
> with another crime") is that no person commits Zuriti'ili while in the
> process of committing another crime. Surely the appealer would not
> have us believe that Zuriti'ili is only committed when no one,
> anywhere, is committing any other crimes.

I'm tempted to appeal this again but before I do I ask the court to
explain there logic for this decision. I would have thought that the
strict logical interpretation of this would be that no instance of any
crime of Zuriti'ili can be committed at the same time as any instance of
any other crime by anyone. I cannot see any reason not to take this
interpretation.

<SNIP>

> Actual Penalty:
> 
> A PUBLIC APOLOGY of five or more lines.
> A TRANSFERENCE of A$5 to Hubert.

First off, does the apology I've already given count for this, and
secondly, do you, Alfvaen, consider this to be acceptable for the Hubert
treasure?

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 16:44:50 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Reform of scoring on proposals

I've got a few ideas on this myself. Do either Slakko or Guy Fawkes (or
both of you or anyone else) want to work on co-authoring a proposal?

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 16:57:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Reform of scoring on proposals

No, the judicial reform proposal(s) I'm working on are enough work for me.
Feel free to use any of the ideas I tossed out, though.

GF

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> I've got a few ideas on this myself. Do either Slakko or Guy Fawkes (or
> both of you or anyone else) want to work on co-authoring a proposal?
> 
> TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 17:02:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 155 (TRUE (upheld))

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> I'm tempted to appeal this again but before I do I ask the court to
> explain there logic for this decision. I would have thought that the
> strict logical interpretation of this would be that no instance of any
> crime of Zuriti'ili can be committed at the same time as any instance of
> any other crime by anyone. I cannot see any reason not to take this
> interpretation.

Actually, I agree with the Court's interpretation, but since game custom
seemed to weigh heavily toward the fact that it meant Zuriti'ili couldn't
be simultaneous with any other crime anywhere, I went with that logic in
my CFJ.  

> First off, does the apology I've already given count for this, and
> secondly, do you, Alfvaen, consider this to be acceptable for the Hubert
> treasure?

Woo-hoo!  In this case, I don't need to submit my "Slakko has posted the
word 'Hubert' to a public forum" CFJ.

- -Hubert

2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 17:42:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Reduced anti voting

> 	I like it, but instead of having an unlimited number of categories
> (which strikes me as just begging for a scam), how about just having
> catagories one through 5 (category 0 has no risk, so we shouldn't allow
> it), and giving each a name.

No risk but no gain. What's wrong with that? No points for antivoting
either. I could see myself making quite a lot of my proposals like that
just to get rid of the antivoting factor.

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 17:42:17 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Another RFC

I've just had another idea, but it's probably far too radical for the
rest of you lot. Basically, I want to get rid of bond dividends. I don't
like the way that I can lose A$ by losing points (I care about my A$
total but not (surprise, surprise:-)) my points). I'd probably replace
this with each player receiving a certain A$ each week/fortnight/month or
something like a bank where you could get interest, or take loans, or
whatever. Is this likely to get any support what-so-ever or would it just
be another in a long line of my attempts to phase out points?

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 18:44:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another RFC

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> I've just had another idea, but it's probably far too radical for the
> rest of you lot. Basically, I want to get rid of bond dividends. I don't
> like the way that I can lose A$ by losing points (I care about my A$
> total but not (surprise, surprise:-)) my points). I'd probably replace
> this with each player receiving a certain A$ each week/fortnight/month or
> something like a bank where you could get interest, or take loans, or
> whatever. Is this likely to get any support what-so-ever or would it just
> be another in a long line of my attempts to phase out points?

Given that we went to _fortnightly salaries_ as a replacement for bond
dividends back in January, and this is the first complaint raised, I doubt
it will gain sufficient support to succeed.  

I still don't think phasing out points is ever really going to succeed -
Agora decided to _reintroduce_ points after having them phased out for a
while.  Personally, there needs to be some reason to write proposals
worthy of acceptance rather than those for rejection - there needs to be
something to discourage bad ideas and encourage good ones.  Whatever you
call it, it is basically going to come down to points.

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: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 18:46:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Reduced anti voting

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Towsner wrote:

> >Instead, we have proposal Category Numbers:
> >
> >Category 0: +0/-0, 0 anti.
> >Category 1: (equiv to Tiny): +3/-2, 0 anti.
> >Category 2: 6/-4/1
> >Category 3: 12/-8/3
> >Category 4: 18/-12/5
> >Category 5: 24/-16/7
> >etc. etc.
> 	I like it, but instead of having an unlimited number of categories
> (which strikes me as just begging for a scam), how about just having
> catagories one through 5 (category 0 has no risk, so we shouldn't allow
> it), and giving each a name.

Giving each one a name only complicates the rules which determine which
category things go into (rather than add 2, it would be Modest becomes
Reasonable, Standard becomes Grand, Reasonable becomes Huge, Grand becomes
Colossal, etc).

Scams are avoided because my idea only allowed players to label their
proposals to have a base category of 1, 2 or 3.  Only modifiers can affect
it beyond that - so you have to scam the modifier.  And then you'd have to
get the proposal through singlehanded - because a scam making a proposal
worth a lot of points would also make anti-voting worth a lot of points,
and rejection a huge cost.

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: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 20:20:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Reduced anti voting

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> No risk but no gain. What's wrong with that? No points for antivoting
> either. I could see myself making quite a lot of my proposals like that
> just to get rid of the antivoting factor.

That's really the only problem I have with this proposal -- I like the
idea that different "attributes" of a proposal could add to its scoring
potential.  I'm not sure it's necessary to restrict a proposal's
declaration to the first three categories, though.  As Slakko pointed out,
if people attempt to scam by declaring their proposal a Category 9, others
will attempt to anti-vote because they'd get more points out of it too.

The only thing I don't like is the Categories 0 and 1.  As TGW
mentioned, a lot of players will be declaring their proposals to be
Category 0 to eliminate all point gains, or Category 1 to eliminate
anti-voting concerns. I'm not sure exactly why I don't like that idea,
but it certainly irks me.  I guess I like the uncertainty that anti-voting
brings to Nomic.  I really liked Guy Fawkes' idea of reduced points
depending on how many people anti-voted (which would create a kind of
Prisoner's Dilemma situation), but I don't think that will receive too
much support.  

I suppose if either Category 0 or 1 were eliminated (preferably 1) and 
people were unable to declare their proposals as falling into
either, but must have them fall in there by being Boring or some other
"penalty," this idea would have my full support.  How, though, would it
deal with the Literature and Prolix rules, for example?  Would those keep
their absolute point bonus, or would that too be dependent on category?

Part of my problem is (and I wish Guy Fawkes' Soapbox were still around)
that many proposals which are extremely grandiose in effect or in scope
have been declared Modest because of their authors' paranoia about
anti-voting.  It would make more sense to me if the maximum declarable
category (or title, or whatever) for a proposal were directly proportional
to its length (which would be easy to determine) or its scope (which would
be much more difficult.)

OK, I think I've ranted long enough now.  :-)

- -Hubert

Some people say they can tell the time by looking at the sun, but I have 
never been able to make out the numbers. 

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 22:42:29 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2758

> Looks like I"m gonna have to resubmit 2758 anyway, due to the bug Slakko
> unearthed. So I'd appreciate people letting me know which version of
> handling small Orgs they prefer. 
> I prefer doing away with the entirely, but as I wrote before, I'm willing
> to compromise on neutering them.
> Other comments are also appreciated.

How about "Don't forget to retract Proposal 2758"?

Anyway, I'd prefer to leave small orgs in existence, and I'm heavily
in favour of nontradeable Org Powers.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Curiosity Killed The Cat:Keep Your Distance
Current Book--Zane Grey:Nevada
Madness takes its toll.  Please have exact change.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 22:42:32 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 155 (TRUE (upheld))

> > Actual Penalty:

> > A PUBLIC APOLOGY of five or more lines.
> > A TRANSFERENCE of A$5 to Hubert.

> First off, does the apology I've already given count for this, and
> secondly, do you, Alfvaen, consider this to be acceptable for the Hubert
> treasure?

Yes, the previous apology still counts.  I'm not sure if I count the
"Hubert" for Slakko, though.  I think the way I thought of it was that
posting a Proposal containing "Hubert" wouldn't count for the Promoter,
nor, thus, a CF{C}J for the CotC.  However, posting Hubert's votes
counted for the Tabulator.  So if Slakko put "Hubert" anywhere in the
CF{C}J that wasn't written by anyone else, then e said it.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Rupert Hine:The Sniper
Current Book--Zane Grey:Nevada
A signature always reveals a man's character -and sometimes even his name.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 22:53:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 155 (TRUE (upheld))

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> counted for the Tabulator.  So if Slakko put "Hubert" anywhere in the
> CF{C}J that wasn't written by anyone else, then e said it.  :-)

Moot point anyway -- e said it later when diagnosing me with snowgod's
disease.  Must have thought it futile to resist the growing tide of
H-berts in Acka.

- -Hubert

Some people say they can tell the time by looking at the sun, but I have 
never been able to make out the numbers. 

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #33
**********************************