Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #150
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest       Monday, July 6 1998       Volume 03 : Number 150

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 00:37:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Player States III

> and the concept of Pending has simply been wiped out. (Maybe saaremaa
> can explain to me the reason for that last change?)

I didn't want another state, and was too stupid to think of making it
a definition, which should allow it to work as before.

> Here's an interesting question: how do players on vacation -- excuse
> me -- how do inactive players affect quorum? 

I believe some low-numbered rule defined quorum only in terms of voting
players, and inactive players are not voting players.  Its been so long
now, I'm not really sure, but I remember *thinking* about that anyway ;-)

I had already intended a proposal to put a definition of Pending in the
new rule, and any cleanup of Alfvaen's acting officer proposal, if that
passes (because as I remember it, it was pretty much incompatable with
mine).  If you have any other suggestions, I'll try to get them all in one
proposal.

saaremaa

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 00:44:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Player States III

> > and the concept of Pending has simply been wiped out. (Maybe saaremaa
> > can explain to me the reason for that last change?)
> 
> I didn't want another state, and was too stupid to think of making it
> a definition, which should allow it to work as before.

And now I remember the real reason for not wanting it to be a seperate
state.  Under the old rules, a pending player could do nothing until the
tabulator released eir first vote, because only voting players could
submit proposals, hold offices, etc.  I know we never played that way
and let the pragmatism clause fix it, but I didn't like it anyway,
especially for returning players who pretty much knew the ropes.

Making it a definition in the new framwork should keep the old purpose
as well as eliminate this annoyance.

saaremaa

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 02:21:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Player States III

>> and the concept of Pending has simply been wiped out. (Maybe saaremaa
>> can explain to me the reason for that last change?)
> 
> I didn't want another state, and was too stupid to think of making it
> a definition, which should allow it to work as before.

All we really want is to have Pending players not to be included in
the calculation of quorum. (In fact, this is one of the changes that I
had planned for my overhaul of the rules regarding pending and
vacationing players with respect to the voting results.)

>> Here's an interesting question: how do players on vacation -- excuse
>> me -- how do inactive players affect quorum? 
> 
> I believe some low-numbered rule defined quorum only in terms of voting
> players, and inactive players are not voting players.  Its been so long
> now, I'm not really sure, but I remember *thinking* about that anyway ;-)

Right, but Rule 255 used to include vacationing players that had voted
before going on vacation (via its excessive precedence). This is no
longer the case.

> I had already intended a proposal to put a definition of Pending in
> the new rule, and any cleanup of Alfvaen's acting officer proposal,
> if that passes (because as I remember it, it was pretty much
> incompatable with mine).  If you have any other suggestions, I'll
> try to get them all in one proposal.

What I wanted to do in the aforementioned overhaul was to simplify,
and clarify, the definition of the "head count" that is used to
determine quorum, and then put that definition in the quorum rule
itself, instead of having it scattered across several different
rules.

Basically, we want something like this:

    The head count for a given proposal includes all players who
    legally cast a vote on that proposal and all players who were
    active at the end of that proposal's voting period, but excluding
    those players who are currently defined as Pending.

This basically would give us what we have now, only much more clearly
spelled out. But it also fixes the little problem of what happens when
someone is inactive when a proposal's voting period expires and then
returns before I release the results. (Under the old system, they got
counted towards quorum even though they were never able to vote.)

Then, quorum is met iff at least half of the players in the head count
have cast a vote.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 03:26:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3217 accepted

>> Proposal 3217 - Sun 14 Jun 1998 20:46 EDT
>> Conditionals
>> saaremaa (Randy Hall)
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> If proposal 3201 was not accepted, amend rule 107, "Quorum and Active
>> Players" to replace it text with this:
>> 
>> "
>> If, at the time the results are posted, the number of players who voted on
>> a proposal is equal to or greater than the number of abstaining voting
>> players less the number of voting players who have never voted, the
>> proposal meets quorum; otherwise it does not meet quorum.
>> "

Aha. I hadn't seen this in Proposal 3217 when I made my earlier
comments. So it looks like vacationing^Winactive players who vote are
once again added to quorum. And we do have a concept of Pending again;
it's just not a named player state.

Looks like I need to undo a lot of the changes I just made to my
scripts....

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 03:55:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3217 accepted

> Aha. I hadn't seen this in Proposal 3217 when I made my earlier
> comments. So it looks like vacationing^Winactive players who vote are
> once again added to quorum. And we do have a concept of Pending again;
> it's just not a named player state.

By the way, I should add that the suggestions I made earlier still
stand. The problem with the current wording is that we no longer have
anywhere a definition of WHEN the number of abstaining voting players
is considered - at the end of the voting period, at the time the
results are posted, or some other time? (It should be the first, btw.)

This could be a problem if we come close to the quorum limit on the
next set of proposals, given the number of player state changes that
have occurred in the last week. We'll soon see....

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 04:33:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3226 accepted

>> Proposal 3226 - Mon 15 Jun 1998 06:17 EDT
>> Consistency
>> Vynd (John McCoy)
>> 
>> This is a Modest Proposal
>> 
>> Amend Rule 1319 Cubical Earth Implementation Society in the following
>> manner:

The Rule is actually 1319.2 ("The Cubical Earth Implementation
Society"), by the way. Fortunately, this is as an unambiguous spelling
error.

>> Replace the string "donate any item" in fourth paragraph with "donate any
>> entity from the above list".
>>
>> Replace all remaining occurances of the word item with the word entity.

Unfortunately, the word item doesn't occur anywhere in the rule,
although the word "items" does appear twice....

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 05:19:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3232 accepted

> Results of Proposal 3232
> 
> 11/22 votes: Quorum achieved
> 9/11 YES votes: Proposal accepted

Wow. I wasn't expecting that.

Okay. More changes to make.

It also looks like there's going to be some quorum failures coming up
pretty soon....

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 06:08:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Crisis

Moo!

Well at least that's over :)

Just looking a the true prophet stuff...

Seems that else...if is the only one still in the running, pending P3223
and
P3225 being accepted....
and I think everbody thought they were going to pass.

Quack Quack?

Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> If the game is not already in a State of Crisis, I declare there to be a
> State of Crisis.  (I'm not sure if I ever lifted the previous State of
> Crisis from K 2's Quirpele of Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis
> scam.)
>
> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
> Song In My Head--Cameo:Candy
> Current Book--Fred Saberhagen:The Dracula Tape
> If you pass the Rabid Child, say 'hammer down' for me.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 06:14:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3250

Moo!
D'oh!

Thats two that saaremaa's beaten me to now :/

Quack Quack?

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 09:14:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vacation

Randy Hall wrote:
> And what ever happened to my call for a historian election?
> 
> saaremaa

MTM/breadbox are in charge of elections....

K 2

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 09:38:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3226 accepted

> >> Proposal 3226 - Mon 15 Jun 1998 06:17 EDT
> >> Consistency
> >> Vynd (John McCoy)

> >> Replace the string "donate any item" in fourth paragraph with "donate any
> >> entity from the above list".
> >>
> >> Replace all remaining occurances of the word item with the word entity.

> Unfortunately, the word item doesn't occur anywhere in the rule,
> although the word "items" does appear twice....

So is this Null, then?  Scorekeeping minds want to know.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Difford & Tilbrook:Tears For Attention
Current Book--Fred Saberhagen:The Dracula Tape
But do our best adventures have to end?

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 09:41:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3232 accepted

> > Proposal 3232 - Thu 18 Jun 1998 19:18 EDT
> > Here is How *I* Would Like to See the BAA! Vote Used
> > breadbox (Brian Raiter)

> > This is a Modest Proposal.

And just when I get my automated script running to parse Proposal results
and calculate scores, too...:-)  Oh, well, it was optimistic of me.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Difford & Tilbrook:Actions Speak Faster
Current Book--Fred Saberhagen:The Dracula Tape
Give it an understanding but no tongue.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 09:59:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3243

> Proposal 3243
> Damn yer eyes Slakko
> JT (JT Traub)

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

Well, at least it's in note brackets...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Difford & Tilbrook:Tears For Attention
Current Book--Fred Saberhagen:The Dracula Tape
I've got my own double-cross to bear

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 10:09:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3226 accepted

>>>> Proposal 3226 - Mon 15 Jun 1998 06:17 EDT
>>>> Consistency
>>>> Vynd (John McCoy)
> 
>>>> Replace the string "donate any item" in fourth paragraph with "donate any
>>>> entity from the above list".
>>>>
>>>> Replace all remaining occurances of the word item with the word entity.
> 
>> Unfortunately, the word item doesn't occur anywhere in the rule,
>> although the word "items" does appear twice....
> 
> So is this Null, then?  Scorekeeping minds want to know.

No, it's not; I misspoke. The effect described in the first paragraph
was valid.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 11:19:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3243

On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
>> Proposal 3243
>> Damn yer eyes Slakko
>> JT (JT Traub)
>
>> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
>> [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
>> [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
>> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
>
>Well, at least it's in note brackets...:-)

I'm just not sure how my .sig ended up in the proposal.. i've always been
good about sticking in the #end tag when i submit.  (If I forgot this
once, then I apologize.)

- --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: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 15:26:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Getting really paranoid now

Moo!

Rule 405:
When the rules require one of a set of distinct objects to be chosen or
operated on without specifying how one is to be chosen, the Officer in
charge of random things shall choose one of the possible choices at
random, with equal probabilities for all possible choices. 

I know a rule along those lines wwas used to determine that Alfvaen won
a game of viruses and Malenkai (as e was known) won the cycle.

John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> Even I don't believe this actually works, not without a random
> determination first.  But The rule doesn't specifically call for a random
> determination, and I can't really recall the game custom on this sort of
> thing, and once I said "You can't trust the rules," I got to thinking...
> So anyway, you gotta figure its worth a shot.
> 
>                              - Vynd, doesn't trust luck either
> 
> [email-masked]
Quack Quack?

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 18:58:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Why?

> > To all those who voted against quorum repeal  -- Why?
> 
> > Is this what we want?
> 
> I'm sorry.  I don't remember the gist of the quorum repeal idea, but is what
> we want for a Proposal to pass when only one player voted on it?  I remember
> the abduction of Rule 106--that can't happen now, but it is not impossible
> that something like that could [...]

I stand on Guy Fawke's Soapbox :-)

This sounds like worrying about the extremely next to impossible case at
the expense of the more common pain in the @$$ case, and to answer your 
question, I would rather live with the virtually nil chance of this coming
up than live with random proposals being destroyed for no rational reason, 
while those in the next batch or so pass or fail in an environment of the
exact same level of apathy.  BTW, why cannot we have only one person voting
on a proposal under the current system?  If the anwser is 'its not likely',
or somesuch, it seems like arguing over degrees of infinity to me :-)

What's gonna happen if one player has control of the proposal q anyway?
Dictators have come and gone, no big deal.  I'm not sure why we should
fear an unseen boogey man at the expense of dealing with a real problem.

I don't mind that people disagree with me on this, but I would appreciate
it if some other people took the time to explain why.  Lets face it, some
people haven't voted for the last 100s of proposals.  Why should their
apathy destroy the work of those who care about the proposal q?  It seems
to me that those who care about the proposal q ought to be left alone to
do proposals, and those who don't ought to be able to not care and do what
they like to do.  Grab-a-Donkey and treasure hunts and the Machine that goes
*ping* and all that other stuff works that way.  We could all live happily
ever after :-) I'm sure the people who don't care about proposals are not
out to make life a hassle for those who do, why should the rules *force* 
them to?

saaremaa

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 19:07:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Why?

>This sounds like worrying about the extremely next to impossible case at
>the expense of the more common pain in the @$$ case, and to answer your
>question, I would rather live with the virtually nil chance of this coming
>up than live with random proposals being destroyed for no rational reason,
>while those in the next batch or so pass or fail in an environment of the
>exact same level of apathy.  BTW, why cannot we have only one person voting
>on a proposal under the current system?  If the anwser is 'its not likely',
>or somesuch, it seems like arguing over degrees of infinity to me :-)
	Here here!  Quorum is just not a meaningful thing in a game of
nomic.  If people don't vote then that's their decision.  As for the risk
of only one person voting, the only way I can see that happening is with a
Go Fish card.  This is an actual risk, and since I don't think that
particular use of a Go Fish has ever been tried, I suggest that it be
removed at the same time.  Other than that, there's no reason to keep
quorum.  If we want the same effect then we should just have a 1% chance
that each proposal automatically fails.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 19:30:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Why?

>I don't mind that people disagree with me on this, but I would appreciate
>it if some other people took the time to explain why. 

Ok, I'll take the time.

> Lets face it, some
>people haven't voted for the last 100s of proposals. 

Indeed.

> Why should their
>apathy destroy the work of those who care about the proposal q? 

Don't mistake my current mode as apathy. When there are good things to vote
on and/or when the game will be in an innovating mode, to warrant more of my
time, I'll vote and take part. Right now, it's just about worth the time I
spend reading about it. No offense to anyone btw; I've not voted on some of
my own proposals! I think this is a global mood thing and much too complex
to be the work of any one player. Personal opinion of course, I'm sure many
players are enjoying it as it is (and good for them). I'm hibernating until
the spring of renaissance.

> It seems
>to me that those who care about the proposal q ought to be left alone to
>do proposals, and those who don't ought to be able to not care and do what
>they like to do. 

A quorum failure is a good sign and an invaluable indicator of the mood of
Acka. It is usually after such an event that creative periods come back.
They get shorter and shorter sadly, probably because the more time goes by,
the more we feel "obliged" to what's there.

Anyone have artillery rounds to spare?

> I'm sure the people who don't care about proposals are not
>out to make life a hassle for those who do, why should the rules *force* 
>them to?

Rules force players to act in a particular way for almost everything, so why
not this? Certainly I can understand the point of view which blames the
voters for the quorum failure (after all some will say, _"they"_ failed to
vote) however, the point of view which blames authors for uninteresting,
unimaginative or unmotivating proposals is equally valid, if not more so.

CnH

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 19:30:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Why?

>         Here here!  Quorum is just not a meaningful thing in a game of
> nomic. 

Especially our version.  With all its contortions of pending and
puppetheads and inactive players and non-voting players, it does not
achieve what quorums are intended to achieve in the first place!
Why to people have to *actively* say they don't care or don't
have the time, when non-voting on dozens to hundreds of proposals 
speaks for them?

How about a compromise:  Quorum is achieved if either at least 4 people,
or at least 50% of active players, vote.  That will kill the one person 
boogey man, which is the only objection I have seen, while keeping 
things rational otherwise.

saaremaa

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 19:58:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Why?

>	Here here!  Quorum is just not a meaningful thing in a game of
>nomic. 

After all, it's not like it had any effect on the game state! Heck, it
certainly doesn't get players who haven't written three lines in months to
start sending new messages again, they are lost at sea for all intents and
purposes.

> If people don't vote then that's their decision. 

And let's deny any meaningfulness of that decision to those people. If they
don't vote, they are third, nay, fourth rate citizens who should not have
any impact on our proposals. Proposals are the restricted hunting grounds of
our private little elite and we deny that it may be the defnining thing of a
Nomic, so I say let us do with it as we please and go back to playing you
little games. We'll let you pass proposals for more small games if you guys
are nice and roll over. What do you say?

> Other than that, there's no reason to keep
>quorum. 

None at all. Zero. Zilch. Any reason would be imagined and nothing else.
It's so obvious that I'm not going to do any non-existance proof. Besides,
we don't have to prove this, we can make the claims we want. It's you people
out there who would disagree with us first class citizens, that must make
sure you prove mathematically that there are reasons to keep quorum.

> If we want the same effect then we should just have a 1% chance
>that each proposal automatically fails.

There are people out there whose decisions are little more than a random
function (and who can be replaced by a probability function and make the
game more interesting to us) and we are only willing to tolerate their
decisions affecting 1% of our work. They don't deserve for us to try and
think about how the action of us who write proposals could lead to a quorum
crisis, it's all their fault anyway.

If you are not going to let us change the great quorum evil, we wish you
would all just go play in Pearkin Patch Nomic or whatever it's called. Leave
us to write our proposals and go away!

[My apologies to the author of the message for my putting (way) more words
in his mouth than there really were. However, I thought it'd be fun to go
overboard this way. I hope that I did not offend him (too much) but that I
may have illustrated to all the (certainly unintended) offensive nature of
the argument made for removing quorum. More to follow]

Fighting for a good cause and having fun for the first time in ages,
CnH

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 20:25:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Why?

> A quorum failure is a good sign and an invaluable indicator of the mood of
> Acka. 

breadbox lost his internet access.  Other players have jobs and babies and
the like in real life.  This is an invaluable indicator of the mood of 
acka?  Please elaborate.

> however, the point of view which blames authors for uninteresting,
> unimaginative or unmotivating proposals is equally valid, if not more so.

If our work is "uninteresting, unimaginative or unmotivating" to you, why
don't you become non-voting until it comes up to your lofty standards, 
and leave us to carry on in peace in the meantime?  Some of us are trying
to have fun on a limited time budget, and do not have the time, the skill,
or the inclination to write Nietzsche, and if they did, would not waste it
on people with this attitude.
 
> [My apologies to the author of the message for my putting (way) more words
> in his mouth than there really were. However, I thought it'd be fun to go
> overboard this way. I hope that I did not offend him (too much) but that I
> may have illustrated to all the (certainly unintended) offensive nature of
> the argument made for removing quorum. More to follow]

It is not fun.  Hopefully no more of this will follow.  You have not 
illustrated in any way, to me at least, how my argument was offensive.
Since a rational debate is now turning into this, I respectfully bow 
out and will visit the quorum issue at another time, probably the next
time real life issues become fodder for CnH to take the time to point
out how "uninteresting, unimaginative or unmotivating" we are.  Isn't it
amazing how some people come out only when the game is in a negative state,
and pile on the negatives when nary a positive thing has come from them in
months :-)  Perhaps you can inspire us with *your* work :-)

saaremaa

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 20:25:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Why?

>Especially our version.  With all its contortions of pending and
>puppetheads and inactive players and non-voting players, it does not
>achieve what quorums are intended to achieve in the first place!

At least, it does not achieve what we want it to achieve. It certainly
achieves something, we think, but since our goals are the primary goals, and
it doesn't acomplish our primary goals, then it does not achice it's goal.
How can anyone argue with that logic? It's so obvious.

You people be glad we are not talking of removing the evil puppet head
reference. But we'll raise the stakes and kill that as well if you don't bow
down right this minute.

>Why to people have to *actively* say they don't care or don't
>have the time, when non-voting on dozens to hundreds of proposals 
>speaks for them?

Ackanomic has no history for assuming one choice over an other. If you don't
know this, you haven't been studying Acka enough to have your opinion matter
anyway. This is clearly un-Ackanomian and must be the work of Pearkin Patch
Nomic radicals who have infiltrated our Golden Frog blessed Ackanomic. It is
the duty of every Ackanomic loving citizens to show their patriotism and
repeal it, lest they show their true traitorous colors!

>How about a compromise:  Quorum is achieved if either at least 4 people,
>or at least 50% of active players, vote. 

How generous of you oh fellow member of the proposal-writing-elite, but I
must beg to differ. We must crush those radicals. Let us not water down the
purity of our ideals. No negotiation! We make proposals and after all,
demand only that they vote on it. We could have demanded that they always
vote _for_ each proposal, but have granted them that one decision.
Obviously, this kindness has been taken for weakness. Beware our wrath: we
may yet revoke it!

> That will kill the one person 
>boogey man, which is the only objection I have seen, while keeping 
>things rational otherwise.

Because we are rational and any other opinion, as indeed the current system,
is obviously and painfully (of course painfully, to us) irrational.

[Once again, apologies to the author, who I am sure wrote his message in
good faith and spirit, trying to solve what he saw as an important problem
to himself and others. Perhaps this second message may in some blunt way
show that having a quorum crisis every once in a while can be an acceptable
barometer of public sentiment as well as an acceptable way for the silent
minority (some time a majority) to assert itself. A barometer which those
people brushing it off should take into account for the valuable information
it provides rather than imagining in it some attack on their work. I'm sorry
to have to be the one to say it (and certainly mean no offense by it), but
if the work in the queue was so important, people would have actually voted
on it...]

[The quorum requirement used to be much higher and so much tougher (remember
the first quorum crisis? That was a real crisis, not just a minor
inconvenience) and we had to water down the quorum rules more and more, down
to what it is now. And we will probably keep watering it down so more. And
more. Now instead of trying to polish over the symptoms, how about curing
the illness itself? What's the illness is a good question of course, but one
that will need to be addressed at some point]

Concerned about Acka one million proposals from now,
CnH

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 21:09:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Why?

>[My apologies to the author of the message for my putting (way) more words
>in his mouth than there really were. However, I thought it'd be fun to go
>overboard this way. I hope that I did not offend him (too much) but that I
>may have illustrated to all the (certainly unintended) offensive nature of
>the argument made for removing quorum. More to follow]
	First of all, you have gone beyond the point of twisting my words,
are are simply making up arguments and inserting them between quotes from
me.  Usually I expect concrete, sensible discussions of topics in Ackanomic
instead of straw man attacks.  If you disagree with me then I encourage you
to express your opinion; this is one of my favorite parts of nomic.  I hope
that the rest of Ackanomic is above this sort of slander.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 21:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Why?

>breadbox lost his internet access.  Other players have jobs and babies and
>the like in real life.  This is an invaluable indicator of the mood of 
>acka?  Please elaborate.

Take care to note that I was talking about a _quorum crisis in general_.
Take care to note also that I was responding to a message which identified
apathy as the cause of a quorum crisis (let's not forget that). Certainly,
it can be caused by factors other than the general "apathy" (as it was
called) of the voters but that does not negate the existance of that factor.
Or are you arguing that such a quorum failure (as would happen from lack of
voting) would not be an accurate indicator of the mood of Acka? If so, then
why was it said that it was from apathy, implying that a certain apathy
threashold had been reached (to create the quorum crisis)?

>If our work is "uninteresting, unimaginative or unmotivating" to you, why
>don't you become non-voting until it comes up to your lofty standards, 

So a player should be denied a vote until they find the proposals to their
taste? I would also remind you that I did say that I had not voted on my own
proposals. Obviously you still choose to deny me any part in "the work". My
work can be as uninteresting, unimaginative or unmotivating as anyone
else's, thank you very much.

>and leave us to carry on in peace in the meantime?  Some of us are trying
>to have fun on a limited time budget, and do not have the time, the skill,
>or the inclination to write Nietzsche, and if they did, would not waste it
>on people with this attitude.

Yes, I've already said that I was sure some people are having or trying to
have fun. I now try to have fun myself, but obviously I shouldn't. I think
there is a point in there somewhere, but I'd hate to be too obvious.

>It is not fun. 

I agree. Oh... you were talking about something else, sorry.

> Hopefully no more of this will follow.  You have not 
>illustrated in any way, to me at least, how my argument was offensive.

Your reaction shows that you thought you were one of the "poor proposal
writing players" (of which I am one, as I will insist on pointing out). My
message got you half way to my convoluted point, although it was never meant
to be personally emotional. Some player who is more imaginative and
intelligent than myself will then find out the cause and the cure so the
symptoms never again occur.

>Since a rational debate is now turning into this, I respectfully bow 
>out and will visit the quorum issue at another time, probably the next
>time real life issues become fodder for CnH to take the time to point
>out how "uninteresting, unimaginative or unmotivating" we are. 

It's interesting how your choice of words illustrates (one of) the point(s)
I make in the message (the repeat sense of "us the happy group" versus "you
who are against us"). I beg of you, don't exclude me from the happy group! I
want to be part of "we" and speak for many people.

It's interesting because I hadn't been looking at who the authors of the
messages were, so I wasn't targetting it at anyone (ie: the target was a
mindset and some, imho, faulty premises).

> Isn't it
>amazing how some people come out only when the game is in a negative state,
>and pile on the negatives when nary a positive thing has come from them in
>months :-)  Perhaps you can inspire us with *your* work :-)

Oh no, I have no intent of having my work stand out, I don't think it ever
has or will. I'm quite content where it is with everyone else.

And btw, your statement reminds me of the story set in the holy land
(ancient times) about the people who complained when the prophets (usually
bearing prophesies of doom) came out of the desert to tell them to the
people. I think it's completely off the mark obviously, since I am no
prophet (although many would love the job) and I see no difference between
myself and the average player (beyond my particular choice of expression: my
lack of voting).

And (gosh I hate starting with "and" again) please take care not to sound
like players have to be involved 100% of the time before their opinions
matter. I don't know if you mean that (and personally don't care if you did
or not) but some other players might take offense.

Almost forgot to explain what I found offensive in clear terms. You want to
deny me my one piece of fun in Ackanomic, right now. It's the only thing I
still have left and some people want to take it away from me. The very very
_very_ last thing. The fact that by not voting, I can be part of the silent
crowd which can create a quorum crisis.

Obviously not everyone's idea of fun, but since it occurs so rarely, I would
have thought everyone might let me have that small piece of fun. I was in
fact so deluded and content in my own little happy world of one effect, that
I thought everyone could see that. But I guess we all make that mistake.

Some of the problem with the message I have seen are as follows:
- - the proposal queue belongs to proposal writers
- - the quorum rule has no use (no proof, just asserted)
- - the fault for a quorum crisis is with the voters
- - apathy causes the quorum crisis

I don't expect all my criticisms to be thought fair, just as I didn't find
all the criticisms of the quorum rules fair. But who knows, perhaps someone
might get a single, lonely idea from my evil, un-Ackanomian negativity.

Wondering if he has yet again been too obscure and is rambling on,
CnH

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 21:28:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Why?

>	First of all, you have gone beyond the point of twisting my words,
>are are simply making up arguments and inserting them between quotes from
>me. Usually I expect concrete, sensible discussions of topics in Ackanomic
>instead of straw man attacks.  If you disagree with me then I encourage you
>to express your opinion; this is one of my favorite parts of nomic.  I hope
>that the rest of Ackanomic is above this sort of slander.

It's called a satire. It is true that it is evil and unackanomian, but after
writing more and more in response to the messages, that's what it turned
into. It is a legitimate use of the english language. I would also note that
there shouldn't be anything slanderous about it, considering I make use of
"we" (ie: I truly include myself and demand to be included in this) and make
no personal attacks.

I'm sorry. I was possessed. It wasn't me, it was my evil twin. I already
apologised for any missinterpretation and made it clear it wasn't personal.
If anyone insists on taking it so, there's nothing more I can (or want to)
do. <sigh>

The rather silly and obscure goal was for me to illustrate what it felt like
reading the original messages. If you found it so offensive, then perhaps
you might give me credit for being offended myself (how else could I be
moved to write such a thing after months of silence?). If you wonder how I
could have been offended, then perhaps you will wonder how it is you were
offended.

And in the end, perhaps someone who can decode those crazy and stupid
satires will identify a valid point. But I'm obviously too stupid (and
according to me honorable interlocutor, rude also) to be clear on my own. So
there's probably nothing to it, I'm just a completely negative person who
doesn't belong with "we the people"...

Still thinking...
CnH

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 21:34:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Why?

>Take care to note that I was talking about a _quorum crisis in general_.
	Fair enough.  In my experience, most (certainly not all) non-votes
occur because due to real life considerations, players do not have a chance
to vote, or are caused by technical problems of various sorts.  When I
(facetiously) suggested that we replace quorum with random proposal
failing, I was pointing out that quorum failures tend to occur when, by
coincidence, a number of people fail to vote because of miscellaneous,
non-intentional factors.

>Take care to note also that I was responding to a message which identified
>apathy as the cause of a quorum crisis (let's not forget that). Certainly,
>it can be caused by factors other than the general "apathy" (as it was
>called) of the voters but that does not negate the existance of that factor.
	Were there one, it would.  I am arguing that the number of people
voting because they want not to vote is much smaller than the number of
people who don't vote be accident.

>So a player should be denied a vote until they find the proposals to their
>taste? I would also remind you that I did say that I had not voted on my own
	No.  But if these proposals are so boring that you're not voting,
why are you demanding that your non-vote count?  If you don't like a
proposal, you should vote against it.  Otherwise not voting is like some
sort of combination bad luck/apathy/business/dislike vote.

>Your reaction shows that you thought you were one of the "poor proposal
>writing players" (of which I am one, as I will insist on pointing out). My
>message got you half way to my convoluted point, although it was never meant
>to be personally emotional. Some player who is more imaginative and
>intelligent than myself will then find out the cause and the cure so the
>symptoms never again occur.
	I guess you disagree, but I've enjoyed a number of the recent
proposals.  I agree it hasn't been the most exciting batch, but I think it
has been worth voting on.

>Almost forgot to explain what I found offensive in clear terms. You want to
>deny me my one piece of fun in Ackanomic, right now. It's the only thing I
>still have left and some people want to take it away from me. The very very
>_very_ last thing. The fact that by not voting, I can be part of the silent
>crowd which can create a quorum crisis.
	I guess this is a disagreement on the meaning of not voting.  Not
voting is NOT the same as voting against, nor should it be.  If that's what
you want to do you should vote against.  The purpose of not voting is to be
a neutral position, and should not be able to reject (or accept) a proposal.

>Some of the problem with the message I have seen are as follows:
>- the proposal queue belongs to proposal writers
	No.  The proposal queue belongs to all voting players. I certainly
didn't intentionally say that, and I assume saraamea didn't either.

>- the quorum rule has no use (no proof, just asserted)
	The only use I've seen is this idea that not voting is similar to
voting against, which it isn't.

>- the fault for a quorum crisis is with the voters
>- apathy causes the quorum crisis
	This isn't what we're saying, see above.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #150
***********************************