Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #57
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest       Friday, April 3 1998       Volume 03 : Number 057

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 02:02:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC-related stuff

You've seen Proposal 2824, which I have retracted.  The main concern is
that it is the kind of thing which is not necessary to be regulated.
However, I had a flash of insight (hopefully) which may get around that
problem.  

(For the benefit of the new players): A little while ago, probably about
two months if I remember correctly, there was discussion about restricting
the creation of low valued trinkets.  Such trinkets were generally
commemorative trinkets, representing something that someone had said or
done.  The Financier has to track all such trinkets, which is a
significant workload.

The Encyclopaedia, should it get an official status, could be used as a
replacement for these low-valued trinkets.  When something is done worthy
of record, rather than create a trinket and give the Financier work to do
tracking it for evermore, people could submit an entry to the
Encyclopaedia.  Such entries don't need to be repeatedly tracked - once
they are in there, they are in there.

This would change the role of the Encyclopaedia, making it less of a
substitute for the FAQ, and more of a complement for it, fleshing out
details too irrelevant to be worthy of sending to all new players, but
there for reference should they be interested.

To implement this and make it equivalent to the way people deal with small
valued Trinkets (which is usually to transfer them to the player whose
idea, misspelling or non sequitur inspired them), the player submitting an
entry to the Encyclopaedia could specify who the benefit for the entry was
to go to, a sort of finder's fee.  The benefit for a successful submission
would not be 5 points, but A$5 - an amount commensurate with a small
trinket.

Another proposal (I wouldn't suggest putting them together) would then
raise the minimum price a trinket could be created for to A$25, or some
such similar amount.

Comments & Suggestions, Anyone?

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, 03 Apr 1998 03:24:05 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2800 accepted

On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, K2 wrote:

> > evil ani-voters ;)
> > Vynd                 (Vulcan)
> > Rex Mundi            (Klingon)
> 
> > > To wake an Elder
> 

OK, at the risk of sounding mean, I'm going to step forward here and say
that I deliberatly did not vote for Balsamic Dragon to enter the Hall of
Elders, and I quite intentionally voted against this proposal.  It wasn't
an easy call to make, but I decided that while Balsamic Dragon had been an
important influence while she was with us, she hadn't really been with us
all that long.  So I decided not to support the nomination.

This has always seemed like a bit of a touchy subject to me, an area where
bad feelings could develope.  Thats why I was dismayed to see this
proposal come round.  I hope it doesn't start a trend.  I don't think that
people should feel the need to justify themselves as I am doing now, or
face laster resentment from those who supported a failed nomination (or
from a returning not quite Elder).  With that said, my best wishes to
Elder Balsamic Dragon, wherever she may be.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 03:43:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2800 accepted

On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> This has always seemed like a bit of a touchy subject to me, an area where
> bad feelings could develope.  Thats why I was dismayed to see this
> proposal come round.  I hope it doesn't start a trend.  I don't think that
> people should feel the need to justify themselves as I am doing now, or
> face laster resentment from those who supported a failed nomination (or
> from a returning not quite Elder).  With that said, my best wishes to
> Elder Balsamic Dragon, wherever she may be.

This seemed to be an exceptional case.  We were in the middle of a Quorum
Crisis, so getting half the populace to do anything seemed almost
impossible.  Despite that, we would have attracted the necessary numbers
if the elder's Day (which was an Ackanomic Holiday) was in fact a Holiday.
I supported the proposal because I felt that Balsamic Dragon had been
unlucky to miss out - the nomination only failed due to timing errors
rather than to lack of support.

I would only support such a proposal again in future if timing errors were
once again to blame, and the player in question did in fact have
sufficient support to enter the Hall (should such support have been given
in time).  That's why I'm glad K 2 put the rider on specifying that more
than half of _all_ active players, not just those voting, had to vote in
favour for the elderhood to take place - it proved that Balsamic really
did have sufficient support to qualify.

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, 03 Apr 1998 03:52:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2800 accepted

> OK, at the risk of sounding mean, I'm going to step forward here and
> say that I deliberatly did not vote for Balsamic Dragon to enter the
> Hall of Elders, and I quite intentionally voted against this
> proposal.  It wasn't an easy call to make, but I decided that while
> Balsamic Dragon had been an important influence while she was with
> us, she hadn't really been with us all that long.  So I decided not
> to support the nomination.

Same here. I felt she was a real borderline case - it was a tough
call. Although, I have to say, I'm kind of glad she's in, after Red
Barn was inducted.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 05:48:23 -0500 (EST)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2800 accepted

> Not necessarily. I thought long and hard about my voting on this one, since
> although I wanted to see Balsamic Dragon inducted, I wasn't all that keen on
> the method.
>
> TGW.

As a matter of interest, what other method would you have suggested?

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 07:35:15 -0500 (EST)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2800 accepted

> > > evil ani-voters ;)
> > > Vynd                 (Vulcan)
> > > Rex Mundi            (Klingon)
> >
> > > > To wake an Elder
> >

Okay I've read further down the list, and I'm ready to comment now :)

First of all, I wish to apologize to Vynd and Rex Mundi for accusing em of
anti-voting on this. I did not think there would be any philosophical
objections. I glad everyone voted eir conscience (at least I hope they did).

As has been stated already this was done because Balsamic Dragon appeared to
be a boarder line case, so much was going on at the time - there was a lot to
harf, I did not confirm BDs induction in time, had I done so it would've put
em 1 vote away, my thinking was that perhaps someone else was in the same
position.

It did not provide an easy way in, nor a backdoor. The number of votes
required was the same. What P2800 accomplished was essentially the same effect
as Balsamic Dragon returning yesterday and leaving again today (a Malenkain
departure) :). E could have been nominated again, and eldership determined in
the time honoured way. Obviously this was not possible.

Rule 843 section 9 concedes the possibility of other methods of entry,
extenuating circumstances seemed to exist in this case and I believed that
this was a valid use of that clause.

In hindsight, it may have been better to RFC it first, I apologize for any
toes I may have stepped on

K 2

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 09:16:38 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2811 <- help request

> I retract P2811 then.

Try doing it on the main list instead of acka-research then.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 09:16:41 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2800 accepted

> > Not necessarily. I thought long and hard about my voting on this one,
since
> > although I wanted to see Balsamic Dragon inducted, I wasn't all that keen
on
> > the method.
> >
> > TGW.
> 
> As a matter of interest, what other method would you have suggested?

I would have preferred just leaving things be, although if you felt it
necessary to have a proposal of this nature then my preferred method would
have been to have a hearing. That way players like Vynd wouldn't have to have
justified themselves. They could just have not voted and no-one would have
noticed. It also creates a bit of a false situation since people who would
not have voted for her elderhood would not have been pressured into voting.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 09:30:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2811 <- help request

> > I retract P2811 then.
> 
> Try doing it on the main list instead of acka-research then.

I try and fail.

CnH

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 09:42:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2811

Ian K. wrote:
> Has anyone ever posted Ackanomic messages to this list that are not in
> English?

Une fois je crois.

> Would we have to accept them if they were (if, for instance, someone
> started making public and game-essential statements in Hebrew)?

This was discussed in the early days. I could talk about this a long
time, but I believe other people's memory will be better than mine (and
I have an appointment to go to).

> Would it be too much to ask that people submitting publications in other
> languages must
>         a) Highlight the work Ackanomic in their language (in case it
>            looks different and unidentifiable to English-speakers)
>         b) Provide a tramslation to the Speaker of the relevant page?

No, it would not be too much too ask. Where there is a will, there's a
solution.

> Would this resolve this matter?

I'm even willing for the speaker to take people at their word, so that
probably disqualifies me from answering.   :)

CnH

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 09:51:25 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2800 accepted

> OK, at the risk of sounding mean, I'm going to step forward here and say
> that I deliberatly did not vote for Balsamic Dragon to enter the Hall of
> Elders, and I quite intentionally voted against this proposal.  It wasn't
> an easy call to make, but I decided that while Balsamic Dragon had been an
> important influence while she was with us, she hadn't really been with us
> all that long.  So I decided not to support the nomination.

> This has always seemed like a bit of a touchy subject to me, an area where
> bad feelings could develope.  Thats why I was dismayed to see this
> proposal come round.  I hope it doesn't start a trend.  I don't think that
> people should feel the need to justify themselves as I am doing now, or
> face laster resentment from those who supported a failed nomination (or
> from a returning not quite Elder).  With that said, my best wishes to
> Elder Balsamic Dragon, wherever she may be.

I perfectly understand.  It does come down to a judgement call as to whether
or not one is a suitable inductee.  I remember nominating You can call me Al,
to resounding silence.  :-)  But the fact that enough people _did_ approve
of Balsamic Dragon's induction, just a little after the fact, made P2800
a reasonable thing to do, IMHO.  And voting against it is also a reasonable
thing to do, although the way the Proposal was worded voting PRESENT would
also have worked.  :-)

I probably wouldn't have resubmitted my Bacon Game proposal if upon its
original RFC people hadn't insisted on approving it, too...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Prefab Sprout:Couldn't Bear To Be Special
Current Book--Jo Clayton:Quester's Endgame
"You can't do this to me!  I have a right to free association!"

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 16:16:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Beldin's Pants III

On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, John Bollinger wrote:

> I think you are missing some of the subtleties here.  1) If "amend[ing]
> Beldin's Pants" can be construed as a duty of the office of Praetor, then
> an acting Praetor (such as Alfvaen is now) could perform it, notwithstanding
> the fact that he is not Praetor. 

I suppose there's some debate as to whether this is a Duty or a Privelege
of Office.  I sincerely doubt it could be construed as a Duty (as much as 
I'd like to see this succeed, I'd argue strongly against that point), but
it being a clearly delineated Privelege seems also unlikely to me.  I
would read it more as an assignment, as if I'd said "I am giving trinket X
to the Praetor."  In either of the last two cases, being Acting Praetor
would, I think, prevent Alfvaen from amending R940 without opposition.

> 2) I don't think that GF is trying to
> actually remove Alfvaen from office -- the point is just to force him out
> of "full" and into "acting" capacity in that role.

I quite understand, and I guess the reason I object is that the IP seemed
to me to be filed solely to keep Alfvaen from gaining a Win.  I could
understand if e'd tried to use eir newfound powers to append "This Rule
takes precedence over all other Rules.  {{ All Rules are repealed.}}" or
something of the like to R940, but to me IPs have a strongly negative
connotation and this one was a very temporary solution; within three days
Alfvaen will be full Praetor again, unless ten or more players have the 
temerity to vote YES on the IP.  And unless the next Potato owner takes
pains to resolve this dilemma, we'll be back where we started.  

Considering a CFJ was already in the works and pretty much all Cortex
owners were against the possibility of this happening for various
reasons... it just seemed unnecessary and unnice.

Would you object if I filed an IP against the Illuminatus when eir Score
was nearing 5/6 of the Magic Number to remove that Privelege from em?
This seems to me to be somewhat the same situation.

My sincerest apologies to Guy Fawkes if I misinterpreted eir intent in any
manner.

- -Hubert

I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian. 

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 17:25:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Beldin's Pants III

On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Hubert wrote:

> Would you object if I filed an IP against the Illuminatus when eir Score
> was nearing 5/6 of the Magic Number to remove that Privelege from em?
> This seems to me to be somewhat the same situation.

I differentiate between the two by this:  the Illuminatus winning when
their score exceed 5/6 the magic number is a very much intended property
of the Rules.  People winning through amendments to the Beldin's Pants
rule is a "surprise property" of that Rule -- I would call it a scam.

I like scams.  I like performing them, and I like watching them be
performed, as long as they are performed in a non-Annoying fashion.
However, my personal code of Ackanomic ethics states that if someone
begins a scam, in doing so they give all other players permission to try
to counterscam them.  Quite frankly, I find scamming much more interesting
when there's an opposition scamming just as hard to stop me.

> My sincerest apologies to Guy Fawkes if I misinterpreted eir intent in
> any manner.

You have not misinterpreted my intent.  My intent is simple -- engage in
whatever non-Annoying scams can be performed to stop Alfvaen from
succeeding in his scam.  In the end, I may be successful, or he may be
successful.  There is no offense meant by it, no desire to be unnice, no
long-standing aggression being vented.  In my opinion, this is no more
rude than checking someone on the Party Chess board.  In playing the Party
Chess game, you undertake the possibility that you might be checked.  In
playing the scam game, you undertake the possibility of counterscam.

This is my code of Acka-ethics.  You may disagree with them, and you are
welcome to.  On the other hand, I will be sorely disappointed if I attempt
a scam and no one tries to stop me, unless either the scam is
unstoppable, or I have bribed everyone who could have stopped it not to.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 17:45:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Beldin's Pants III

> I like scams.  I like performing them, and I like watching them be
> performed, as long as they are performed in a non-Annoying fashion.
> However, my personal code of Ackanomic ethics states that if someone
> begins a scam, in doing so they give all other players permission to try
> to counterscam them.  Quite frankly, I find scamming much more interesting
> when there's an opposition scamming just as hard to stop me.

I agree whole heartedly with Guy. The best example of this has to be the
Vulcan rule 1. That was perhaps the biggest scam ever in Acka. It lasted a
long time but did people just sit around and accept it? Not a bit of it!
Whilst it was still there there were more attacks on it than I can remember.
The process of scam and counter-scam is one of the most interesting things
about nomic, IMHO.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 19:52:30 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2823

On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2823
> Disappearing References
> Attila the Pun (Micah Smulker)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> Amend rule 210 ("Literature") by adding the text "or enclosed in
> brackets surrounded by double curly braces [like {{[this]}}]"
> immediately after the text "[like this]" in section B.
> 
> {{[People can make proposals literature without disrupting the
> flow of the rule created by the proposal.]}}
> 
> 

I don't much like this.  I can understand the motivation, but I just don't
think it would be right to drop the references completely.  If this really
bothers people, perhaps we could go to a footnote method of citation
rather than the current parentheticals?

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 20:21:04 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Micah Smukler)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2823

>On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:
>
>> Proposal 2823
>> Disappearing References
>> Attila the Pun (Micah Smulker)
>>
>> This is a Modest proposal.
>>
>> Amend rule 210 ("Literature") by adding the text "or enclosed in
>> brackets surrounded by double curly braces [like {{[this]}}]"
>> immediately after the text "[like this]" in section B.
>>
>> {{[People can make proposals literature without disrupting the
>> flow of the rule created by the proposal.]}}
>>
>>
>
>I don't much like this.  I can understand the motivation, but I just don't
>think it would be right to drop the references completely.  If this really
>bothers people, perhaps we could go to a footnote method of citation
>rather than the current parentheticals?
>
>                                    - Vynd
>
>[email-masked]

Had that idea occurred to me before submitting this proposal, rather than
after, I probably would have used it.  However, it strikes me that any
permanent method of citation could be potentially unwieldy, regardless of
where the citation is placed, and, in cases where this is true, it is
better to have temporary references than none at all.

Would you object to, say, scoring only half as much as normal for temporary
citations?

AtP

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 20:28:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 556 (K 2)

On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Micah Smukler wrote:

> I retract this CFJ.  I also direct this question to anybody who may be
> listening:  Why don't notes nest?

Because they bear live young.

Sorry, couldn't resist.  I have no idea myself; I suppose it would be that
much more difficult to word a Rule that way, and no one's ever gotten
around to proposing a rewrite because it doesn't really come up that
often.

- -Hubert

How does Teflon stick to the pan? 

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 20:42:36 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Micah Smukler)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 556 (K 2)

>On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Micah Smukler wrote:
>
>> I retract this CFJ.  I also direct this question to anybody who may be
>> listening:  Why don't notes nest?
>
>Because they bear live young.
>
>Sorry, couldn't resist.  I have no idea myself; I suppose it would be that
>much more difficult to word a Rule that way, and no one's ever gotten
>around to proposing a rewrite because it doesn't really come up that
>often.

Probably.  I don't think it would really be that hard though; all you
would have to do would be to redefine delimiting.

[Text is delimited if the number of opening delimiters before it is greater
than the number of closing delimiters before it, disregarding any closing
delimiters which appear before any opening delimiter.]

>
>-Hubert
>
>How does Teflon stick to the pan?

Velcro.

AtP

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 21:10:21 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Micah Smukler)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2827

>Proposal 2827
>It pays to recruit
>JT (JT Traub)
>
>{{[ All amendments in this rule apply to rule 252 ]}}

I could very well be wrong about this (my skill at interpreting
brackets seems to be virtually nil in light of various recent
events), but I would say that this does not unambiguously
specify a change to the ruleset.

AtP

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 22:26:33 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Beldin's Pants III

> I like scams.  I like performing them, and I like watching them be
> performed, as long as they are performed in a non-Annoying fashion.
> However, my personal code of Ackanomic ethics states that if someone
> begins a scam, in doing so they give all other players permission to try
> to counterscam them.  Quite frankly, I find scamming much more interesting
> when there's an opposition scamming just as hard to stop me.

Many Rules are there to give people an array of weapons to counteract
scams.  It would be a shame not to use them.

> This is my code of Acka-ethics.  You may disagree with them, and you are
> welcome to.  On the other hand, I will be sorely disappointed if I attempt
> a scam and no one tries to stop me, unless either the scam is
> unstoppable, or I have bribed everyone who could have stopped it not to.

Hmmm.  So what's your price?  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Rita Coolidge:Dancing With An Angel
Current Book--Jo Clayton:Quester's Endgame
The road to hell has a silver lining.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 22:28:38 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 556 (K 2)

> How does Teflon stick to the pan? 

Baked on.  C'mon, what's the difficulty here?  For further details, read
_Why Do Clocks Run Clockwise_, an excellent book(one of many)put out by
David Feldman to answer such Imponderable questions.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Rita Coolidge:Dancing With An Angel
Current Book--Jo Clayton:Quester's Endgame
Excuse me while I suck the melancholy from a song as a weasel sucks eggs.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 23:33:29 -0500 (EST)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2827

>>Proposal 2827
>>It pays to recruit
>>JT (JT Traub)
>>
>>{{[ All amendments in this rule apply to rule 252 ]}}
>
>I could very well be wrong about this (my skill at interpreting
>brackets seems to be virtually nil in light of various recent
>events), but I would say that this does not unambiguously
>specify a change to the ruleset.
>

My belief was, that although this text is in a self-deleting note, it's
perfectly adequate for specifying which rule the rest of the text applies
to.  If it's not, I'll be more than happy to amend the proposal by
withdrawing it and resubmitting it with that text outside of a note.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

- --JT

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #57
**********************************