Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #93
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Wednesday, May 6 1998      Volume 03 : Number 093

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 03:04:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Old Fashioned Burning

On Tue, 5 May 1998, JT wrote:

> On Tue, 5 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> >Rule 670 says, in section 4:
> >
> >4 day grace period (i.e. 8 days after the end of the last cycle) every
> >member of the Commission, i.e. every Senator, was burned as a witch and
> >had eir score reduced by 2 points.  However, seeing as the report was
> 
> My question, and I'll ask it here (mailing list changed to acka-research)
> is, since we were burned as a witch, are we also Enlightened?  I would
> think so, but I'm not 100% sure.

Rule 670 says you would be burned as a witch, but the rule which grants
Enlightenment does not say it applies to all burnings as witches.  In
fact, it only applies to people being "incinerated as a heretic", even if
the verdict from the Hearing is "BURN THE WITCH!".  As the Commission did
not commit Heresy (which was of course defined in Rule 1307, not Rule
670), they have not committed Heresy, are not Heretics, were not
incinerated as heretics, and therefore are not Enlightened.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
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 - President, Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 05:55:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (L'homme a tete de choux)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2947 rejected

>What do people want to do with BAA! votes?
>
>We voted them into existence, but both proposals that have tried to make
>them different from Present votes have failed.

Well, my Proposal failed by 0.2 of a vote, which is pretty galling. I may
resubmit it in case any anti-voters wish to change their minds. Perhaps my
mistake was not voting for my own proposal.

Pandora

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 07:41:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3001

> Proposal 3001
> Calendar
> H*bert (Jonathan David Amery)
> 
> {{All players who voted for this proposal are gifted a trinket of value
> A$1 with a description of "Voucher for one calendar." and a name of
> "<name>'s Calender", where <name> is replaced by the name of the player.}}

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, this is illegal bribery. The proposal is
therefore invalid.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 08:23:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3001

On Wed, 6 May 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > Proposal 3001
> > Calendar
> > H*bert (Jonathan David Amery)
> > 
> > {{All players who voted for this proposal are gifted a trinket of value
> > A$1 with a description of "Voucher for one calendar." and a name of
> > "<name>'s Calender", where <name> is replaced by the name of the player.}}
> 
> Unless I'm terribly mistaken, this is illegal bribery. The proposal is
> therefore invalid.
> 
 O.K; you seem to be correct...

 Resubmitting...

 H*bert.

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 11:45:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Astro" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Harfy herarings

>> > A Harfy Hearing is _not_ a type of Hearing. {{[I know this seems odd,
so if
>> > anyone sees how I can make a Harfy Hearing be a Hearing, speak up!]}}
>
>Now, this is the one bit that I really don't understand. Why is it _not_ a
>type of Hearing?

Well, I thought it would be to strange/"error prone"/illegal/'plain wierd'
to make a Hearing with six verdicts where three verdicts are functionally
equivalent, and in the future a hearing might be called in which two people
voted fot the harfy verdict and one each for the Unharfy verdict, "Unharfy"
and "Agree with caller", which would then be harfed (is this the right term
for this?) incorrectly.

- -- Astro

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 13:03:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Questions

> 	Okay I'm done now.  Although what would have been so bad about just
> ignoring this thread...

Probably nothing, but the messages were coming at a rate of about one every
ten minutes, I just couldn't cope. Besides, I was feeling grouchy last night.

TGW.

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 14:05:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Raquel Peres da Silva" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Would I have submited it if I didn't aproove it?

> >What do people want to do with BAA! votes?
> >
> >We voted them into existence, but both proposals that have tried to make
> >them different from Present votes have failed.
> 
> Well, my Proposal failed by 0.2 of a vote, which is pretty galling. I may
> resubmit it in case any anti-voters wish to change their minds. Perhaps
my
> mistake was not voting for my own proposal.

This brings up a question that have been bothering me: do I need to vote
for my own proposal? I think it should be assumed that, if submited it, I
certainly aproove it, but it seems that the rules are omisse concerning to
this. If so, I'll submit a proposal to fix this. What do you people think?

Yours,

Ayla
Priestess of the Order of the Razor Boomerangs
Priestess of the Church of the Evil Ballot Stuffer

Law of Cat Motion:  A cat will move in a straight line, unless there is a
*really* good reason to change direction.

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 14:12:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Would I have submited it if I didn't aproove it?

On Wed, 6 May 1998, Raquel Peres da Silva wrote:

> > >What do people want to do with BAA! votes?
> > >
> > >We voted them into existence, but both proposals that have tried to make
> > >them different from Present votes have failed.
> > 
> > Well, my Proposal failed by 0.2 of a vote, which is pretty galling. I may
> > resubmit it in case any anti-voters wish to change their minds. Perhaps
> my
> > mistake was not voting for my own proposal.
> 
> This brings up a question that have been bothering me: do I need to vote
> for my own proposal? I think it should be assumed that, if submited it, I
> certainly aproove it, but it seems that the rules are omisse concerning to
> this. If so, I'll submit a proposal to fix this. What do you people think?

No, the rules don't cause you to automatically vote in favor of a proposal
you wrote.  People do occassionally write proposals that they vote against
themselves, generally as some sort of scam, or even pass or abstain on for
various reasons.  Forgetting to vote on one's own proposal is actually
quite common :), but there are other reasons to do it as well.  I don't
think I would vote for a change to automatica yes votes on one's
own proposals.

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

> 
> Yours,
> 
> Ayla
> Priestess of the Order of the Razor Boomerangs
> Priestess of the Church of the Evil Ballot Stuffer
> 
> Law of Cat Motion:  A cat will move in a straight line, unless there is a
> *really* good reason to change direction.
> 

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 14:15:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Would I have submited it if I didn't aproove it?

On Wed, 6 May 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> On Wed, 6 May 1998, Raquel Peres da Silva wrote:
> 
> > > >What do people want to do with BAA! votes?
> > > >
> > > >We voted them into existence, but both proposals that have tried to make
> > > >them different from Present votes have failed.
> > > 
> > > Well, my Proposal failed by 0.2 of a vote, which is pretty galling. I may
> > > resubmit it in case any anti-voters wish to change their minds. Perhaps my
> > > mistake was not voting for my own proposal.
> > 
> > This brings up a question that have been bothering me: do I need to vote
> > for my own proposal? I think it should be assumed that, if submited it, I
> > certainly aproove it, but it seems that the rules are omisse concerning to
> > this. If so, I'll submit a proposal to fix this. What do you people think?
> 
> No, the rules don't cause you to automatically vote in favor of a proposal
> you wrote.  People do occassionally write proposals that they vote against
> themselves, generally as some sort of scam, or even pass or abstain on for
> various reasons.  Forgetting to vote on one's own proposal is actually
> quite common :), but there are other reasons to do it as well.  I don't
> think I would vote for a change to automatica yes votes on one's
> own proposals.

 How about assuming that if a player doesn't vote on a proposal that is
theirs then they have voted YES on it.

 H*bert.

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 14:23:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Would I have submited it if I didn't aproove it?

On Wed, 6 May 1998, Raquel Peres da Silva wrote:

> 
> This brings up a question that have been bothering me: do I need to vote
> for my own proposal? I think it should be assumed that, if submited it, I
> certainly aproove it, but it seems that the rules are omisse concerning to
> this. If so, I'll submit a proposal to fix this. What do you people think?
> 

Bad assumption.  I write many of my proposals under the influence of
mindaltering chemicals.  I vote heartily against them when I see them in
the queue.

IB
dumber than a box of hammers

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 14:27:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: RFC: Would I have submited it if I didn't aproove it?

Overdoing the 'frop again?  :)

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Matt Miller [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Wednesday, May 06, 1998 1:23 PM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Re: Acka: RFC: Would I have submited it if I didn't aproove it?
>
>
>Bad assumption.  I write many of my proposals under the influence of
>mindaltering chemicals.  I vote heartily against them when I see them in
>the queue.
>
>IB
>dumber than a box of hammers
>

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 16:41:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2995

> "A player receives a brie if no CFCJ called against em has returned a
> final verdict of TRUE in the last two months.  To own a brie received in
> this manner is to commit the Crime of Being Cheesy.  If any CFCJ returns
> a TRUE verdict against a player, any brie they may have is destroyed."
> {{[ Bries are too easy to get.  Let's spice it up a little. ]}}

For me, this isn't funny. While a brie alone might be easy to get, the
others
are harder, and all of them focus on being a player setting examples to
follow - getting proposals through, including harfy ones, playing lots of
games, holding offices. Bries alone do nothing, so I don't see why the
whole process should be devaluated.

Or what do you think of "The player who achieved a winning condition
gets the Chartreuse Goose. A random other player wins the cycle."
Likewise, it steps over the lines from harfy to chaotic to annoying.

I'm calling a Politeness Moon hearing on my above statements.
J. M. Bear (not in the best of moods)

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 17:06:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2995

> For me, this isn't funny. While a brie alone might be easy to get, the
> others
> are harder, and all of them focus on being a player setting examples to
> follow - getting proposals through, including harfy ones, playing lots of
> games, holding offices. Bries alone do nothing, so I don't see why the
> whole process should be devaluated.

JM Bear has just eloquently summed up my reasoning for creating cheeses. Well
done!

> Or what do you think of "The player who achieved a winning condition
> gets the Chartreuse Goose. A random other player wins the cycle."
> Likewise, it steps over the lines from harfy to chaotic to annoying.

I think that that sounds quite fun actually.

TGW.

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 17:45:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Raquel Peres da Silva" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Would I have submited it if I didn't aproove it?

>  How about assuming that if a player doesn't vote on a proposal that is
> theirs then they have voted YES on it.

That's the point! But don't you dare to steal my proposal! I saw it first!
:-)

Yours,

Ayla
Priestess of the Order of the Razor Boomerangs
Priestess of the Church of the Evil Ballot Stuffer

Law of Cat Motion:  A cat will move in a straight line, unless there is a
*really* good reason to change direction.

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 18:23:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Salaries

	Alvaen, do I get a salary as AR-C?  I don't think I got a reply to
my last message, though I could have missed it.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 20:54:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2996

> This destroys half of the 1928 proposal which just passed - the
> ability of the Board of the Ackan Reserve to manipulate the rate at
> which the stock market rises and falls.

Unless the undoing of the 1928 changes was intentional, I'm presuming
that Proposal 2996 will need to be retracted. On that presumption I
will keep my comments to a bare minimum:

I am not prepared to deal with that much added complication to the
process of tabulating - not now, and with only two weeks' notice. If
this proposal were to be adopted, you can expect the queue to be
frobbed immediately following, and even then I would be hard pressed
to avoid violating Speed (short of resigning, that is).

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 21:59:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Salaries

> 	Alvaen, do I get a salary as AR-C?  I don't think I got a reply to
> my last message, though I could have missed it.

Yes, sorry, you did.  I don't know if that Office existed last month
or not, since I didn't do the salary for it then.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Third Eye Blind
Current Book--Barb Galler-Smith & Josh Langston:Druids
We must believe in free will.  We have no choice.

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 22:21:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Take Two

Eric Plumb wrote:

> I suggest the Razor Boomerangs take possession of the Little Lamb.  Since
> it is not owned by a player who has owned it for less than one week (it's
> owned by the Razor Boomerangs) this will happen once acknowledged by JT
> and Joe Java.  We don't even have to pay the A$10, it seems.  Happy, K 2?

If it works :)  I'll have to check

K 2

>
>
> -Hubert
>
> If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown, too?

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 23:09:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2938

Something just occurred to me regarding that troublesome Proposal that
attempted to amend Rule 34o.

Remember, its closing delimiter was missing?  And there was self-deleting
text on the end?

What is the _one_ rule where text in double curly brackets isn't self-
deleting?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Northern Pikes:Believe
Current Book--Barb Galler-Smith & Josh Langston:Druids
The pills that I took, they made my fingers disappear

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 23:24:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Raquel Peres da Silva" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2995

> > "A player receives a brie if no CFCJ called against em has returned a
> > final verdict of TRUE in the last two months.  To own a brie received
in
> > this manner is to commit the Crime of Being Cheesy.  If any CFCJ
returns
> > a TRUE verdict against a player, any brie they may have is destroyed."
> >
> 
> So in other words I'm doomed if I do and doomed if I don't?
> 
> K 2
> Caped Crusader.

When I first read this proposal I thought I hadn't understood it (believe
me, that would be no surprise). I'm relieved to know that, if I
misunderstood it, so did K 2. It seems like by receiving a brie - which I
could not avoid unless by commiting a Crime - I would be... commiting a
Crime! So, what shoice would I have? I don't want to be a criminal!

Yours,

Ayla (who just wanted everyone to know e's going to vote NO)
Priestess of the Order of the Razor Boomerangs
Priestess of the Church of the Evil Ballot Stuffer

Law of Cat Motion:  A cat will move in a straight line, unless there is a
*really* good reason to change direction.

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 23:45:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3004

On Wed, 6 May 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 3004
> Calendar
> H*bert (Jonathan David Amery)

...

>  Each of the trinkets mentioned above that were created in the possession
> of players who did not vote either YES or BAA! on the proposal that
> created this rule are destroyed.
> 
>  Each of the trinkets mentioned above that were created in the possession
> of players who voted BAA! on the proposal that created this rule have
> their description changed to "This is just an example."

This is still invalid, H*bert.  The first part is fine now, but these
parts attempt to discriminate in some way between players who voted a
particular way on the Proposal...

Trust me, I know.

- -Hubert, whose FIRST EVER Proposal should have been valid but wasn't

There are three kinds of people: those who can count and those who can't. 

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #93
**********************************