Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #104
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest       Sunday, May 17 1998       Volume 03 : Number 104

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 02:09:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3069

>>>  b) Gaining the first Blue Cross Bonus or the first Bronze Torch,
>>>     gains a player 2 Honor.
>>
>> Since you can't gain more than one of these, what's the point?

I would also point out that this wording is open to some
interpretation. For example, Malenkai gained the first Bronze Torch,
thus he would be the only player to ever receive 2 Honor that way....

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 03:47:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3069

On Sun, 17 May 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

>>>>  b) Gaining the first Blue Cross Bonus or the first Bronze Torch,
>>>>     gains a player 2 Honor.
>>>
>>> Since you can't gain more than one of these, what's the point?
>
>I would also point out that this wording is open to some
>interpretation. For example, Malenkai gained the first Bronze Torch,
>thus he would be the only player to ever receive 2 Honor that way....

Given the context of the rest of the proposal, I don't think that
interpretation would be valid or upheld on a CFJ, however I'm not sure.  I
also did some rewording when I retracted the previous one and resubmitted,
so it's possible that I fixed this possible logic gaffe even before it was
relevant.  If I didn't however, and enough people feel the logic is faulty
I will retract (again) and resubmit.  Therefore, for now I'll just wait :)

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to sieze the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 09:55:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stock Stuff & Related Transactions

> Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Absolutely Brimming over with wrongability! :)

[Red Dwarf, Confidence and Paranoia, Rimmer].

Never quote anything from Red Dwarf if you don't expect me to lit-cite it. I
must admit, I did have to think about the episode for a few seconds with this
one though.

TGW, Red Dwarf fanatic.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 12:11:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The Gingham Scam

The obvious question which determines the success or otherwise of the Rule
340 amendment scam is whether or not a rule which simply states that
points are gained or lost is applied infinitely.

While Rules 205 and 207, as they stand, cover a large number of current
cases, they do not appear to deal with every single case.  Hence we must
look to game custom.

Proposal 381 said, simply:

All players who vote for this proposal shall be awarded ten points each.
All players who vote against this proposal shall be
penalized ten points. These awards and penalties are in addition to
any other awards or penalties that may occur. 

There was no mention of them happening only once, yet they were applied
only once.

Proposal 499 amended the subject requirements (now part of the Postal
Code), including the introduction of the following text:

players should use these subjects for any message sent concerning the
game. if a player fails to use these standardized subjects,
     they will recieve a penalty of a deduction of one point from their
score. 

No-one lost single points an infinite number of times because of this
rule, so obviously it was only applied once for each failure, even though
once a player has failed to use "these standardized subjects", they
continue to have failed to use them.

I'm sure by now that game custom (never mind legislative intent - I think
that that is a red herring, as it requires you to know the mind of the
player proposing it) is strongly behind rules not applying themselves to
change points an infinite number of times unless that is explicitly
stated.

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: Sun, 17 May 1998 13:06:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackan Reserve Seats

> 	I would like to reiterate my request for a CSR to add "capital" to
> that rule.

I hereby use my powers as CSRR to make a CSR reading as follows (delimited by
PLEASE!!):

PLEASE!!
Add the word "capital" to that rule.
PLEASE!!

Except of course that I don't because:
1) I didn't number it
2) this is acka-research.

I think you probably see my point though. As I have stated before, I'm not
following the stock market at all so I don't really know what needs to be
done. If you tell me exactly what needs to be done then I'll do it, but other
than that I don't think I'll be able to.

TGW, CSRR.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 18:35:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3065

On Fri, 15 May 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > [ Having RFCed this to resounding silence, I thought I'd put it to the
> > acid test already.  You know, full speed ahead, both feet forward, take
> > the bull by the horns and damn the torpedoes.  I would also like to point
> > out that since this is going to amend Rule 207, no anti-voting points
> > will be scored due to the Potato Paradox.  So there's no reason to
> > anti-vote NO. ]
> 
> Did this get attached to the right Proposal?  Because the rest of this
> Proposal doesn't mention Rule 207 at all.  :-)

Actually, the first time I submitted it was immediately after Slakko had
submitted eir BAA!-amending proposal, in which e stated much the same
thing.  I found it so amusing that e would point that out that I decided
to do the same in a Proposal which immediately thereafter ("This is a
Chess Proposal.") implied that it did *not* amend R207.  I just didn't
bother to take it out when I re-submitted, that's all. 

So yes, it got attached to the right Proposal, and you're absolutely right
about the latter. :-)

- -Hubert

I'd love to go out with you, but I'm having all my plants neutered. 

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 18:37:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: ASS reform RFC

On Fri, 15 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Actually, it should have been playing non-stop from the 7th of May to the 
> 14th of May. TGW picked up a Knife on the 7th, J. M. Bear on the 9th,

Um... hello?

I didn't buy that second freakin' Gess for nothing.

- -Hubert

I'd love to go out with you, but I'm having all my plants neutered. 

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #104
***********************************