Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #68
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Tuesday, April 14 1998      Volume 03 : Number 068

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 00:05:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Beldin's Pants V

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> But hark, if I may be so bold,
> That Office Alvaen did not hold.
> 
> I refer thee to CFJ,
> Benumbered Five-five-oh, to say

Unless my mem'ry's much congealed,
That CFJ has been appealed.

And though for Cheeses Acting's out,
That state should not an IP flout,

Else will it nigh-impossible be
To make Alfvaen un-Praetory.

I may be wrong, but still contend
Your second IP does impend.

- -Hubert

Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 03:27:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2843 rejected

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> 19/21 votes: Quorum achieved
> 10/17 YES votes: Proposal rejected
> 
>     PRESENT:
> Attila the Pun
> /dev/joe             (Vulcan)

I wonder how hard /dev/joe is kicking himself for not voting YES.
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - ex-President/still Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 03:32:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2843 rejected

>> 19/21 votes: Quorum achieved
>> 10/17 YES votes: Proposal rejected
>> 
>>     PRESENT:
>> Attila the Pun
>> /dev/joe             (Vulcan)
> 
> I wonder how hard /dev/joe is kicking himself for not voting YES.

Or just bribing Tammany, for that matter.

/dev/joe once contemplated taking on the unofficial catchphrase of
"You can convince the players of Ackanomic to vote for anything."
Maybe he should do so now....

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 03:34:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Weirdness

>Also, something else that I mentioned to breadbox and then
>again on IRC, to Slakko I think; why is it that pretty much all of Acka are
>either mathematicians, physicists, or do something connected to computers.
>Any thoughts?

I'm not sure, but some prominent Acka players fit none of the above
categories. snowgod, chess piece face, and Simon Marty Harriman are the
three that first come to mind. I'd just say that more people online are
science types than anything else.

Robert Sevin
<http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~mitcharf/>

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 03:37:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Weirdness

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Mitchell Harding wrote:

> I'm not sure, but some prominent Acka players fit none of the above
> categories. snowgod, chess piece face, and Simon Marty Harriman are the
> three that first come to mind. I'd just say that more people online are
> science types than anything else.

Funny, I thought you said Acka players - I don't see any player names
mentioned above :-)

> 
> Robert Sevin
> <http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~mitcharf/>
> 
"Shine on you crazy diamond."
"You're livin' in the past - Contemporize, man!"
Burns & Recycling Guy, The Simpsons
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - ex-President/still Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 03:42:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Weirdness

>> I'm not sure, but some prominent Acka players fit none of the above
>> categories. snowgod, chess piece face, and Simon Marty Harriman are the
>> three that first come to mind. I'd just say that more people online are
>> science types than anything else.
>
>Funny, I thought you said Acka players - I don't see any player names
>mentioned above :-)

Ah yes, most of the old gang is gone. It's tough being the oldest player. :)

Sometimes I try to convince the founder of Acka to return, but he'd just be
dormant like I am. I know him far too well to expect otherwise. Such a shame.

Who is the oldest, continually active player? By which I mean no dormancy
for more than a week or two, and such dormancies not occurring very often.
Clearly I'm not the best judge of that, as someone could have been dormant
for months and I'd never notice.

Harf,
Robert Sevin
<http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~mitcharf/>

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 03:58:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2884

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2884
> Automatic Beldin Pant Killer
> Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> 
> Append the following text to Rule 940:
> 
> {{Antxina is transferred Somewhere Else.  Alfvaen is removed from the
> Office of Praetor.}}

I argue that, according to the way the Praetor has specified the methods
for amending Rule 940, that this takes immediate effect as of now.
After all, the text of his list of amendments read:

>And then, of course, the normal means,
>Proposals, worth much more than beans.

It says nothing about the Proposals having to be voted on, or accepted or
rejected.  Nothing in the rules prohibits a proposal from having an effect
while it is in the voting queue, so this happens.

Yours,
Slakko
earn the win
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - ex-President/still Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 04:21:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Org Reform Take II

I explained several times the philosophy behind the current Organizational
structure.   

- - Different types of Organizations should be different. I don't think it's
an Organization's deity  given right to trade gadgets.  Political Parties
have the Unity Vote. Churches have trade privileges. When you found an
organization you can either choose which is more important to you, or
found one of each.
This makes it a real choice. Letting every kind of org do everything
makes this choice a no-brainer and leads to the the Chaotic situation we
had here previously.
Orgs are still very flexible.

- - As for VSOs. For a long time orgs functioned as a front for single
playuers to take actions that oly organizations could take. If the rules
allow organizations other rights and privileges (such as Powers) than they
allow players,
then allowing single player organizations to have all those rights and
privileges sorts of moots the points of making the distinction in the
first place.
An individual player is one sort of entity. An Organization is a different
sort of entity. It is a entity which functions by cooperation of several
players. I see no reason to allow a single player, or even two to act as
an Organization.  It destroys the balance of the game.  It is a breeding
ground for scams.
The purpose of P2789 was to return a semblance of sanity to the
Organizational structure.

Mind you, there are now organizational mechanisms, such as proxy, that
allow members to hand over control of organizational actions, and reduce
the need to wait for everyone's approval.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Hubert wrote:

> This post is a continuation of my post to the main list which attempted to
> create a new Church solely for the purpose of getting the Razor Boomerangs
> a working Secret Lab.  This part went to acka-research because I would
> like to know how many players would be in favor of a Proposal intended to
> return to Orgs at least some of the flexibility they once had.
> 
> I don't think I'm really entitled to complain about the current situation
> because I abstained, if accidentally, from voting on Prop 2789, but I
> definitely think some things need fixing.  
> 
> For example, Orgs being able to own and trade all types of ownable,
> tradeable entities. If I'd been able to transfer my Big Blue Thing to the
> 'Rangs before the rafting trip, it'd still be alive. (*sob*) I realize
> some of you may see this as a reason why Orgs _shouldn't_ be allowed to
> own gadgets, and that kind of difference of opinion is what makes Acka
> more interesting and you dead wrong.  Seriously, though, I don't see any
> particular reason why Churches, out of the three types of
> player-sanctioned orgs, should be allowed to own Gadgets and other Orgs
> not.
> 
> Another thing that I feel needs repealing is VSOs.  I was rather
> discouraged (and I'm pretty sure the members of RexBank, Shell #whatever,
> and other personal Orgs are too) to discover that the 'Rangs could do
> basically nothing once Bill left and we only had 2 members.
> 
> I may formalize this into an actual-proposal RFC in a couple of days, but
> I'd like to know now who would be in favor of the general idea and who
> opposed.  I think I can already guess Niccolo's opinion :-), but I would
> like to ask em what e had in mind with this limitation of what Orgs can
> do.
> 
> - -Hubert
> 
> Dyslexic Cultist Sells Soul To Santa 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 04:40:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2875

>>> Repeal rule 206 (Keep 'em in the Game).
>> 
>> Sigh.
>> 
>> I don't know why, but once every few months someone decides that this
>> rule should be repealed, and every time I come out and defend it.
>
> I suppose I probably ought to say why I want it repealed then. First
> off, I've been playing Acka for almost five months now (is it really
> that long?)  and have never seen this rule used.

And yet it *has* been used, and more than once. And anyway, so what?
It's not the rules which don't get used that should be targeted for
repeal. It's the irritating rules which DO get used that should be
repealed. I for one have never been an advocate of reducing the size
of the ruleset for its own sake. Rather, I advocate reducing
complexity that fails to be fun. This rule adds little work, and it
provides fun, if only for the possibility it allows (in the same way
that "Winning by Palindrome" provides fun even though it has never
been used.)

> If someone has managed to loose 60 points through proper play
> (i.e. not doing it on purpose) then even when they were put up to 20
> points they'd still be too far behind to really stand a chance of
> winning the cycle by points. On the other hand if someone looses the
> points on purpose then they don't deserve it. Anyone remember what
> Red Barn did when e first joined Acka?

Actually, that was some time after he joined. But, more importantly,
Red Barn is the *only* player in over two years' time who has
attempted to abuse this rule.

> Granted, we now have annoyingness, but it would be better if no-one
> was even tempted to try.

I must disagree: I think that the Annoying rule pretty much kills the
only objection I have ever had with this rule.

> Oh, and as for the history thing, and the bit about it being one of
> the first rules, blah, blah, blah...I ask those that are old enough
> (or like me, know their AckaHistory (TM)) to recall the Voting
> Gnome. Do we really want to reward those who have picked up
> penalties like this? No we don't. Thank you very much.

Wrong wrong wrong!

> TGW (don't get me started or I'll launch into another anti points and
> anti-voting tirade :-)).

I swear, you've fallen into the same trap that Malenkai did. Malenkai
would argue that points are boring, and then he would go about trying
to repeal all the rules that made points interesting. I just don't get
it.

Points *would* be boring if they were always good to have, and never
bad. But the fact that they are sometimes harmful adds complexity to a
player's strategy. One of the wonderful things about Nomic is that
there usually isn't one single goal that everyone competes to reach:
instead, the goals that you can pursue are many and everchanging.

The Voting Gnome was a perfect example of this. A player who
concentrated only on amassing points missed out on the fact that
players with low scores had an opportunity to exert a stronger
influence on the rules, and thus the course of the game state.

Right now, I'd say points are at a nadir in Ackanomic. Without the
Gnome or the requirement that the Magic Number be hit exactly, for
example, there are only a few occasions in which points can be
detrimental. (Acquiring the Great Trombone is the only other one that
springs to mind.) I don't want to see this one get chopped as well,
especially considering how little harm it actually causes.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 05:06:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Weirdness

> Who is the oldest, continually active player? By which I mean no
> dormancy for more than a week or two, and such dormancies not
> occurring very often.  Clearly I'm not the best judge of that, as
> someone could have been dormant for months and I'd never notice.

I guess it depends on how you define "dormancy".

The next oldest player after yourself still in the game is Calvin N
Hobbes, but like yourself, he has been more dormant than active, all
told. After Calvin N Hobbes is /dev/joe. /dev/joe has taken all of
four vacations in his entire time here, and as far as I know, has
rarely failed to vote on anything. And, of course, until last summer
he was easily one of the most-involved players the game has ever had.
(Of course, others might consider him to be more-or-less dormant now.)

Then comes Niccolo Flychuck, whose involvment level appears (to me,
anyway) to be mostly medium-active punctuated with bursts of high
activity. He did, however, have a three-week vacation last June.

ThinMan is the next-oldest still-active player, but I think you'd have
to call his current status pretty dormant right now.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 06:14:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Beldin's Pants V

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> (Rule 404, look at Clause (iii),
> And not merely at Clause (v).)

I'll comment nada at this time,
But just to say, I loved this rhyme.

> It can no longer be enacted,
> Since it surely was retracted.
> 
> And with no unresolved IP,
> The rules me Praetor do decree

I think you're missing Guy Fawkes' point:
That when you were to Acting boinked,

And e eir IP then retracted,
You still as Praetor only Acted;

For Four oh four does _not_ decree
That retraction "resolves" an IP.

Guy claims lack of resolution
Caused second IP's dissolution --

And since there was no reinstator
You still, ergo, are Acting Praetor.

Now Slakko's jumped in on the scam
With Instant Props: a double wham.

And though I don't think either works,
They prove that opposition lurks.

So submit your CWCFJ,
Be careful, though, of what you say,

For fortune strums a mournful tune
For those whose campaigns peak too soon.

- -Hubert, too tired to do anything but plagiarize bad poetry

Help Wanted: Telepath. You know where to apply. 

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 07:51:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2875

> > Haven't you heard about my revolutionary new system whereby points are
kept
> > in pens and you're obliged to let them out every so often? Seriously
though,
> > I'm a lously speller, especially when it comes to double letters. The
problem
>         ^^^^^^
> And I so hope this was an unintentional mispeling; it's so much funnier
> that way.  And I too like the concept of loosing points.  It's fun to
> watch them run around as if their heads were cut off.

It was, and I think that kinda prooves (look, my spell-checker's told me this
is wrong but I'm going to leave it here anyway) my point (okay, I don't
really think you spell lousy with an l but still). Oh, and I'm gad you like
my system. It's really good because it saves me having to admit that I made a
mistake every time I say loosing points (this isn't the first time).

TGW, who only uses the acronym because e's not sure if e can spell "Gingham".

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 07:59:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2884

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> >And then, of course, the normal means,
> >Proposals, worth much more than beans.
> 
> It says nothing about the Proposals having to be voted on, or accepted or
> rejected.  Nothing in the rules prohibits a proposal from having an effect
> while it is in the voting queue, so this happens.

I would say that "the normal means" means that the Proposals must indeed
undergo the customary treatment.

What if the whole ruleset was written in verse.

GF

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 08:23:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ian K." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2884

> What if the whole ruleset was written in verse.
> 
> GF

Noooooooooo!

I couldn't take it.

(But, tentatively, do you mean good verse?)  :-)

Koxvolio

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 08:41:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC

breadbox and TGW have been discussing the merits of points.  It appears
that something to make points a disadvantage in some circumstances would
be desirable.  I therefore present for your discussion the following rule
concept.

There exists an unownable entity known as Early Leader Syndrome (ELS).
Early Leader Syndrome is able to cast at most one vote on each proposal.
If the author of a proposal has a score bettered by no more than 2 people,
then ELS shall cast a NO vote on that proposal.  If the author of a
proposal has a score below all but at most 2 players, then ELS shall cast
a YES vote on that proposal.  If the preceding provisions of this rule
would cause ELS to attempt to cast both a YES vote and a NO vote on the
same proposal, then ELS shall not cast a vote on that proposal.

Suggestions?

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - ex-President/still Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 08:49:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2835 accepted

Now that I've finally caught up with my duties (for a few more hours,
anyway), I feel compelled to write something about Proposal 2835.

Actually, I have a million things to say, that are all interrelated,
and Proposal 2835 is just the spark that's caused me to ignore my lack
of free time (and finger stamina) and decide to finally write them all
down. I'll try not to get *too* far afield in this message (but I
promise nothing).

I came very close to immediately submitting a proposal to undo 2835's
effects. (Admittedly, I frequently have this urge after processing a
batch this size, but usually not this strong.) Fortunately, my duties
as Rule-Harfer forced me to take time to reflect on the situation, and
I decided to take a less confrontational approach for now. (Which is
what I always wind up doing, but that's besides the point.)

Let me emphasize, first of all, that I am not opposed to the basic
idea behind this proposal at all. The idea that the actual players of
Party Chess should be able to wield an extra vote is a perfectly
reasonable one. What annoys and frustrates me is, rather, how it
affects me as Tabulator.

I'll be frank here: when you get right down to it, the job of
Tabulator kind of sucks. I consider it to be one of the three worst
jobs in the game. The other two are, of course, Speaker and
Scorekeeper. The Speaker is the original "thankless job" (as e has to
do everything not assigned to anyone else). And the Scorekeeper's job
requires keeping track of more rules (and, worse, rule changes) than
anyone, probably by an order of magnitude.

Actually, the job of Financier may actually deserve to be in this
category as well, since there are now so many kinds of entities
constantly floating around. How Alfvaen manages all of these positions
is beyond me.

Anyway, the reason I include Tabulator in this category is that it is
the only other job besides the aforementioned that requires having to
keep track of so much state that is, by rule, the domain of other
Offices. The Registrar is responsible for tracking the list of players
- - who is on vacation and whatnot - and I certainly need to know these
things at all times. In fact, just about every announcement Alfvaen
makes as Registrar gets recorded in my data files. The Speaker (I
think) is responsible for tracking party memberships, and I need to
know this in order to determine unity votes. The Financier is
responsible for tracking player possessions, and I need this data for
Tammany bribes and Bonus Votes.

And now, I am also dependent on data tracked by the Chess-Umpire - yet
another aspect of the game state that I am not allowed to ignore. (Not
that I make a habit of ignoring Party Chess, understand, but it's
valuable to have the option of doing so when my time is tight.)

But what is perhaps more irksome is that there is no way to "automate"
the usage of this new vote. Even if I choose to keep up-to-date
records on the list of Swingers, I cannot automate the determination
of whether a given proposal is a Chess Proposal. In fact, I see that
I've already failed in my new duties, because Proposal 2844 was in
fact a Chess Proposal. Luckily, Guy Fawkes and Alfvaen didn't vote
with the others, so I'm saved from having to correct my original
report.

Now, I grant you, there's a whole lotta parts to this job that I can't
automate. (Even something as simple as Modesty, or Foolishness, resist
automation, thanks to the mispelling rule.) Which is why you're never
going to see my nomicbot running completely unsupervised, as Mohammed
or Wayne did. Mohammed, for the most part, relied on tricks and luck
to prevent game state changes outside of the Tabulator's domain from
causing his bot to release erroneous voting results. For a time, when
snowgod was Registrar, each of them had their own bots which sent each
other commands, back and forth, to keep both of them up-to-date with
all the information they needed from each other. A tricky setup, and
one that could fail majestically if one of them got behind. I actually
considered exploring such a setup myself for a time, but I quickly
realized that it *still* wouldn't allow the bot to run unsupervised.
There are just too damn many things that can affect something that can
affect something that can affect the voting results. Half of the
Officers would need to maintain bots, all chattering to each other, in
order to free li'l ol' me from the danger of having nomicbot send out
a voting report with mistakes. And the havoc that can ensue from an
error in a voting report being found (say) ten days later is just not
worth it ... especially if everyone's become dependent on bots to do
their work for them.

The hell of it is that this situation isn't a problem that permits a
solution. It's not a flaw in the way the game has evolved; the game is
this way for a purpose, if not by actual conscious intention. In fact,
it comes very close to the spirit of Ackanomic Harf. (Okay, now I'm
*really* getting off the original subject, but this is something I
want to state.) I mean, what is harfy which is not also difficult to
track? To be sure, there is more to harf than that. There is, for
example, the necessary element of silliness and non sequiter. ("Orange
devil, wear sandals!"???) But I posit that the truly valuable and
important harf also has the element of interrelatedness -
ramifications on the game state that are hard to predict, and,
therefore, also hard and/or time-consuming to track.

Consider the Voting Gnome, something I have always considered to be a
near-apex of harf. The Voting Gnome was, in essence, a second vote
owned at all times by whichever player had the lowest score. Because
one's score is constantly changing, and because voting results are a
major source of score changes, the Voting Gnome becomes something that
can be lost or gained at almost any time. Just a few simple rules that
feed back on each other, and you have something unpredictable and
frequently in flux. (But even so the possibility of predicting and
controlling is there, though imperfectly, for those who are willing to
spend the time and energy.)

In short, that which is harfy is, almost by necessity, hard to harf.

And it is precisely this which makes us Ackanomic and not Agora, which
is why I say that this touches so close to our spirit. We are not
interested in building an efficient, well-oiled machine; we are
interested in seeing how complicated we can make the game without
killing ourselves. We are interested in seeing just how weird things
can get before everyone loses the ability to figure out what's going
on. We play with fire and try not to burn down the house. And this is
why you haven't seen me proposing any Tabulator reforms. Tracking all
these details drive me nuts, but I don't want to see them go, because
they are part of the whole point of why I came here and stayed.

But this is also why we have to consider issues of balance, even
moreso than an Agoran does. When you get right down to it, this
Proposal 2835, which I've used as an excuse to go off on everything
and the horses they rode in on, which creates a minor new class of
proposals that I have to check for by hand (oh poor poor me - already
I can see you shaking your head in amazement at how much I will write
solely in order to have an excuse to complain about this [but this is
more than just me whining; I feel I need to address what I see as a
recent trend in the game]) ... this here proposal is possibly just a
drop in the bucket of my duties. Or, it could also wind up being the
straw that breaks my back. Most likely, though, it will just be a
thorn in my side. (Do I get points for using three unrelated idioms in
a row?)

But you see, that's bad enough, in its own way. Nomic is about playing
with a unstable and ever-changing system of rules. Now the rules are
so demanding that automation becomes necessary. But dependency on
automation makes it far less palatable to change that part of the
rules, even while it frees us to keep other parts of the rules in
constant flux. A delicious dilemma, and we savor it, seeing how far we
can push things. We want to avoid disrupting the smallest part of the
game that needs to remain running smoothly, while simultaneously
raising havoc with everything else. But everything is so connected
with everything else! These damn dilemmas keep popping up every way
you turn. And you can't escape them without leaving behind the good
stuff. So we just keep walking that balance, and see how close we can
get to having our cake and eating it too.

Balance. This is what Proposal 2835 lacks, by the Tabulator's
yardstick. Even though its effects will only come into play for a
small minority of proposals, it adds a little more work for *every*
proposal. Is that little bit of extra work worth it to me, personally?
Absolutely not. Is it worth it to the game, as a whole? Maybe.

We'll see, I guess.

Okay, now my fingers are really tired, so I'm just going to suddenly
stop here.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 08:54:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ian K." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

> There exists an unownable entity known as Early Leader Syndrome (ELS).
> Early Leader Syndrome is able to cast at most one vote on each proposal.
> If the author of a proposal has a score bettered by no more than 2 people,
> then ELS shall cast a NO vote on that proposal.  If the author of a
> proposal has a score below all but at most 2 players, then ELS shall cast
> a YES vote on that proposal.  If the preceding provisions of this rule
> would cause ELS to attempt to cast both a YES vote and a NO vote on the
> same proposal, then ELS shall not cast a vote on that proposal.
> 
> Suggestions?

I like it.

Koxvolio

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 09:06:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2884

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Ian K. wrote:

> > What if the whole ruleset was written in verse.
> > 
> > GF
> 
> Noooooooooo!
> 
> I couldn't take it.
> 
> (But, tentatively, do you mean good verse?)  :-)

Doguerel is the official poetic mode of Ackanomic.  Anyone caught writing
quality verse shall be executed.

GF

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 09:13:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

> breadbox and TGW have been discussing the merits of points.  It appears
> that something to make points a disadvantage in some circumstances would
> be desirable.  I therefore present for your discussion the following rule
> concept.
> 
> There exists an unownable entity known as Early Leader Syndrome (ELS).
> Early Leader Syndrome is able to cast at most one vote on each proposal.
> If the author of a proposal has a score bettered by no more than 2 people,
> then ELS shall cast a NO vote on that proposal.  If the author of a
> proposal has a score below all but at most 2 players, then ELS shall cast
> a YES vote on that proposal.  If the preceding provisions of this rule
> would cause ELS to attempt to cast both a YES vote and a NO vote on the
> same proposal, then ELS shall not cast a vote on that proposal.
> 
> Suggestions?

Please no. You see, this is the *real* reason the Voting Gnome had to
die.

This idea, like the Gnome, makes the voting results dependent on the
only part of the game that changes more frequently than the proposal
queue - namely, player scores. I would therefore need to constantly
refer to the pointlog in order to tabulate anything.

See, the difference between something like this, or the Voting Gnome,
and something like Keep 'Em in the Game is that the latter does not
make Officers dependent on each other for up-to-the-minute data (or,
worse, force Officers to duplicate harfing efforts). The Scorekeeper
already has all the data e needs to enforce Keep 'Em in the Game,
while the Voting Gnome almost forces the Tabulator and the Scorekeeper
Offices to be held by the same person.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 09:14:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

> >OK, before I was just amused at your pitiful attempts, now you've got me
> >REALLY mad. With my remaining, non-blinded head, I snarl in furious rage
> >and, uh, fury, and throw my other two Boomerangs (check the P/E page -- I
> >have three) in quick succession into extremely uncomfortable portions of
> >your anatomy.  (Yes, like the back of a Volkswagen.)
> >
> >Remember to count a guy's heads before you decapitate em next time.
>         Regardless, you lose A head.  That's a point for TGW.  Scores
> remain tied:)

Loss of a head, but that's a rule defined action.... to bad this was done on
research ;)

K 2

The Murrey Veil
(but for how much longer ? )

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 09:22:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: ACKA: Re: more questions

Hose em (rufus).  ;)

David Scheidt wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:
>
> > Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 19:04:11 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
> > Reply-To: [email-masked]
> > To: Ackanomic <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: Re: more questions
>
> I am tempted to call a snowgod's disease hearing on NF, but since this
> shows he has to do ISP technical support, which has been known to cause
> all sorts of anti-social behaviour, I shan't.
>
> rufus
> BT,DT

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 09:28:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACKA: Re: more questions

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, K2 wrote:

> Hose em (rufus).  ;)

Does Ackanomic really wish to see
lines and lines of doggeral from me?

rufus

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 09:43:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Org Reform Take II

> This post is a continuation of my post to the main list which attempted to
> create a new Church solely for the purpose of getting the Razor Boomerangs
> a working Secret Lab.  This part went to acka-research because I would
> like to know how many players would be in favor of a Proposal intended to
> return to Orgs at least some of the flexibility they once had.

I think a better fix would be to allow an org to specify in who's possession
the gadget from a secret lab is created. I see no reason why orgs *should* be
allowed to own gadgets. What are they going to use them for anyway? Basically
I agree with Niccolo on most aspects of this org debate. The only changes I
would like to see are the secret lab one outlined above, one to allow
shell#10 and Vulcan to distribute their gadgets as they see fit, and possibly
one to allow the senior priest in a church to take on the founders
responsibilities, I'm undecided on that one.

> Another thing that I feel needs repealing is VSOs.  I was rather
> discouraged (and I'm pretty sure the members of RexBank, Shell #whatever,
> and other personal Orgs are too) to discover that the 'Rangs could do
> basically nothing once Bill left and we only had 2 members.

I would strongly resist any change to VSO. Remember these are meant to be
*organisations*, how many RL organisations do you see with one member?
Remember, in Niccolo's original RFC e proposed that any org with fewer than
three members should disband instantly (IIRC). I think what is there at the
moment is a good compromise. The boomerangs now have new members, as does
shell #10. It seems to have done it's job.
 
> I may formalize this into an actual-proposal RFC in a couple of days, but
> I'd like to know now who would be in favor of the general idea and who
> opposed.  I think I can already guess Niccolo's opinion :-), but I would
> like to ask em what e had in mind with this limitation of what Orgs can
> do.

I think the major reason behind the limitations was to prevent scamming.

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 10:26:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Fwd: Acka: RFC: Org Reform Take II]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------BDDA7A7EED69EB8480FF5CEF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- --------------BDDA7A7EED69EB8480FF5CEF
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 00:25:28 +1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Org Reform Take II
References: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I apply for membership in Rex Bank. And don't worry, I won't try to take allyour
stuff.

;)

K 2

- --------------BDDA7A7EED69EB8480FF5CEF--

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 10:31:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2875

> And yet it *has* been used, and more than once. And anyway, so what?
> It's not the rules which don't get used that should be targeted for
> repeal. It's the irritating rules which DO get used that should be
> repealed. I for one have never been an advocate of reducing the size
> of the ruleset for its own sake. Rather, I advocate reducing
> complexity that fails to be fun. This rule adds little work, and it
> provides fun, if only for the possibility it allows (in the same way
> that "Winning by Palindrome" provides fun even though it has never
> been used.)

I don't see why this rule is fun. I whole-heartedly agree that rules which do
get used but are irritating and/or scam fodder should be repealed (e.g.
Zuriti'ili, Caped Crusader) and I also agree that we should keep fun rules
that don't cause any real problems. I don't understand why this is fun
though. Rules such as winning by palindrome, sanctity of harf, evil twins
etc. are enjoyable. They made me chuckle when I first saw them; they still
make me grin to some extent. This one doesn't though, all it does is describe
how your points total can change. Yawn.
 
> > If someone has managed to loose 60 points through proper play
> > (i.e. not doing it on purpose) then even when they were put up to 20
> > points they'd still be too far behind to really stand a chance of
> > winning the cycle by points. On the other hand if someone looses the
> > points on purpose then they don't deserve it. Anyone remember what
> > Red Barn did when e first joined Acka?
> 
> Actually, that was some time after he joined. But, more importantly,
> Red Barn is the *only* player in over two years' time who has
> attempted to abuse this rule.

Granted, but what's to say that no-ones going to try it again. If Red Barn
had been totally familiar with the rules at that time then e wouldn't have
made most of eir proposals invalid. What's to say some other new(ish) player
won't see that rule and decide to give it a go without seeing the rule about
being annoying. I don't doubt e'd have a CFCJ called against em and it would
come back true but what would you suggest as a penalty? Points? That would
get you no-where? Gaol or an A$ fine? All well and good, but e's still got
the extra points. If we get rid of the rule then I can *guarantee* no-one
would submit and retract thirty proposals.

> > Granted, we now have annoyingness, but it would be better if no-one
> > was even tempted to try.
> 
> I must disagree: I think that the Annoying rule pretty much kills the
> only objection I have ever had with this rule.

See my above comments.

> > Oh, and as for the history thing, and the bit about it being one of
> > the first rules, blah, blah, blah...I ask those that are old enough
> > (or like me, know their AckaHistory (TM)) to recall the Voting
> > Gnome. Do we really want to reward those who have picked up
> > penalties like this? No we don't. Thank you very much.
> 
> Wrong wrong wrong!

I know I certainly don't. IMHO the very idea of a penalty is to *penalise*
people. The reason we have penalties is to try to stop people from doing
certain things which go against the spirit of the game, make the game
annoying for others or create more work for the harfers. If accumulating
penalties becomes a good thing then we will no longer discourage people from
doing them.

> > TGW (don't get me started or I'll launch into another anti points and
> > anti-voting tirade :-)).
> 
> I swear, you've fallen into the same trap that Malenkai did. Malenkai
> would argue that points are boring, and then he would go about trying
> to repeal all the rules that made points interesting. I just don't get
> it.

Well, I think I can live with making the same mistake as Malenkai :-)

> Points *would* be boring if they were always good to have, and never
> bad. But the fact that they are sometimes harmful adds complexity to a
> player's strategy. One of the wonderful things about Nomic is that
> there usually isn't one single goal that everyone competes to reach:
> instead, the goals that you can pursue are many and everchanging.

I know this last fact as well as anyone. I for one don't give a jot about my
points total but  know a lot of people do (e.g. Slakko). When is it actually
bad to have points? I've racked my brain and have failed to come up with a
single instance whereby having a large points total is a hindrance (actually,
having read down a bit lower you mention the great trombone; the only real
use for the great trombone is to gain more points though, it's hardly a very
big hindrance) . Am I missing something?

> The Voting Gnome was a perfect example of this. A player who
> concentrated only on amassing points missed out on the fact that
> players with low scores had an opportunity to exert a stronger
> influence on the rules, and thus the course of the game state.

And the Voting Gnome is gone. Doesn't that tell you something?

> Right now, I'd say points are at a nadir in Ackanomic. Without the
> Gnome or the requirement that the Magic Number be hit exactly, for
> example, there are only a few occasions in which points can be
> detrimental. (Acquiring the Great Trombone is the only other one that
> springs to mind.) I don't want to see this one get chopped as well,
> especially considering how little harm it actually causes.

As I said, the Gnome is gone, as is hitting the magic number exactly. There
must be a reason for this. Granted, a large reason for getting rid of these
may have the difficulty in tracking them but I think part of it must be what
I'm saying here.

TGW, apparently Malenkai's successor in more than one issue.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #68
**********************************