Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #95
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest        Friday, May 8 1998        Volume 03 : Number 095

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

Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 00:27:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Salaries

>> >What about the Nyarlathotep?  E is a Functional Office Holder - has e been
>> >paid yet?

>> I'd rather see a CFJ to that effect first.  Or maybe the next Financier will
>> be more sympathetic.

>Let me get this straight.  There is a rule which says

>There is an Optional Functional Office of Nyarlathotep.

>and you claim it doesn't exist?

>That seems pretty tortured logic to me.

This isn't just any Rule we're talking about here.  This is a Frankenstein
Monster Blueprint.  A FM Blueprint could say that above and in the next
sentence change its mind and say "Nyarlathotep is a Modest Proposal."
This one doesn't, but it does in fact say "Nyarlathotep is called granted
Sanctuary of Salation."

But I'm not going to argue with you any more.  I'm merely going to let
the next Financier, or some Judge, handle it.  I honestly don't care
anymore.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Current Album--Jackson Browne:Running On Empty
Current Book--Barb Galler-Smith & Josh Langston:Druids
I've stopped payment on my reality check.

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

Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 00:48:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stripe

Duncan Richer wrote:

> In which case e was committing the Crime of Illegal Action, as e had no
> entity called "The Originals", or even any entity called "Original #1"
> etc., so that e was attempting to trade stuff e did not have.
>
> Caped Crusader, punish that evil doer!

Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Since when has offering being regulated by the rules? I hereby offer to give
> Slakko an EBS *spit* for A$100000000.
>
> And that's totally legal, offering isn't regulated.
>
> TGW.

I just tried to write a CFCJ against TGW for this trade, however, I found eir offer
did not occur...

Rule 515 states:
>A Player may offer a trade ... if and only if the trade is legal.

It then goes on to define illegal trades, which because of the above sentence (do not
occur - iif implies "impossibility"). So while we all thought TGW offered an EBS for
an improbable amount, the offer was impossible because the trade would have been
illegal.

Hubert's trade on the other hand I read as meaning the originals of the video tape
mentioned earlier in the paragraph are being offered to Slakko for 800

K 2

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

Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 02:05:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3011

> Proposal 3011
> Calendar
> H*bert (Jonathan David Amery)
> 
>  {{All players 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.}}
> 
>  Create a rule entitled "TGW's idea" numbered with the lowest legal
> integer number and with the following PTERRY-delimited text. 
> 
> PTERRY
>  This rule takes precedence over all other rules, particually rule 313.

What! For harf's sake, is this truly *necessary*?

I for one will not be voting in favor of a rule that will take
precedence over Rules 101, 102 *and* 103 unless I'm completely
convinced that it is AIRTIGHT. Those rules are our safeguards against
many paradoxen and unforeseen side effects.

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but why can't you just attach
a simple bribe to the proposal? Legal bribery exists for just this
purpose. Why not use Rule 313 instead of trying to fight it?

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 02:18:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3009

> Proposal 3009
> Don't vote against your own proposals
> Ayla (Raquel Peres da Silva)
> 
> This is a Modest Proposal
> 
> Amend Rule 106 by inserting the following YES text between first and
> second sentences:
> 
> YES
> The player who submited a proposal shall not vote on it: e will be deemed
> to have voted YES on this proposal.
> YES

This is much stronger than what I recall was being discussed in the
fora. It appears to actually prohibit a player from voting on eir own
proposal - i.e., it forces them to vote YES. What would be the point?
There *are* valid reasons why one might want to vote against one's own
proposal.

And I'm sorry, but I feel that if you don't vote on your own proposal,
then those are the breaks. You have seven days, and it's not as if you
need to read the thing before deciding how to vote. (And if you lose
all email and web access for a full week, you're probably going to
have bigger problems than this. The one time I lost email access for
over three days, I was randomly selected for no less than three CFJs.)

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 02:36:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Salaries

On Fri, 8 May 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> >Let me get this straight.  There is a rule which says
> 
> >There is an Optional Functional Office of Nyarlathotep.
> 
> >and you claim it doesn't exist?
> 
> >That seems pretty tortured logic to me.
> 
> This isn't just any Rule we're talking about here.  This is a Frankenstein
> Monster Blueprint.  A FM Blueprint could say that above and in the next
> sentence change its mind and say "Nyarlathotep is a Modest Proposal."
> This one doesn't, but it does in fact say "Nyarlathotep is called granted
> Sanctuary of Salation."
> 
> But I'm not going to argue with you any more.  I'm merely going to let
> the next Financier, or some Judge, handle it.  I honestly don't care
> anymore.

Now you're ignoring a CFJ verdict of TRUE.  If it weren't for the fact
that you're going to give up the job, you'd be clearly up on Negligence so
fast your head would spin.  I submitted CFJ 589 to get you to do this - it
comes back TRUE, and yet you are still not paying H*bert.  What
(rhetorically) do I have to do?

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: Fri, 08 May 1998 04:59:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3011

On Fri, 8 May 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but why can't you just attach
> a simple bribe to the proposal? Legal bribery exists for just this
> purpose. Why not use Rule 313 instead of trying to fight it?
> 
 Because the bribe isn't actually the intent of the proposal.  :-)

 And, no, this is _not_ an attempt at a cycle win.

 H*bert.

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

Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 05:01:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3011

On Fri, 8 May 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:

> On Fri, 8 May 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> > Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but why can't you just attach
> > a simple bribe to the proposal? Legal bribery exists for just this
> > purpose. Why not use Rule 313 instead of trying to fight it?
> > 
>  Because the bribe isn't actually the intent of the proposal.  :-)
> 
>  And, no, this is _not_ an attempt at a cycle win.
> 
 Oh, and I don't have that much cash.  

 H*bert.

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

Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 05:39:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Salaries

On Thu, 7 May 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> This isn't just any Rule we're talking about here.  This is a Frankenstein
> Monster Blueprint.  A FM Blueprint could say that above and in the next
> sentence change its mind and say "Nyarlathotep is a Modest Proposal."
> This one doesn't, but it does in fact say "Nyarlathotep is called granted
> Sanctuary of Salation."

If I could just add my two cents here (and check to see if the B-Ack is
paying attention) I would like to say that the CSRR should pretty soon be
renaming either the FM Nyarlathotep or the Office Nyarlathotep (possibly
renaming one to "granting Sanctuary of Salation," which I like a whole lot
better than "Salvation,") since the two conflict.  I, personally, would
like to see em hold off until after the passage of Proposal 2994, 
Occupational Hazards.  But then, that's just because I want to see H*bert
get destroyed.  :-)

- -Hubert

Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense. 

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

Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 05:48:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Salaries

On Fri, 8 May 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:

> On Thu, 7 May 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
> 
> > This isn't just any Rule we're talking about here.  This is a Frankenstein
> > Monster Blueprint.  A FM Blueprint could say that above and in the next
> > sentence change its mind and say "Nyarlathotep is a Modest Proposal."
> > This one doesn't, but it does in fact say "Nyarlathotep is called granted
> > Sanctuary of Salation."
> 
> If I could just add my two cents here (and check to see if the B-Ack is
> paying attention) I would like to say that the CSRR should pretty soon be
> renaming either the FM Nyarlathotep or the Office Nyarlathotep (possibly
> renaming one to "granting Sanctuary of Salation," which I like a whole lot
> better than "Salvation,") since the two conflict.  I, personally, would
> like to see em hold off until after the passage of Proposal 2994, 
> Occupational Hazards.  But then, that's just because I want to see H*bert
> get destroyed.  :-)
> 
 Hmmmmmm......

 H*bert.

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

Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 06:52:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3011

On Thu, 7 May 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:

> On Fri, 8 May 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> > Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but why can't you just attach
> > a simple bribe to the proposal? Legal bribery exists for just this
> > purpose. Why not use Rule 313 instead of trying to fight it?
> > 
>  Because the bribe isn't actually the intent of the proposal.  :-)
> 
>  And, no, this is _not_ an attempt at a cycle win.

I still agree with breadbox on this one.  R313 provides a perfectly valid
method of bribery.  You could have achieved the same effect by first
creating the appropriate number of Trinkets in your own possession and
then using a Bribe: section to transfer them however you wished.  You
could even have done the same with the EBS and GBS; the Bribe section
allows you to specify conditions of acceptance, such as the recipient 
being randomly selected.  As it is, I think a lot of people are going to
vote against this because of the blanket precedence clause and/or because
of the attempt at brute-forcing it through a loophole in the Bribe rule.

Note that for those who've been around long enough this is glistening
comic irony, for I was arguing almost exactly your position when my first
ever Proposal (2612) was deemed invalid by the same Rule.

But I still think I was right. :-)

- -Hubert, mercilessly baiting the B-Ack

Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.

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

Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 11:26:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Raquel Peres da Silva" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3009

> This is much stronger than what I recall was being discussed in the
> fora. It appears to actually prohibit a player from voting on eir own
> proposal - i.e., it forces them to vote YES. What would be the point?
> There *are* valid reasons why one might want to vote against one's own
> proposal.
>
> And I'm sorry, but I feel that if you don't vote on your own proposal,
> then those are the breaks. You have seven days, and it's not as if you
> need to read the thing before deciding how to vote. (And if you lose
> all email and web access for a full week, you're probably going to
> have bigger problems than this. The one time I lost email access for
> over three days, I was randomly selected for no less than three CFJs.)

In fact, it wasn't *really* discussed. Basicly, I said one should not need
to vote on eir own Proposal, Vynd didn't agree, H*bert did, and that was
all. Oh, and IB said that e writes many of eir proposals under the
influence of mindaltering chemicals, and later needs to vote against them.
But I don't know if e was under the influence of those chemicals when
writing this, so... ;-) 

The point is: when I was writing this Proposal, I just decided to go
further.

I couldn't find any good reason why someone would need to vote against eir
own Proposal, since we can always retract a Proposal. Of course, we'll lose
points by doing this but... that's life! About the anti-voting thing, I
really enjoy it (it's like: if I can't have the Proposal, at least give me
some points), but I don't think submiting a Proposal and voting against it
is the best way to use it. It looks a little "scammy" to me...

Anyway, as I have already told Hubert, feel free to vote against it: that's
what the game is all about: we submit proposals, we vote on them, some of
them pass, some of them don't. That's why I joined this game. :-)

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: Fri, 08 May 1998 11:50:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3009

On Fri, 8 May 1998, Raquel Peres da Silva wrote:

> In fact, it wasn't *really* discussed. Basicly, I said one should not need
> to vote on eir own Proposal, Vynd didn't agree, H*bert did, and that was
> all. Oh, and IB said that e writes many of eir proposals under the
> influence of mindaltering chemicals, and later needs to vote against them.
> But I don't know if e was under the influence of those chemicals when
> writing this, so... ;-) 

Well, actually I was.  That's why I was so honest about it.  I managed to
keep my hands off the proposal, queue, tho.

IB

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

Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 12:18:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3009

On Fri, 8 May 1998, Raquel Peres da Silva wrote:

> In fact, it wasn't *really* discussed. Basicly, I said one should not need
> to vote on eir own Proposal, Vynd didn't agree, H*bert did, and that was
> all. Oh, and IB said that e writes many of eir proposals under the
> influence of mindaltering chemicals, and later needs to vote against them.
> But I don't know if e was under the influence of those chemicals when
> writing this, so... ;-) 
> 
> The point is: when I was writing this Proposal, I just decided to go
> further.
> 
> I couldn't find any good reason why someone would need to vote against eir
> own Proposal, since we can always retract a Proposal. Of course, we'll lose
> points by doing this but... that's life! About the anti-voting thing, I
> really enjoy it (it's like: if I can't have the Proposal, at least give me
> some points), but I don't think submiting a Proposal and voting against it
> is the best way to use it. It looks a little "scammy" to me...
> 
> Anyway, as I have already told Hubert, feel free to vote against it: that's
> what the game is all about: we submit proposals, we vote on them, some of
> them pass, some of them don't. That's why I joined this game. :-)

Now this is the sort of attitude I wish we had more of around ehre these
days.  Damn straight, you write your proposal and if people don't like it,
they can vote it down.  I was never a big fan of big discussions and slews
of RFCs about everything.  Lately, I've been even less enthusiastic about
the attitude some people seem to have, that certain proposals are
"supposed" to pass or fail, because of the discussions in the public forum
and other reasons.  Acka is a democracy of sorts (most of the time) so
consensus is always necessary in the end.  But that doesn't mean we have
to have consensus at the BEGINING too.  Now obviously there is nothing
wrong with people stating their views on whether or not a particular
proposal is a good idea.  I just wish people would stop acting so
surprised when an RFC they objected to goes on to get proposed, or a
proposal they thought would pass failed.  I applaud Ayla for being willing
to put her ideas up for a vote even though she realizes they may not be
too popular.

                                    - 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: Fri, 08 May 1998 12:59:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3011

> > Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but why can't you just attach
> > a simple bribe to the proposal? Legal bribery exists for just this
> > purpose. Why not use Rule 313 instead of trying to fight it?
> > 
>  Because the bribe isn't actually the intent of the proposal.  :-)
> 
>  And, no, this is _not_ an attempt at a cycle win.

May I ask what the intent of the proposal is in that case? Since this
proposal appears to be motivated by one of mine I feel I ought to explain my
motivation before I appear to be hypocritical.

Firstly, it helped point out a weakness in the system of bribes and try to
stop anyone else from exploiting it in the same way.

Secondly it was an attempt at a bit of harf.

Thirdly, it *was* an attempt at a cycle win. It nearly succeeded too. If
breadbox had distributed it a day earlier and K 2 hadn't won then I would
currently be wearing a champions cloak (my own bloody stupid fault for not
thinking it through properly. (I would have set my score to -1000001 and then
given breadbox A$25 just before a fortnightly dividend, I would be very poor
for a couple of weeks but I would then gain twice what I just lost).

Fourthly, it was an attempt to illustrate a problem in the rule Keep 'em in
the Game, the fact that anyone below a million points when a fortnightly
dividend would easily be able to win by the museum rule.

And finally I will add that what I did was not totally without risk (almost
but not totally :-), if it failed then I would have lost some of the trinkets
at no gain.

The way I look at it, all you are doing is trying to force your way over a
rule (which is there for a reason) by precedence. I fail to see why this is
fun. I also agree with breadbox that rules with precedence over the first few
rules generally aren't a good idea.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 15:01:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stripe

K 2 wrote: 
 
> Tom Walmsley wrote:
> 
> > Since when has offering being regulated by the rules? I hereby offer to
give
> > Slakko an EBS *spit* for A$100000000.
> >
> > And that's totally legal, offering isn't regulated.
> >
> > TGW.
> 
> I just tried to write a CFCJ against TGW for this trade, however, I found
eir offer
> did not occur...
> 
> Rule 515 states:
> >A Player may offer a trade ... if and only if the trade is legal.
> 
> It then goes on to define illegal trades, which because of the above
sentence (do not
> occur - iif implies "impossibility"). So while we all thought TGW offered
an EBS for
> an improbable amount, the offer was impossible because the trade would have
been
> illegal.

Sigh. When will I ever learn to read the rules? I'm sorry for saying what I
did; I was clearly wrong.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 20:43:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3009

On Fri, 8 May 1998, Raquel Peres da Silva wrote:

> I couldn't find any good reason why someone would need to vote against eir
> own Proposal, since we can always retract a Proposal. Of course, we'll lose
> some points), but I don't think submiting a Proposal and voting against it
> is the best way to use it. It looks a little "scammy" to me...

You haven't deciphered Treasure 207 yet, have you? ;-)  Besides which, not
every Proposal is submitted as an actual attempt to change the Rules, to
get something done, and hence not every submitter is actually in favor of
eir own Proposals.  I realize we all have different points of view on
this, and I guess my main objections are a) having my freedom restricted,
b) making even marginally more work for breadbox, and c) not being able to
find that damnable Mu-Cow.  If that helps you any.

> Anyway, as I have already told Hubert, feel free to vote against it: that's
> what the game is all about: we submit proposals, we vote on them, some of
> them pass, some of them don't. That's why I joined this game. :-)

I more than agree.  This is an admirable viewpoint.

- -Hubert

E=mc^2, but those damned lawyers get 35%. 

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

Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 21:52:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3009

> I couldn't find any good reason why someone would need to vote against eir
> own Proposal, since we can always retract a Proposal. Of course, we'll lose
> points by doing this but... that's life! About the anti-voting thing, I
> really enjoy it (it's like: if I can't have the Proposal, at least give me
> some points), but I don't think submiting a Proposal and voting against it
> is the best way to use it. It looks a little "scammy" to me...

Basically, what this will do is render it impossible to find a certain
treasure.  So anyone who's still looking to find it will end up voting
against this version anyway.  I know I will.  But I might be more willing
to endore a weaker version that will presume a YES vote by the author only
if e don't change eir mind.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--InXS:Kick
Current Book--Elizabeth Ann Scarborough:The Healer's War
To know recursion, you must first know recursion.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #95
**********************************