Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #117
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest       Tuesday, June 2 1998       Volume 03 : Number 117

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 14:45:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Crisis For Sure

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, K2 wrote:

> 
> And in the thread were I was able to change the rules, I am no longer
> emperor...

And you didn't even try for a win?  weirdo.

riuufs

> 
> K 2
> 
> > ruufs
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 14:51:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Proposal RFC

[some quote may be out of order]
> 
> - -------------------------------
> One other solution is to require the Founder to be the initiator of the
> CFCJ for Iconoclasm. What do the faithful out there think?
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
I much prefer the above. However it is not necessary for the Founder to be
the initiator, any Church member can be the initiator. Should it be in the
interest of the Church to reveal Church policy or portions of it, then it
should be the choice of the Church. I dislike the idea of giving a copy of
Church Policy to the org-harfer. Nowhere do the rules say that Church
Policy is a static document. Should the Church send every change to teh
org-harfer?  The above alternative, while better than the one below, also
ignores the possibility that Church Policy may not allow the Founder to
unilaterally decide to reveal Church Policy, and it is quite possible for
a Church Founder to commit Iconoclasm.

I also note that the RFC below confuses Church Policy and Church Dogma.
Dogma is a public document, Policy is an internal document.

Niccolo Flychuck
who was an Expert on Organizations and Institutions back when we still had
Experts and Institutions :)

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Ian K. wrote:

> proposal Too Many Secrets
> 
> {{[The recent CFCJ for iconoclasm called on a Founder reveals one of the
> problems with churches - if the church policy is to be a document,
> internal or otherwise, then let it actually exist in a defined form.]}}
> 
> In Rule 1301 'Church', Part 3, replace the following YOUWHAT?-delimited
> text with the following AHTHATSIT-delimited text.
> 
> YOUWHAT?
> b.Church Policy is an internal Church document.
> YOUWHAT?
> 
> AHTHATSIT
> b. Church Policy is an internal Church document, the official record of
> which is held in confidence by the Org-Harfer. E may only make it
> available to members of the church.
> AHTHATSIT
> 
> Insert the following RULESARERULES-delimited text between sections c and d
> of Part 3.
> 
> RULESARERULES
> d. If a CFCJ is called naming Iconoclasm as the crime, the Org-Harfer will
> make the Church Dogma available to the selected Judge for the purposes of
> his Judgement.
> RULESARERULES
> 
> Re-designate sections d, e, f and g of Part 3 of Rule 1301 as sections e,
> f, g and h respectively.

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 14:51:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Crisis For Sure

David Scheidt wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, K2 wrote:
>
> >
> > And in the thread were I was able to change the rules, I am no longer
> > emperor...
>
> And you didn't even try for a win?  weirdo.
>

My role models for emerpourship are Vulcan. During eir time as dictators
they didn't attempt to achieve a winning condition...

K 2

> riuufs
>
> >
> > K 2
> >
> > > ruufs
> >
> >
> >

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 14:52:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Church of Odo invites Wild Card

Definately a member now

K 2

Jonathan David Amery wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
>
> >
> > A few weeks ago Wild Card petitioned to join the Church of Odo, whle it
> > was still a Cult. There was some small mix up within the Church about
> > timing, and I think that action failed.
> > On behalf of the Church of Odo on the Worm Hole I invite Wild Card to
> > become a member of the Church.
> >
>  I request to become a member of the Church if I am not already...
>
>  Wild Card.

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 16:13:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The ACK is Back

> Second, /dev/joe will soon bury a new treasure of epic proportions :-)
> which should help stimulate the treasure-hunting activity in Acka,
> assuming Acka still exists.

Ooh, sounds fun. Not that I have a chance of finding it though. :-)

Mr. Tambourine Man
or possibly Tom Walmsley if the game has crashed :-).

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 18:18:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, JT wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> >The PWCFJ cannot be submitted unless it is FALSE.  If it were TRUE, then
> >you could not submit it, because to submit it is to change the game state.
> >(Or if submission is not, then promulgation by the CotC certainly is).
> >
> >So you can't get a winning condition out of it regardless.
> 
> Actually, I'm not sure if submitting the CFJ or distributing it or even
> the results of it are considered changes to the game state.

Well, it may not be a change to the game state, but it would be hard to
argue that submitting and having a CFJ distributed does not constitute
"further play".  If "further play" is impossible, how come we are still
applying the rules, distributing your CFJ, determining a judge, etc.?

- -- 
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, 01 Jun 1998 23:13:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> rules and so surely could not have done so. If for example, someone had
> attempted to take advantage of my recent offer to trade A$1 for all their
> tradable entities by posting:
> 
> "I accept Mr. Tambourine Man's offer to change my Santa's Beard for his A$1"
> 
> then this surely would not count as them accepting my offer.

Well, then, my "acceptance" didn't count either, becuase the offer I
accepted was not the one you made.  I actually made it thinking that it
was going to count as acceptance, though... especially after I
"misinterpreted" it as giving me A$1 for Slakko's stuff.  If you do have
all of mine, though, I'd like it back sometime.  Or I'll retract the
Proposal making you Emperor. ;-)

- -Hubert

L.A.P.D. poker: four clubs beat a King. 

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 01:22:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Test email

Houston, do you read me?

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 01:26:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Test email

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Houston, do you read me?

Coming in loud and clear, Eagle One.

- -rico

The beatings will continue until morale improves. 

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 02:39:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3145 accepted

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, nomicbot wrote:

>Results of Proposal 3145
>
>    YES:
>Vynd                 (Vulcan)
>/dev/joe             (Vulcan)
>Mr. Tambourine Man   (Klingon)
>else...if            (Klingon)
>Alfvaen              (MetaMorph)
>rufus                (SPAM)
>Koxvolio             (Harf)
>Attila the Pun
>Ayla
>Slakko               (SPAM)
>Hubert               (Boomerangs)
>
>    NO:
>K 2                  (MetaMorph)
>JT                   (Boomerangs)
>J. M. Bear           (MetaMorph)

As much as I hate to possibly deprive myself of points, I attempted to use
the CGI form to change my vote on this proposal early on Sunday.  The form
did not give me the normal confirmation of 'such and such email was sent'
but I thought that perhaps Breadbox had changed the behavior or some such.

If that vote change wasn't actually registered breadbox might wish to look
into the CGI script as that could cause other votes to not be admitted
that should have been.

- --JT

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 03:08:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: One last thread :)

> Create a rule numbered 1351

I must have been having a really bad day... Either I just over wrote
(Mooning) or this failed entirely... That should have been 1151, in the
decade with the other imperial rule(s)....

K 2
Giant Green Gorilla
POG

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 03:26:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3145 accepted

> As much as I hate to possibly deprive myself of points, I attempted
> to use the CGI form to change my vote on this proposal early on
> Sunday.  The form did not give me the normal confirmation of 'such
> and such email was sent' but I thought that perhaps Breadbox had
> changed the behavior or some such.

Whoa. Yes, I see what happened.

Well, JT, it looks like fate has seen fit to give you some extra
points. Take them and be grateful.

In the future, though, let me know about any unexpected behavior.

If anyone else used the web form in the last 48 hours to vote, you
should vote again, just to be on the safe side. (Fortunately, nothing
else is due for another thirty hours.)

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 03:34:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3145 accepted

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:
>Whoa. Yes, I see what happened.
>
>Well, JT, it looks like fate has seen fit to give you some extra
>points. Take them and be grateful.

Hey, points is points :)

>In the future, though, let me know about any unexpected behavior.

I'd intended to, but completely forgot about it until the results of this
proposal came through :)

- --JT

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 03:50:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3168

>  Create a rule, numbered howsoever the Rule-harfer shalt decide

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think this will work. Even if
the wording actually works (which I doubt), by the time I actually
attempt to exercise it, the rule will have to have been created
already, by which time it will be too late.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 03:52:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3173

> Proposal 3173
> Dare I?
> Mr. Tambourine Man (Tom Walmsley)
> 
> This is a modest proposal.
> 
> Modify rule 106 by replacing "three-fifths" with "55%".
> 
> [The number of people that need to vote yes for a proposal to be accepted.]

You have simply GOT to be kidding.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 04:13:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3181

> Create a new Rule, numbered 254.1, titled "Johnny Don't-Vote" with the
> following COVER-delimited text:
> 
> COVER
> If a player (who in this rule is hereafter referred to as Johnny
> Don't-Vote) has abstained on the last 100 proposals whose voting results
> were reported, and any player points this fact out publicly, then Johnny
> Don't-Vote becomes a non-voting player, with all the events in Rule 254
> occurring as if the player voluntarily became non-voting. 
> COVER

Yeesh. I appreciate the idea, but going back and checking over the
voting results of one hundred proposals would be a serious pain, don't
you think?

(By the way, as much as I hate to even contemplate it, the low turnout
of the last proposal may have been caused in part by the problem with
the nomicbot web form. If so, things may not be so close to a quorum
failure as they appear.)

Quorum failures aren't nearly as crisis-inducing as they once were.
The quorum failures that have occurred since the Puppet Heads were
introduced were remarkably calm affairs, and cleared away the inactive
non-voting players nicely. I myself see no pressing need at this time
to prevent quorum failures before they happen.

If you're really intent on the idea, however, then allow me to make a
couple of suggestions. Have a mechanism whereby players can be put "on
notice". *Then*, if such a player fails to vote after (say) 50
proposals, the Tabulator is required to report that fact, and the
player becomes non-voting. (Making it dependent on the Tabulator's
report will free the Registrar from having to track the voting results
as well.) That way, the data can be collected at the time, instead of
after the fact.

As I said, I don't think such a mechanism is all that necessary, and I
would probably vote against it anyway, since it's another bit of game
state that I have to track, but it's still less onerous than slogging
through the mail archives.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 04:20:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3181

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > Create a new Rule, numbered 254.1, titled "Johnny Don't-Vote" with the
> > following COVER-delimited text:
> > 
> > COVER
> > If a player (who in this rule is hereafter referred to as Johnny
> > Don't-Vote) has abstained on the last 100 proposals whose voting results
> > were reported, and any player points this fact out publicly, then Johnny
> > Don't-Vote becomes a non-voting player, with all the events in Rule 254
> > occurring as if the player voluntarily became non-voting. 
> > COVER
> 
> Yeesh. I appreciate the idea, but going back and checking over the
> voting results of one hundred proposals would be a serious pain, don't
> you think?
> 
> (By the way, as much as I hate to even contemplate it, the low turnout
> of the last proposal may have been caused in part by the problem with
> the nomicbot web form. If so, things may not be so close to a quorum
> failure as they appear.)

True - but why wait?  This problem reminded me that a way to avoid
entering quorum crises would probably be better than a way to fix ones
that appear on an after the fact basis.

> 
> Quorum failures aren't nearly as crisis-inducing as they once were.
> The quorum failures that have occurred since the Puppet Heads were
> introduced were remarkably calm affairs, and cleared away the inactive
> non-voting players nicely. I myself see no pressing need at this time
> to prevent quorum failures before they happen.
> 
> If you're really intent on the idea, however, then allow me to make a
> couple of suggestions. Have a mechanism whereby players can be put "on
> notice". *Then*, if such a player fails to vote after (say) 50
> proposals, the Tabulator is required to report that fact, and the
> player becomes non-voting. (Making it dependent on the Tabulator's
> report will free the Registrar from having to track the voting results
> as well.) That way, the data can be collected at the time, instead of
> after the fact.

Nice idea, but I'd rather not give the Tabulator the extra workload.

> 
> As I said, I don't think such a mechanism is all that necessary, and I
> would probably vote against it anyway, since it's another bit of game
> state that I have to track, but it's still less onerous than slogging
> through the mail archives.

Actually, I slogged through the mail archives this morning to see how long
people had been abstaining for.  That's how I found CnH's 247 streak.
People don't have to care about other people failing to vote if they don't
want to - this Rule means that people who don't vote for 100 proposals
running (when eligible to) _risk_ being made non-voting.  If no-one else
can be bothered to check through the mail logs, then obviously no-one
cares about those abstentions.

However, if quorum is only just being made, and someone cares about it,
then, if they care sufficiently, they will be the one doing the legwork
and going through the mail archive.  This proposal only tries to assign
work to people who are willing to take it upon themselves - it tries not
to give more work to Officers.  That's why I thought it was a good
solution.
- -- 
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: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 05:11:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3181

> However, if quorum is only just being made, and someone cares about it,
> then, if they care sufficiently, they will be the one doing the legwork
> and going through the mail archive.  This proposal only tries to assign
> work to people who are willing to take it upon themselves - it tries not
> to give more work to Officers.  That's why I thought it was a good
> solution.

I do appreciate that, but I don't think you can avoid giving more work
to Officers with this idea. If someone sends a message saying that
such-and-such player hasn't voted on the last hundred proposals, can I
just take their word for it? Not really. Either I or the Registrar
will be guilty of Malpractice if they missed something. Plus, the
email archives are not regulated by the rules, and I'd prefer to keep
it so that their existence is not necessary to the main harfing of the
game. Data gets lost over time.

The thought behind my counterproposal is to make it so that I know
that I have data that needs to be tracked at the time that it is being
generated, and not later. And by requiring someone to be explicitly
put on probation first, I don't have to track it all the time, for
everyone.

However, I think the solution that is better than either of these is
what we have right now. A quorum failure occurs, and the list of
players who gain Puppet Heads is right there for all to see. Players
who didn't vote due to some mischance get rid of their Puppet Heads,
and then the "Johnny-Don't-Vote" players, as you call them, are made
non-voting. No one has to track anything until after it has been
proven that players need to be removed.

I also feel that a few of those players who are currently not voting
could stand to be declared AWOL. That would also be a better way to
deal with the existing problem, since it also removes them from CFJ
selection, et al.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 05:52:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Some ideas for changes

There's a few things I've been thinking of changing, which aren't
rule-regulated, so I thought I'd toss the ideas out and see if there
were any objections.

The first one is pretty trivial - I'd like to dump the convention, in
the rules documents, of indicating after each rule number the number
of times it's been amended. (That's the number that comes after the
slash, for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about.) To the
best of my knowledge, this practice is basically a holdover from the
days of ARNs and such, and all it does now is confuse newbies.

Secondly: is anyone here annoyed that I haven't been exercising
Rule-Harfer duty b more fully? (That's the one that allows me to move
rule-change attributions into a separate document if they get too
long.) The reasons I haven't done this are that the long attributions
don't annoy me personally, and it would add more complexity to the
scripts that generate the rules pages.

Other feedback on the rules documents in general is, of course,
welcome....

The third idea floating around in my head is with the mailing lists.
Lately people have been good about posting things to the right lists,
so I'm a little leery of changing anything. But - it occurred to me
that it might be a good idea to change acka-voting so that its
Reply-To no longer redirects to acka-research. Right now acka-voting
is sort of like the Tabulator's private list: only nomicbot mail goes
there. By turning off the Reply-To, it could be used in the way it was
originally intended. That is, all email of concern only to voting
players (such as retractions, and discussions regarding specific
proposals) would go there. This would make it easier for a non-voting
player to be subscribed to acka-research, and thus partake of the
general chitchat. The downside of this, of course, is that we would
lose the highly selective nature that the acka-voting list currently
enjoys, and that players might become more sloppy about redirecting
discussions that would be more appropriate to acka-research. (Or
acka-blather, acka-chewing-the-fat, acka-how-bout-them-dodgers ...)

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 07:51:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CSR 142

Will this work?

> Renumber Rule 1400 ("Who Will Buy K 2") to 1352.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 08:00:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Some ideas for changes

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> There's a few things I've been thinking of changing, which aren't
> rule-regulated, so I thought I'd toss the ideas out and see if there
> were any objections.
> 
> The first one is pretty trivial - I'd like to dump the convention, in
> the rules documents, of indicating after each rule number the number
> of times it's been amended. (That's the number that comes after the
> slash, for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about.) To the
> best of my knowledge, this practice is basically a holdover from the
> days of ARNs and such, and all it does now is confuse newbies.

Not a problem - if people want to find it out there is always the list of
rule-change attributions to look at, wherever that might be.

> Secondly: is anyone here annoyed that I haven't been exercising
> Rule-Harfer duty b more fully? (That's the one that allows me to move
> rule-change attributions into a separate document if they get too
> long.) The reasons I haven't done this are that the long attributions
> don't annoy me personally, and it would add more complexity to the
> scripts that generate the rules pages.

I don't find it annoying - on the contrary, it helps in judging CFJs
because we can work back and find out what the rule said at the time that
a previous CFJ was issued (for precedent purposes).  However, having said
that, if you move it into another document, I don't mind.

One idea which might be an alternative, depending upon how much work you
have to do to implement it (this would be only for the list of all rules
page): Keep two copies of it, one with all the attributions, one with
none, so that people can look at the copy they prefer.  I don't know how
much extra work this would put on your scripts, but given that it is an
all/nothing deal, it hopefully wouldn't be too complex.

> Right now acka-voting
> is sort of like the Tabulator's private list: only nomicbot mail goes
> there. By turning off the Reply-To, it could be used in the way it was
> originally intended. That is, all email of concern only to voting
> players (such as retractions, and discussions regarding specific
> proposals) would go there.

I already use it for retractions, and I like the idea of the proposal
discussions going there.

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: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 08:01:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CSR 142

> Will this work?
> 
> 
>> Renumber Rule 1400 ("Who Will Buy K 2") to 1352.

Oh yeah. Whoops.

Well. It looks like I'm stuck with the 1400s for a while.

b

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 09:14:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3167

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> 
> Proposal 3167
> Well, we've tried flow voting so maybe...
> Wild Card (Jonathan David Amery)

Political Parties don't have to have a swinger do they?  And, what if they
have one, and e abstains?  

rufus

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 10:10:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3181

breadbox wrote:
> I also feel that a few of those players who are currently not voting
> could stand to be declared AWOL. That would also be a better way to
> deal with the existing problem, since it also removes them from CFJ
> selection, et al.

I've been working on this, myself.  However, I may have limited this to
players who are in YORL and not playing (e.g., Karma) and those who
haven't said H****t yet. :-)  And there were a couple players who rarely
vote but still manage to send one or two messages a week. :-\

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 10:39:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Re: several proposal results.

 Erm, I voted on all of these...
 (YES to 3145 and 3146 and NO to 3147)
 It doesn't actually seem to make any difference, but...
 Oh, and I voted on all the other proposals in the queue at the time...

 Wild Card.

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Results of Proposal 3147
> 
> 15/25 votes: Quorum achieved
> 6/12 YES votes: Proposal rejected
> 
>     ABSTAINED:
> Wild Card            (SPAM)

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Results of Proposal 3146
> 
> 15/25 votes: Quorum achieved
> 7/15 YES votes: Proposal rejected
> 
>     ABSTAINED:
> Wild Card            (SPAM)

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Results of Proposal 3145
> 
> 15/25 votes: Quorum achieved
> 11/14 YES votes: Proposal accepted
> 
>     ABSTAINED:
> Wild Card            (SPAM)

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 10:46:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3168

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> >  Create a rule, numbered howsoever the Rule-harfer shalt decide
> 
> I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think this will work. Even if
> the wording actually works (which I doubt), by the time I actually
> attempt to exercise it, the rule will have to have been created
> already, by which time it will be too late.
> 
 No - because you could've made the decision in advance.  The rules allow
you an infinitessimal ammount of time in which to make the decision...

 Wild Card.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 11:17:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Test email

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Houston, do you read me?
> 

This is ground control to Major Tom.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 14:07:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3173

> > Modify rule 106 by replacing "three-fifths" with "55%".
> > 
> > [The number of people that need to vote yes for a proposal to be
accepted.]
> 
> You have simply GOT to be kidding.

Nope. :-).

MTM.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 14:07:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Some ideas for changes

> The first one is pretty trivial - I'd like to dump the convention, in
> the rules documents, of indicating after each rule number the number
> of times it's been amended. (That's the number that comes after the
> slash, for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about.) To the
> best of my knowledge, this practice is basically a holdover from the
> days of ARNs and such, and all it does now is confuse newbies.

I agree with you there. I recall being confused by that back when I was a
newbie and all it basically does is make your job as rule harfer more
difficult.

> Secondly: is anyone here annoyed that I haven't been exercising
> Rule-Harfer duty b more fully? (That's the one that allows me to move
> rule-change attributions into a separate document if they get too
> long.) The reasons I haven't done this are that the long attributions
> don't annoy me personally, and it would add more complexity to the
> scripts that generate the rules pages.

Actually, I'm quite pleased that you haven't. I didn't particularly like the
amendment that made that change because I think that the rules' modification
histories can be very useful on occasion.

> The third idea floating around in my head is with the mailing lists.
> Lately people have been good about posting things to the right lists,
> so I'm a little leery of changing anything. But - it occurred to me
> that it might be a good idea to change acka-voting so that its
> Reply-To no longer redirects to acka-research. Right now acka-voting
> is sort of like the Tabulator's private list: only nomicbot mail goes
> there. By turning off the Reply-To, it could be used in the way it was
> originally intended. That is, all email of concern only to voting
> players (such as retractions, and discussions regarding specific
> proposals) would go there. This would make it easier for a non-voting
> player to be subscribed to acka-research, and thus partake of the
> general chitchat. The downside of this, of course, is that we would
> lose the highly selective nature that the acka-voting list currently
> enjoys, and that players might become more sloppy about redirecting
> discussions that would be more appropriate to acka-research. (Or
> acka-blather, acka-chewing-the-fat, acka-how-bout-them-dodgers ...)

Hmm, yes, it would have both its advantages and its disadvantages. As another
possible (and not very well thought out so don't blame me if it's stupid)
idea, how about if you set up another mailing list so you had one
acka-research type list relevant to everyone and another one relevant only to
voting players? If you wished, you could also make the latter available for
retractions.

Mr. Tambourine Man.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 14:07:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

> Well, then, my "acceptance" didn't count either, becuase the offer I
> accepted was not the one you made.  I actually made it thinking that it
> was going to count as acceptance, though... especially after I
> "misinterpreted" it as giving me A$1 for Slakko's stuff.  If you do have
> all of mine, though, I'd like it back sometime.  Or I'll retract the
> Proposal making you Emperor. ;-)

It probably didn't count. If it did then I'll give most of it back :-). We'll
wait for the judgement first though.

MTM.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 16:45:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Some ideas for changes

>The first one is pretty trivial - I'd like to dump the convention, in
>the rules documents, of indicating after each rule number the number
>of times it's been amended. (That's the number that comes after the
>slash, for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about.) To the
>best of my knowledge, this practice is basically a holdover from the
>days of ARNs and such, and all it does now is confuse newbies.
	I agree with this.  It really doesn't mean anything anymore.

>Secondly: is anyone here annoyed that I haven't been exercising
>Rule-Harfer duty b more fully? (That's the one that allows me to move
>rule-change attributions into a separate document if they get too
>long.) The reasons I haven't done this are that the long attributions
>don't annoy me personally, and it would add more complexity to the
>scripts that generate the rules pages.
	It makes little difference to me, if it's easier not to do that
then don't.  I think it's good to have the option around, especially for
some rules that get modified more than others (like Beldin's Pants when it
was around)

>so I'm a little leery of changing anything. But - it occurred to me
>that it might be a good idea to change acka-voting so that its
>Reply-To no longer redirects to acka-research. Right now acka-voting
	I think that's a good idea.  I don't think retractions etc. should
go to the main list.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 19:36:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3174

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Amend Rule 250 (Registered Players) to replace:
> Players are named, unownable entities.
> with:
> Players are named, tradeable entities.
> 
> {{All Players own themselves}}
> 
> {{[This was the whole point ot my previous proposal, everything else was
> just fluff]}}

Of course, now joining players or rejoining players would be in the
Treasury...

- - 867-5309

The biggest problem with cigarettes is that they don't cause cancer fast 
enough. 

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 19:37:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: First attempt

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> The big problem here is the word "only" which unless I'm mistaken did not
> give Alfvaen the power to amend Beldin's Pants according to a recent Supreme
> Court decision. 

I think the problem with that case was a conflict with R101 itself.  To
wit,

R101: The Rules may only be changed as described in the Rules.

R940: The Rules may only be changed as described by Alfvaen.

And since R101 clearly took precedence, Alfvaen, uh, lost eir Pants.  IN
this case, R101, the Deus of Acka as it were, gave K 2 the power to change
the Rules.  Since it takes precedence over all other Rules (including 42)
I don't really think this is a problem, unless K 2's first series of
amendments succeeded, which I don't think is likely.

> If this is the case then it's quite possible that the game
> has totally crashed. Of course, if we just ignore the fact that it has
> crashed for 14 days then it will uncrash itself. I think :-).

I'm submitting a CFCJ against the game state as we speak. :-)

- - 867-5309

The biggest problem with cigarettes is that they don't cause cancer fast 
enough. 

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 19:38:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3177

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 3177
> If I May be so Bold as to Make a Suggestion
> breadbox (Brian Raiter)
> 
> "Neither the first nor the last character in this string may be the
> space character, and there must be at least one character that is not
> a numeric digit."

Is this in response to me, breadbox?  I do have a hyphen in my name, but
if that screws up any of your scripts (I thought Perl was better at that
than C or Java, but could be mistaken) or is in any way difficult to
harf I'll be more than happy to change it.  

Please let me know if that is the case.

Or if I should have redirected this response to acka-voting. :-)

- - 867-5309

The biggest problem with cigarettes is that they don't cause cancer fast 
enough. 

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 21:03:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3184

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> self-deleting text is applied.  [The following is an example of
> self-deleting text: {{This text would be self-deleting if it wasn't
> part of a note}}]

This is something I've been wondering about for a while: Does the
self-deleting quality of self-deleting text constitute "semantic meaning,"
which is negated by the note brackets?  I would tend not to think so, and
I think your example would delete itself.  Not that I think an example is
necessarily necessary anyway; both R340 and game custom have specified the
behavior of self-deleting text sufficiently.

- - 867-5309

The biggest problem with cigarettes is that they don't cause cancer fast 
enough. 

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 21:03:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: We'll See

I offer to trade Slakko's Trinkets "Viva La Diva", "Feather Bed", and "The
Folly of Fooling with Slakko" for A$1.  This is a legal trade by
R515 because since CFJ 608 was judged FALSE by JT, I own at least three
entities of type Trinket (if you want examples, the three Razor Boomerangs
will do nicely).

I then accept the above offer.

Who thinks this would work?  As far as I can see, the only problem would
be if they are of type "Viva La Diva", "Feather Bed", etc. instead of type
Trinket.  If such is not the case, Slakko's fix is needed more than ever.

- - 867-5309

The biggest problem with cigarettes is that they don't cause cancer fast 
enough. 

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 21:18:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: We'll See

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:
>I offer to trade Slakko's Trinkets "Viva La Diva", "Feather Bed", and "The
>Folly of Fooling with Slakko" for A$1.  This is a legal trade by
>R515 because since CFJ 608 was judged FALSE by JT, I own at least three
>entities of type Trinket (if you want examples, the three Razor Boomerangs
>will do nicely).
>
>I then accept the above offer.
>
>Who thinks this would work?  As far as I can see, the only problem would
>be if they are of type "Viva La Diva", "Feather Bed", etc. instead of type
>Trinket.  If such is not the case, Slakko's fix is needed more than ever.

I'm not sure this works or not, but this working has nothing to do with
the fact that I judged 608 FALSE.  I judged that false solely on the basis
that the reading was ambiguous, and thus the action wasn't completely
determined.
I won't comment on the legality of this unless I'm asked to judge it :)

- --JT  

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 21:32:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: We'll See

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, JT wrote:

> I'm not sure this works or not,

It doesn't.  This is acka-research.  Whether it would have worked
otherwise...

> but this working has nothing to do with
> the fact that I judged 608 FALSE. 

If 608 had been TRUE, I wouldn't have had those three Boomerangs, and the
trade would've been illegal by R515.

> I won't comment on the legality of this unless I'm asked to judge it :)

Hopefully that won't come up. :-)

- - 867-5309

What does 'masochism' mean?  Beats me.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #117
***********************************