Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #105
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest       Monday, May 18 1998       Volume 03 : Number 105

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:17:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3080

> Proposal 3080
> Good Samaritans
> Astro (Roie Marianer)
> 
> [Why not? There is an "Alice in wonderland" law already]
> Create a rule numbered 43 called "The Good Samaritans' Law"
> with the following content as delimited by SEINFELD
> SEINFELD
> Any player that sees an entity in danger must help that entity if possible.
> SEINFELD
> Correct any unambigious spelling errors in Rule 43 and its title.

Well, there are no spelling errors in the indicated texts (but note
that the word is "unambiguous"). However, let's not make a habit of
doing this kind of thing, please.

If you want free spell-checking, then you should take advantange of my
services as the Spelling Exchequer. I am much more comfortable
proofreading documents *before* they become regulated by the rules.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:23:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3082

> Proposal 3082
> Nameless Thing #1
> The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)

As you've probably already guessed, this was not the title that was
submitted with this proposal. However, the title that was submitted
was not legal, as it was over seventy characters. Since I (as
Promoter) am only allowed to supply titles when the submitter does not
indicate a desired title, this proposal became nameless, and was then
granted the above name by Rule 500.1.

As you've probably guessed, this was the motivation for the next two
proposal submissions (which I wrote while enlisting aid from K 2 to
verify that there were no currently existing entities with the name
"Nameless Thing #X").

For the record, the title TGW originally requested was: "This is the
Title of this proposal which as a matter of fact does not appear
several times within this proposal at all, has totally nothing to do
with the content of this proposal and is merely an attempt to use a
stupidly long title for a proposal which I believe I have managed to
accomplish."

Anyway, please vote for Proposal 3084.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:24:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3086

> Amend Rule 603 by replacing the following UNCLEAR-delimited text:
> 
> UNCLEAR
> If a voting player has a number of points equal to or greater than the
> Magic Number, and that player is the first one to have done so in the
> current Cycle, then that player has achieved a Winning Condition. 
> UNCLEAR

If this text is unclear, then the game crashed a long time ago.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:50:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3030 rejected

> Results of Proposal 3030
> 16/26 votes: Quorum achieved
> 6/17 YES votes: Proposal rejected

>     ABSTAINED:
> /dev/joe             (Vulcan)

I was sure I'd voted on these (3030-3033), but when I checked my saved
mail I saw that I had mispelled the vote command I used for them.  Oops.
Fortunately I had flow-voted on these, NO on this one and YES on 3032
and 3033, so neither the proposal's passage nor my score was affected.

> ThinMan              (Vulcan)
> Vynd                 (Vulcan)

Hmm, Vulcan, the abstaining party.  Not good.  C'mon, guys, cast some votes!

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:22:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
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.

Okay, well how about

"I'd go with Betty, but I'd be thinkin' of Wilma."  One of my favourite
lines from the series...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Cat:Tongue Tied
Current Book--Michael Coney:Cat Karina
The sum is smaller than each of the parts.

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:46:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3086

On Mon, 18 May 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > Amend Rule 603 by replacing the following UNCLEAR-delimited text:
> > 
> > UNCLEAR
> > If a voting player has a number of points equal to or greater than the
> > Magic Number, and that player is the first one to have done so in the
> > current Cycle, then that player has achieved a Winning Condition. 
> > UNCLEAR
> 
> If this text is unclear, then the game crashed a long time ago.

We only changed the text into this wording less than a month ago, I
believe, when K 2's win and breadbox's subsequent passing of the Magic
Number led to a rewrite.  The main question is not whether someone
achieved a winning condition, but the time at which they actually received
it.  This timing is important for the purposes of Rule 600 - and that is
what I wish to clear up.
- -- 
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: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:47:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3082

> Proposal 3082
> Nameless Thing #1
> The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)
> 
> This is a modest proposal.
> 
> Warning Contains: fortnights.

I object to this abuse of the Prolix rule even moreso than I object to
Prolix's existence in the first place.  We already have "fortnight" in
the rules several times, in the Fortnightly Dividends rule, R508, but
the plural happens not to appear in the rules yet so this proposal is
allowed, but tasteless.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:50:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3082

On Mon, 18 May 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > Proposal 3082
> > Nameless Thing #1
> > The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)
> > 
> > This is a modest proposal.
> > 
> > Warning Contains: fortnights.
> 
> I object to this abuse of the Prolix rule even moreso than I object to
> Prolix's existence in the first place.  We already have "fortnight" in
> the rules several times, in the Fortnightly Dividends rule, R508, but
> the plural happens not to appear in the rules yet so this proposal is
> allowed, but tasteless.

So what is the effect of a Tasteless Proposal?
Is a Tasteless proposal one where more people vote BAA! than YES and NO
combined?
- -- 
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: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:08:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3030 rejected

>> Results of Proposal 3030
>> 16/26 votes: Quorum achieved
>> 6/17 YES votes: Proposal rejected
> 
>>     ABSTAINED:
>> /dev/joe             (Vulcan)
> 
> I was sure I'd voted on these (3030-3033), but when I checked my saved
> mail I saw that I had mispelled the vote command I used for them.  Oops.

Argh. I should have noticed that when your vote was processed. Sorry.

b

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:14:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3086

>>> Amend Rule 603 by replacing the following UNCLEAR-delimited text:
>>> 
>>> UNCLEAR
>>> If a voting player has a number of points equal to or greater than the
>>> Magic Number, and that player is the first one to have done so in the
>>> current Cycle, then that player has achieved a Winning Condition. 
>>> UNCLEAR
>> 
>> If this text is unclear, then the game crashed a long time ago.
> 
> We only changed the text into this wording less than a month ago.

My point was that this sort of language has been in the rules before,
in the past if not the present. There is ample game custom to indicate
that the proper interpretation is just what one would expect it to be.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:16:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3032 accepted

> > Amend rule 999 to remove section d) from the first paragraph.
> > {{[ which currently reads d) Reduce eir score to a number less than
> > -1000000.]}}
> > {{[This section was in there obviously to only circumvent rule 206.]}}

Actually, that section was there to satisfy an Agenda Hat condition, as
were all of the Quirpele of Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis's
abilities.  The owner of that Hat may be well advised to get rid of it now.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Mannheim Steamroller:Fresh Aire VI
Current Book--Michael Coney:Cat Karina
Drinking heavy water from a stone

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 14:55:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Agenda Hats

On Mon, 18 May 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:

> On Sun, 17 May 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
> 
> > > That is to say, I would be happy to beat the owner of Hat 3 in a Duel,
> > > hail the owner of Hat 8 as Emperor, and so on.  Let me know if you'd like 
> > > my help...
> > > 
> >  Well, call a PHE on me then!
> > 
> >  (Guess which AH I've got :-)
> 
> I am calling a Public Health Emergency on H*bert for this message, which
> was obviously supposed to be sent to me privately.  I am the Undergraduate
> Med Student; reply to this message (privately, please) to cure this
> unfortunate victim of the recent spate of snowgod's Disease.
> 

I think you have to tell us the possible verdicts for this to be an actual
calling of a Public health Emergency.

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 15:12:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3078

On Mon, 18 May 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 3078
> Words Don't Mean A Thing
> Alfvaen (Aaron Humphrey)
> 
> This is a Modest Proposal.
> 
> {{[ Before Vynd's recent Proposal, there was at least some possibility
> of a check on name changing, if the Registrar refused to ack.  I think
> we can have it both ways.  And I'm beginning to regret having allowed
> H*bert to adopt eir current name...player names that only differ by one
> characters lead to lots of mistakes. ]}}
> 
> Amend Rule 251, "Player Names", as follows:
> 
> Replace the last paragraph
> 

> 
> with the following text(delimited by NOWHERE):
> 
> {{[ A bit of rearrangement and sub-paragraphing might help too, I think. ]}}
> 
> NOWHERE
>    A player may change eir Ackanomic name, so long as the new name
>    complies with all applicable rules.  If a player attempts to change
>    eir name to something not in compliance with the Rules, that
>    attempt fails.  In addition, if the name change has not yet been
>    accepted as described in the following paragraph, the Registrar may
>    object to the name change if e feels that the new name is either
>    a) too close to an existing player name(i.e. differs by only one
>    or two characters), or b) is intended only to exploit Malenkai's
>    Loophole(see Rule 721).

I'm against this.  I don't think that the Registrar should have any
control over what people's names are.  The purpose of the office is to
track players and their states, not police the game state.  If we are
going to give the Registrar powers like this, why not give the Promoter
the power to reject proposal he feels are only intended as a scam?

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 15:16:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3086

On Mon, 18 May 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 3086
> Win, When?
> Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> 
> This is a Modest Proposal.
> 
> [Rule 603 never says when a player actually achieves the relevant Winning
> Condition.  This amendment should make the timing obvious.]
> 
> Amend Rule 603 by replacing the following UNCLEAR-delimited text:
> 
> UNCLEAR
> If a voting player has a number of points equal to or greater than the
> Magic Number, and that player is the first one to have done so in the
> current Cycle, then that player has achieved a Winning Condition. 
> UNCLEAR
> 
> with the following CRYSTAL-delimited text:
> 
> CRYSTAL
> A player achieves a Winning Condition at the instant their number of
> points first reaches or exceeds the Magic Number in any given Cycle,
> provided that at such time their score is the highest current score.
> CRYSTAL
> 

Doesn't this eliminate the clause that allows only the first player who's
score exceeds the magic Number to win a cycle?  With the cycle win cfj
method, it is not at all inconceivable that a player could exceed the
magic number, fall back below it, exceed it again, fall below it again,
have some other player pass him AND the magic number, etc..  All before a
CFj came back true and the cycle ended.

                                     - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 15:49:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3078

> > Proposal 3078
> > Words Don't Mean A Thing
> > Alfvaen (Aaron Humphrey)

> > Amend Rule 251, "Player Names", as follows:
> > Replace the last paragraph
> > with the following text(delimited by NOWHERE):
> > NOWHERE
> >    A player may change eir Ackanomic name, so long as the new name
> >    complies with all applicable rules.  If a player attempts to change
> >    eir name to something not in compliance with the Rules, that
> >    attempt fails.  In addition, if the name change has not yet been
> >    accepted as described in the following paragraph, the Registrar may
> >    object to the name change if e feels that the new name is either
> >    a) too close to an existing player name(i.e. differs by only one
> >    or two characters), or b) is intended only to exploit Malenkai's
> >    Loophole(see Rule 721).

Vynd wrote:
> I'm against this.  I don't think that the Registrar should have any
> control over what people's names are.  The purpose of the office is to
> track players and their states, not police the game state.  If we are
> going to give the Registrar powers like this, why not give the Promoter
> the power to reject proposal he feels are only intended as a scam?

On the other hand, I'm for this.  I agree that it is a problem that we have
players whose names are so similar that a misspelling of a player's name by
a single letter could be unintentionally ambiguous, or worse, that it could
actually be another player's name, while we also have that spelling rule.
It was worse than now when we also had Hibert -- considering u and i are
only one letter apart on the (US) keyboard.

The registrar is already asked to police the game state in a sense, with
regard to keeping the list of the players.  If somebody joins the game
illegally, such as an an existing player trying to sign up under another
e-mail address as a separate new player, at least indirectly, the
Registrar is already asked to police this.

If the Registrar abuses this power, impeach him.

/dev/joe

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #105
***********************************