Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #34
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Wednesday, March 4 1998     Volume 03 : Number 034

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

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 03:56:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Reduced anti voting

I can see this system working, there are two options I'd like to see
added:
1. Something that can be added to the score, perhaps even up it a
category, which depends on the voting results. 
2. Some sort of short and simple procedure, like a Hearing, that can
change the category while the proposal is on the queue. But something that
won't necessarily be very common.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 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
> Category3: 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: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 03:59:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Reduced anti voting

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> 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.

The Voting Gnome is alive and well and lives inthe Great Galil of New
Rishonomic, and is also New Rishonomic's Liasion to Internomic.

Niccolo Flychuck (aka Flychuckle Speaker of New Rishonomic)

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

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 04:09:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2758

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

> > 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"?

Excellent comment!!! and concerning my current work schedule, well timed.
> 
> Anyway, I'd prefer to leave small orgs in existence, and I'm heavily
> in favour of nontradeable Org Powers.

I am also in favor of that.

How about this, small orgs stay, but can only, as mentioned before, accept
players, change admission policy, and change their names. But I also want
to give an out to players who started orgs, but got, shall we say, stuck
in them.
so I'd give a one week period where small orgs can decide to disband and
get their powers refunded, or remain as small orgs (Collections, or
whatever we end up calling them) 
After that week, disbandment is just that, disbandment.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > > 
> - --
> - --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: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 08:26:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Reduced anti voting

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 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.

Maybe people weren't receptive to having to evaluate their own proposals
to that fine a grading, and thereby expose themselves to being judged both
on the quality of the proposal and the quality of their judgement. 

With only a very few classes of proposals to choose from, there is less
pressure for people in deciding how much their proposal is worth.
Currently you choose 5, 10 or 16, and there are reasonably clear cut
distinctions between the classes.  But who is to say what distinguishes a
5 point from a 6 point from a 7 point?  I still don't think Acka needs
_that_ fine a grading for proposals.

> 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.

However, harfiness is something imposed from without.  What would have
happened to that under your original scheme?

> 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.

This last penalty simply encourages the bandwagon effect.  If a proposal
looks like it is on a knife-edge, then sentiment as to which side is
likely to win could determine the result of the proposal more effectively
than its relative merits and drawbacks.

> 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.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> feeling old
Well why don't you join TMBSG if you haven't already? :-)

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: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 09:17:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Reduced anti voting

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> However, harfiness is something imposed from without.  What would have
> happened to that under your original scheme?

Harf was left in place, since it is an external phenomenon, and since
doing away with harf would be sacreligious.

GF

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

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 12:03:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Reform of scoring on proposals

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?

I'm willing to help out on the co-authoring - you've seen pretty much all
of my ideas on the concept so far.

- -- 
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: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 12:44:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Reduced anti voting

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Hubert wrote:

> 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 made a mistake on my original RFC.  Category 0 should have been off
limits to player declarations (to ensure it isn't all that different from
the current system).  Category 1 is there because the idea was inspired by
TGW's attempt to come up with the Tiny Proposal concept.  Category 0 was
designed as a penalty category.

> 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?

I could see Literature going in with a proviso - e.g. you don't get the
literature points until you have 3 qualifying statements in your proposal,
and then you get a +1 Category bonus on acceptance (unless it is a Great
Work - +3 on acceptance).  Given that Prolix is only a single point, I
don't think it will be incorporable, and the absolute point bonus appears
fine.

> 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.)

I came up with a big proposal on Name That Crime - it changed a lot of
rules, but not in any really significant way.  I don't think it needed to
be Grandiose.  Length alone is not an indicator of proposal complexity,
and neither is scope.

- -- 
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: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 15:22:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Reduced anti voting

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> I made a mistake on my original RFC.  Category 0 should have been off
> limits to player declarations (to ensure it isn't all that different from
> the current system).  Category 1 is there because the idea was inspired by
> TGW's attempt to come up with the Tiny Proposal concept.  Category 0 was
> designed as a penalty category.

That's fine.  I'd prefer that Category 1 be off limits too, but I'm
probably in a minority with that opinion.

> I came up with a big proposal on Name That Crime - it changed a lot of
> rules, but not in any really significant way.  I don't think it needed to
> be Grandiose.  Length alone is not an indicator of proposal complexity,
> and neither is scope.

Right, since it's a completely subjective term it's tough to define.  I
suppose proposals that affect the game in a Grandiose way (for example,
Malenkai's "destroy all game custom" proposal, even though it wasn't
terribly long and only changed one rule) should be grandiose.  But
proposals like eir endless "reorg" ones, although they were extremely long
and changed many rules, wouldn't be.  Unless we want to create a new
Office for the purpose of judging categories of Proposals, which seems
like overkill to me, I think it would be too difficult to objectively
determine where any one proposal falls.

- -Hubert

Jewish dilemma: Free ham. 

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

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 17:55:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Reduced anti voting

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> I can see this system working, there are two options I'd like to see
> added:
> 1. Something that can be added to the score, perhaps even up it a
> category, which depends on the voting results. 
> 2. Some sort of short and simple procedure, like a Hearing, that can
> change the category while the proposal is on the queue. But something that
> won't necessarily be very common.

For the sake of getting the change through, it should probably be split
into three parts.

The first part introduces categories and consolidates the most appropriate
bonuses (e.g. the foolish bonus, the harfy bonus, the boring penalty) -
this has minimal effect on how scores are changed, and so will hopefully
receive little dissent.

The second part modifies the other score effects, ones which aren't as
easily fixed as category modifications (e.g. Literature, Great Works,
Prolix Propositions).

The third part can introduce new ways to move categories, as Niccolo has
suggested.

That way people will be able to vote for the streamlined proposal category
proposal without being concerned that the whole structure of proposal
point earning would be changed.

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: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 23:00:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2759

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> "If a rule defining an esoteric song is created and that song is
> currently being played as a mundane song then the song instantly ceases
> to be being played and instead the song Barbie Girl by Aqua is played [to
> encourage people to change it as quickly as possible]."

Ah, good point.  I thought I had all the situations covered, but that
escaped me.  And good choice of a deterrent.  I think, at some point, we
should have a contest to see who can play the most abhorrent song.  That
one could come close, but there are some others that I'm pretty sure would
beat it.  And here I'm thinking specifically of "Honey" by Bobby
Goldsboro.  Or anything by Peter Frampton.

If any of you haven't read "Dave Barry's Book of Bad Songs," I would
suggest you do so.  You'll want to cut your head off afterwards to get
some of the songs out of it, but it's a hilarious book.

> "Title: Only the Good Die Young
> 
> Artist: Queen

So what happens if this proposal passes while "Only the Good Die Young" by
Billy Joel is playing?  (I don't think they would be considered the same
song, but I'm sure some people might. :-)

- -Hubert, wondering what it takes to get tarred and feathered around here

Two men in a Yugo were arrested following last night's push-by shooting. 

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

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 23:20:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2755

It has been brought to my attention that the formula in Proposal 2755 for
calculating a player's Ratio of Harf would make it difficult for most
players to achieve a title on the list.  In fact, it makes it
near-impossible for those players who have submitted a lot of proposals to
get a title and rewards those players who have submitted only a few
proposals.  For example, Malenkai, with over 300 submitted proposals, had
only 3 harfy proposals, for a ratio of, well, .01.  I, with 3 decided
proposals, 2 of which are harfy, have a ratio of 2.0.  If I keep this up
until I have 10 proposals, I will be a Grand Poobah of Harf, although
Malenkai deserves the title far more.

Since, at the moment, the only game effect this proposal's passage would
have would be to give else...if 3 points and the title Neophyte of Harf, I
think it's relatively harmless for now.  I'm working on a perhaps more
complicated but much fairer calculation for the RH, but I'd appreciate it
if you beings wouldn't treat this ineffectiveness as a reason to vote this
proposal down.  If you think I should retract it and resubmit with a
better equation, I will, but I don't think it would be too game-breaking
to let it pass as is and fix it later on.

I'm thinking of something like taking a logarithm of the denominator, but
if any of you whizzes have a better suggestion, or any at all, I'd love to
hear it.

- -Hubert

Two men in a Yugo were arrested following last night's push-by shooting. 

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #34
**********************************