Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #41
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Sunday, March 15 1998      Volume 03 : Number 041

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

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 08:43:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Akca: Proposal 2780

On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> 
Proposal 2780
> Organizational Reformation
> Niccolo Flychuck (Uri Bruck)
> 
> {{[this is very similar to the proposal I recently retracted. There are
> some differences. Organizations with fewer than three members are not
> destroyed, they are simply restricted, not unlike Cults. Trade Licenses
> are repealed. Parties become a type of Organization, Player-Sanctioned
> organizations become Societies. The amendment to the Party rule now comes
> topwise, as Slakko pointed out, this needs to be done before the
> covnersion to Socieities. The kind of soft-binding that is the hall-mark
> of the current system (aka the Mohamedan system) remains in the form of
> transformations.  Powers are no longer tradable.
> This reform may not address all the problems with the Organizational
> framework. It addresses the problems that seemed the most significant
> problems to me. I think this is exactly the kind of structure that allows
> for growth and development..]}}

As far as I can see, all political parties would be turned into societies,
but then given A$300.  This would destroy all the Party Swinger offices,
as far as I can see, because a Swinger's Office only exists as long as the
associated party does.  I would rather have the double-brace-delimited
text:

> {{Rename this rule - 'Political Parties and Rewarding Party Unity'
> Each Political Party receives A$300. All Big Tents are destroyed.}} 
> " 

with {{Each Player-Sanctioned Organization which possesses a big tent
is a Political Party.  All Big Tents are then destroyed.}}

This would guarantee the continuity with Party Chess.

The rest of the proposal, though, I am quite happy with.

- -- 
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: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 09:26:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC (Proposal Categorisation)

This is a proposed final format for the Proposal Categorisation proposal.
Any criticisms will be gladly taken onboard - I want to get this right
first time.

#submit proposal Proposal Categorisation

{{[This is the proposal aiming to simplify the calculation of points
for accepted, rejected and anti-voted proposals.  It also eliminates
the now almost moribund Grandiose proposal.]}}

Amend Section III of Rule 207 to read as delimited by REJIG below:

REJIG
III. Scoring on Proposals

All proposals have a Base Category Number.  The base category number of
a proposal is 3 unless the rules make a specific exception.  If a proposal
starts with the text "This is a Category 2 Proposal", in any letter case,
then the Base Category Number of that proposal is 2.

Any proposal beginning with the text "This is a Modest Proposal" in
any case shall have Base Category Number 2.  This sentence and the
preceding sentence shall be repealed 7 days after they are introduced into
this Rule.

{{[This is necessary to allow people to continue writing Modest if they
don't think mine will pass.]}}

Proposals may have Category Modifiers.  Category Modifiers may only exist
as described in the Rules.  It is permissible for a Proposal to have more
than one Category Modifier, and two rules which both give a proposal a
Category Modifier do not conflict, as Category Modifiers are cumulative.

When a proposal's voting results are known, all applicable Category
Modifiers (which may depend on the voting results) are added together, and
the result is added to the Base Category Number to determine the Category
Number of the proposal (CN).  If this addition results in a sum of 0 or
less, then the CN of the proposal is 1.

Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, if an accepted proposal does not
become a new rule or generate at least one valid effect under Rule 104, it
has Category Number 1.  Proposals affected by this paragraph are called
Null Proposals.

If a proposal is accepted, the player who authored it gains 6*(n-1)
points, where n is the proposal's Category Number.
If a proposal is rejected, the player who authored it loses 4*(n-1)
points, where n is the proposal's Category Number.
Voting NO on a proposal which is accepted, or YES on a proposal which is
rejected, is called anti-voting.
If a player anti-votes, then they gain (2*n)-1 points, where n is the
proposal's Category Number, unless they anti-voted by voting NO on a Great
Work, in which case they shall lose (2*n)-1 points instead.

REJIG

Amend Section V of Rule 207 to read as delimited by JIG2 below:

JIG2
V. New Player Author Bonus/Soft Penalty 

For the first three weeks of being a new player (as opposed to a returning
player) in Ackanomic, a player shall receive a bonus equivalent to the
points which would be gained by anti-voting whenever one of their
proposals with Base Category 3 is accepted or any one of their
proposals is rejected. 
JIG2

Repeal section VI of Rule 207.
{{[Null Proposals have been incorporated into Section III]}}

Amend Section VII of Rule 207 to read as delimited by POIT:

POIT
VII. Boring Proposals 
If at least 50% of all votes cast on a proposal were PRESENT votes, then
that proposal shall have a -3 Category Modifier for being Boring.
POIT

Amend Rule 207.1, "That's just silly", to read as delimited by CRAZY
below:

CRAZY
If an accepted proposal contains the phrase "said the Tensor", then the
player who submitted the proposal is said to be silly, and the
proposal shall have a +1 Category Modifier for being Silly.
However, if the proposal was also distributed by the Promoter on
April First (All Fool's Day), the player is instead said to be foolish,
and the Category Modifier generated by this rule is +2, not +1.

Any player who authors a proposal affected in the above manner may
publicly announce, in the seven days following the proposals acceptance,
"The new silly phrase is ****", where **** is a three word phrase. All
instances of the phrase "tarred and feathered" in this rule will be
replaced by the three word phrase chosen by that player. 
CRAZY

Amend Rule 207.3, "Foolishness", to read as delimited by FUN below:

FUN
If a player submits a proposal which meets the following conditions, then
proposal is a Foolish Proposal: 

a) The first line of the proposal is "I was young and foolish then, I feel
old and foolish now." 
b) The rest of the text of the proposal is a previously submitted and
rejected proposal, altered in no way from this previously submitted
proposal except in the updating of numerical rule pointers. 
c) Either the player submitting the proposal was the author of the
previous proposal, or the player submitting the proposal gives proper
credit
to the original author. If the original author is still a registered
player of Ackanomic, it is considered good form to transfer some of the
points
gained through the resubmitted proposal's Foolishness to em. 

A Foolish Proposal has a +2 Category Modifier for being Foolish.
FUN

Repeal Rule 209, "Modesty and Pride". 
{{[No longer relevant.]}}

Amend Rule 210 by replacing "It is not Modest" with "It has Base Category
Number 3" wherever the first text appears, and by replacing the following
EGAD-delimited text:

EGAD
If a proposal that is a Great Work passes, then the player who authored
the Great Work will gain A$200 in royalties, in addition to any other
bonus or penalties caused by the passage of the proposal. All players who
voted against a Great Work that was accepted will lose 7 points, for
their poor taste, in addition to any other bonuses or penalties caused by
the passage of the proposal. Great Works that do not pass have no
special effects. 
EGAD

with the following NARF-delimited text:

NARF
An accepted Great Work has a +3 Category Modifier for being a Great Work.
The author of an accepted Great Work gains A$200 when its voting results
become public [royalties].
NARF

{{[The anti-voting penalty has been slightly changed - you now lose as
many anti-voting points as you could have gained, and also been
incorporated into Rule 207 for simplicity.]}}

Amend Rule 1112 by replacing the following ZORT-delimited text:

ZORT
If a Harfy proposal passes, its author gains 5 points (a score change
based on proposal content) and the title of Harfmeister passes from the
current Harfmeister to the author of the Harfy proposal. If two or more
Harfy proposals are accepted simultaneously, the title of Harfmeister
shall go to the author of the highest numbered one. 
ZORT

with the following TROZ-delimited text:

TROZ
An accepted Harfy proposal has a +1 Category Modifier for being Harfy.
The author of an accepted Harfy proposal becomes Harfmeister when the
voting results of the proposal are known.  If two or more
Harfy proposals are accepted simultaneously, the title of Harfmeister
shall go to the author of the highest numbered one. 
TROZ

Repeal Section 4 of Rule 205.
{{[This description of how score changes caused by proposal acceptances
are organised is no longer relevant - all the material is included in Rule
207 now.]}}

Renumber sections 5, 6 and 7 of Rule 205 to sections 4, 5 and 6
respectively.

#end proposal
- -- 
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: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:01:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC (Proposal Categorisation)

>CRAZY
>If an accepted proposal contains the phrase "said the Tensor", then the
>player who submitted the proposal is said to be silly, and the
>proposal shall have a +1 Category Modifier for being Silly.
>However, if the proposal was also distributed by the Promoter on
>April First (All Fool's Day), the player is instead said to be foolish,
>and the Category Modifier generated by this rule is +2, not +1.
>
>Any player who authors a proposal affected in the above manner may
>publicly announce, in the seven days following the proposals acceptance,
>"The new silly phrase is ****", where **** is a three word phrase. All
>instances of the phrase "tarred and feathered" in this rule will be
>replaced by the three word phrase chosen by that player.
>CRAZY
	Overall I like it, but there are two problems with this part.  You
use "said the Tensor" in one part, and "tarred and fearthered" in another.
Also, you forgot to make a player submitting such a proposal silly, as it
stands only the proposal would be.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:07:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC (Proposal Categorisation)

On Sun, 15 Mar 1998, Towsner wrote:

> >CRAZY
> >If an accepted proposal contains the phrase "said the Tensor", then the
> >player who submitted the proposal is said to be silly, and the
> >proposal shall have a +1 Category Modifier for being Silly.
> >However, if the proposal was also distributed by the Promoter on
> >April First (All Fool's Day), the player is instead said to be foolish,
> >and the Category Modifier generated by this rule is +2, not +1.
> >
> >Any player who authors a proposal affected in the above manner may
> >publicly announce, in the seven days following the proposals acceptance,
> >"The new silly phrase is ****", where **** is a three word phrase. All
> >instances of the phrase "tarred and feathered" in this rule will be
> >replaced by the three word phrase chosen by that player.
> >CRAZY
> 	Overall I like it, but there are two problems with this part.  You
> use "said the Tensor" in one part, and "tarred and fearthered" in another.
> Also, you forgot to make a player submitting such a proposal silly, as it
> stands only the proposal would be.

I actually copied this straight out of the rulebook - breadbox must have
forgotten to change "tarred and feathered".  Also, if you read the first
sentence again, you will see that the player is indeed said to be silly.

- -- 
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: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:27:26 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Sorry it's late.

> "It is a crystal hand reaching into an onyx top hat.  Inside the hat are 5
> white marble balls, each bearing the image of one of the people who
> responded to the third Infrequent Ackan Poll.  The crystal hand is holding
> the ball with /dev/joe's image on it."

Incidentally, who were the five players who responded?

TGW.

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

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:31:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Sorry it's late.

On Sun, 15 Mar 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > "It is a crystal hand reaching into an onyx top hat.  Inside the hat are 5
> > white marble balls, each bearing the image of one of the people who
> > responded to the third Infrequent Ackan Poll.  The crystal hand is holding
> > the ball with /dev/joe's image on it."
> 
> Incidentally, who were the five players who responded?

I thought about keeping it private, but, what the hey, this is Acka where
votes are made public after all.

The Gingham Wearer, else...if, Alfvaen, /dev/joe and Rex Mundi.

- -- 
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: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 13:28:12 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Micah Smukler)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC (Proposal Categorisation)

>This is a proposed final format for the Proposal Categorisation proposal.
>Any criticisms will be gladly taken onboard - I want to get this right
>first time.
>
>#submit proposal Proposal Categorisation
>
>{{[This is the proposal aiming to simplify the calculation of points
>for accepted, rejected and anti-voted proposals.  It also eliminates
>the now almost moribund Grandiose proposal.]}}
>
>
>Amend Section III of Rule 207 to read as delimited by REJIG below:
>
>REJIG
>III. Scoring on Proposals
>
>All proposals have a Base Category Number.  The base category number of
>a proposal is 3 unless the rules make a specific exception.  If a proposal
>starts with the text "This is a Category 2 Proposal", in any letter case,
>then the Base Category Number of that proposal is 2.
>
>Any proposal beginning with the text "This is a Modest Proposal" in
>any case shall have Base Category Number 2.  This sentence and the
>preceding sentence shall be repealed 7 days after they are introduced into
>this Rule.
>
>{{[This is necessary to allow people to continue writing Modest if they
>don't think mine will pass.]}}
>
>

Personally, I would rather read and write proposals prefaced with "This is
a Modest Proposal" than "This is a Category 2 Proposal." In addition, I
believe that the wording in this would prevent a proposal from being both
Modest and Foolish (and might even therefore prevent modest proposals from
being reproposed as Foolish).

Other than these (minor) quibbles, I like this, and would vote for it if
submitted (after I become a player).

Micah Smukler
[email-masked]
"Give me ambiguity or give me something else!"
"It doesn't matter, but it doesn't matter that it doesn't matter."
 -Adapted from John Allen Paulos

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #41
**********************************