Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #38
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest       Monday, March 9 1998       Volume 03 : Number 038

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

Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 02:00:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2757 accepted

On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Results of Proposal 2757
> 
> 14/24 votes: Quorum achieved
> 9/14 YES votes: Proposal accepted
> 
>     NO:
> Niccolo Flychuck     (MetaMorph)
> /dev/joe             (Vulcan)

Interesting that the founder of Odo on the Wormhole and a member of the
Vulcan party should vote against the proposal which makes Star Trek
literature.

> > Proposal 2757 - Sun 01 Mar 1998 15:48 EST
> > Literary Genius
> > The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)
> > 
> > Add all the following to the literature list.
> > 
> > Artist: Queen; the rock band
> > Artist: Bob Dylan
> > Work: Star Trek; the four TV shows and eight 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.
> 
> 

- -- 
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: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 15:51:07 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: A question for the oldbies

I was having a look through some of the CFJ archives and noticed that quite a
large number of the early ones allowed a player to slightly modify one of
their proposals currently in the queue. Now this seems like quite a good idea
to me, but I'm sure you had some reason for removing it from the ruleset.
What was it? The only hint I got from reading the CFJ archives was that it
allowed Ptang... (I think, and I'll be damned if I can remember eir full
Ackanomic name) to keep one of eir proposals in the queue for a bit longer
around the time of the quorum crisis (I think). Was it something to do with
this?

TGW, only three and a half months old (Ackawise).

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

Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 16:06:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A question for the oldbies

> I was having a look through some of the CFJ archives and noticed
> that quite a large number of the early ones allowed a player to
> slightly modify one of their proposals currently in the queue. Now
> this seems like quite a good idea to me, but I'm sure you had some
> reason for removing it from the ruleset.  What was it? The only hint
> I got from reading the CFJ archives was that it allowed Ptang... (I
> think, and I'll be damned if I can remember eir full Ackanomic name)
> to keep one of eir proposals in the queue for a bit longer around
> the time of the quorum crisis (I think). Was it something to do with
> this?

It seriously complicated life for both the Tabulator as well as the
voters, and it didn't give you anything beyond what retracting and
resubmitting does, except for more red tape. (I think the history
pages mention this issue too.)

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 16:20:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A question for the oldbies

> I was having a look through some of the CFJ archives and noticed that quite a
> large number of the early ones allowed a player to slightly modify one of
> their proposals currently in the queue. Now this seems like quite a good idea
> to me, but I'm sure you had some reason for removing it from the ruleset.
> What was it? The only hint I got from reading the CFJ archives was that it
> allowed Ptang... (I think, and I'll be damned if I can remember eir full
> Ackanomic name) to keep one of eir proposals in the queue for a bit longer
> around the time of the quorum crisis (I think). Was it something to do with
> this?

Early in the game there were a lot of movements to allow proposals to be
modified while they were in the queue. Most of these were eliminated for a
number of reasons. Many felt that allowing people to modify their proposals just
led to ill-planned proposals. People would rely on modifying their proposals
rather than writing them carefully to begin with. Also, almost all such rules
restricted how a proposal could be modified. Most such restrictions were based
on the nature of the change -- was it consistent with the spirit of the
proposal, the author's intent, etc. It came down to a judgement call. At the
time that meant calling a CFJ. People didn't want the increased bureuacracy, so
they decided it was better just to disallow any revision of proposals. Instead
proposals could be retracted and resubmitted.

It's been a long time so I may be overlooking some important factors from the
time.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 18:30:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A question for the oldbies

> I was having a look through some of the CFJ archives and noticed that quite a
> large number of the early ones allowed a player to slightly modify one of
> their proposals currently in the queue. Now this seems like quite a good idea
> to me, but I'm sure you had some reason for removing it from the ruleset.
> What was it? The only hint I got from reading the CFJ archives was that it
> allowed Ptang... (I think, and I'll be damned if I can remember eir full
> Ackanomic name) to keep one of eir proposals in the queue for a bit longer
> around the time of the quorum crisis (I think). Was it something to do with
> this?

There was one other reason not already mentioned.  An amended proposal's
voting period restarted after the CFJ was resolved, and more than once
people simply forgot to vote on these proposals which were no longer in
numerical order with the other current proposals, since they retained
their original numbers after the amendment.  If you look back at the
results of amended proposals, you will find several that failed to meet
quorum, even when we weren't in a quorum crisis.  The retract-and-resubmit
method was seen as a much more efficient way to do this, as well as more
flexible since we didn't have these tight restrictions on what you could
amend.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 21:53:18 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2773

> Proposal 2773
> Predatory Pricing
> else...if (Henry Towsner)

I think this is an interesting idea, as long as Rule 340 can cope with

> 	{{Each player recieves 10 pieces of lumber.  Each player recieves 5
> pieces or mortar.}}

and

> 	A unit or piece of lumber of mortar is a tradeable, unnamed entity.

But I think we know which ones are supposed to be "of" and which ones "or",
right?  So that's an unambiguous misspelling.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Iron Maiden:Only The Good Die Young
Current Book--Robert Charles Wilson:The Harvest
He flung himself on his horse and rode madly off in all directions.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #38
**********************************