Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #151
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest       Monday, July 6 1998       Volume 03 : Number 151

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 21:48:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
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)?

I have seen, IIRC, three quorum failures in my time in Ackanomic.
The first was caused by the abduction of Rule 106, and the concomitant
impossibility of voting on Proposals for a week until it was returned.
The second and third were both caused by RL problems causing the Tabulator
to drop out of site for abnormal periods.

Can you name any times when the latter happened that there _weren't_ quorum
failures?  If so, then I might concede your point, but otherwise I'd say
that lack of Proposal voting is more likely to be tied to the suspicion
that one's votes wouldn't go anywhere even if one were to send them in.

(Of course, the more people who _never_ vote, the smaller the problem it
will take to cause quorum failure.  Which is where the apathy comes in,
perhaps.)

> >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.

Not everyone perceives mockery as fun.  And perhaps not everyone perceives
what you've been posting as mockery, but I can certainly see why some would.
Do you want to see what the verdict of a Politeness Moon against you would
be?

I came very close to pulling a Guy Fawkes' second exit not very long ago.
I don't particularly care to deal with this kind of bickering right now.
All of you go sit in the corner.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Billy Joel:Streetlife Serenade
Current Book--Fred Saberhagen:The Dracula Tape
You never told me about the fishsticks in your ears.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 22:38:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Why?

>Can you name any times when the latter happened that there _weren't_ quorum
>failures?  If so, then I might concede your point, but otherwise I'd say
>that lack of Proposal voting is more likely to be tied to the suspicion
>that one's votes wouldn't go anywhere even if one were to send them in.

I'm not sure what you are asking. When Mohammed left, he was inactive for a
while before leaving (and thus effectively the tabulator had gone awol,
which is one of the examples you give). However, there was no problem as the
bot still worked. Some problems occured afterwards when he did resign and
removed the bot. There are also plenty of stuff from the days when we still
did everything by hand, but I think only RS can vouch for me there, so no
point in using that.

If you are asking if there was ever a quorum crisis not brought on by awol
tabulator or RL problems (math parser error: vagueness warning) then there
is the first quorum failure. It was due to an influx of new players which
had yet to vote on the proposals (but still counted as voting players). This
resulted in the pending status.

>(Of course, the more people who _never_ vote, the smaller the problem it
>will take to cause quorum failure.  Which is where the apathy comes in,
>perhaps.)

Not just apathy, but all those like me (if any beside myself) who choose to
_not_ vote in order to create a quorum crisis. Note that this philosophy is
a cousin of both the idea of civil disobedience and anarchy, but should not
be mistaken for either.

>Not everyone perceives mockery as fun.  And perhaps not everyone perceives
>what you've been posting as mockery, but I can certainly see why some would.
>Do you want to see what the verdict of a Politeness Moon against you would
>be?

I would certainly hope that they would be _against_ me. Why is it such a big
problem to see that this is exactly what my intention was? A satire is
_meant_ to be found offensive, it's not meant to be a merry little
discussion. I could not honestly write about the arguments expressed because
it was so wrong to me that I ended up writing and writing. Eventually, my
replies grew into the above and seemed best expressed as such. I _was_
trying to push the argument made by the original posters to the extreme
limit (as I perceived that limit), which I found offensive and ridiculous.
Obviously, others are finding that extreme just that offensive. Then perhaps
they can best understand why I found the original messages offensive.

I think it's that backward propagation thing that's catching people of guard.

Let me give you an example. The following statement is made:

Someone writes:
        "Why should their apathy destroy the work of those who care about
the proposal q?"
So I think:
        I'm sorry, but I contributed (proudly) to the quorum crisis and I am
neither apathetic about the queue, nor do I _not_ care about it. I _do_
care. In fact, enough not to vote, for the purpose of creating a quorum
crisis. And it's not pointless, since it did happen -- not that I'm taking
the credit you understand...

I can also talk about the statement that people using the queue should be
the ones to worry about it (implying only them) or the one stating that the
queue was just useless (but lacking reasoning of why this was so) or... bah,
you get the picture. The thing is that I didn't think they were especially
bad messages, at least no worse than mine (that much is certain) but that's
no reason not to disagree with them.

>I came very close to pulling a Guy Fawkes' second exit not very long ago.
>I don't particularly care to deal with this kind of bickering right now.

Ah, I see. Well, I was expecting exactly the kind of response I got.
Hopefully though, people will then stop to think what it was all about and
_maybe_ see some point being made. I don't know, I'm a crazy optimist. Bored
perhaps and trying to pick a fight.    : )

>All of you go sit in the corner.

<crying and whining> But they started it by taking my tooooooooy! Bwaaah
wah! </crying and whinning>

Fingers hurting from the typing,
CnH

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 22:46:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Why?

> Why is it such a big problem to see that this is exactly what my
> intention was? A satire is _meant_ to be found offensive

Please do not be offensive intentionally on any of these mailing
lists again.

Randy

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 23:07:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Why?

>	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. 

I agree. However, please note that in at least one case (yours truly) this
is done on purpose. I will also grant you however, that this is has not
always been so, but since I found a real use for it (creating a very limited
and controled crisis) then I thought it was a worthwhile thing to do.

> 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.

I also agree. What I tried to point out is how insulting that can be.
Certainly, I take my not voting seriously (ie: there is a purpose to it) and
do not wish to be considered the equivalent of a single math function (or
less useful since you want to replace me by that). Also, I have a problem
with the function simply making the proposal fail. The proposal failing is
only a side effect in my respect. I have never opposed getting that changed.
What I'm going for is the crisis itself and that's what I've been arguing about.

I know it won't seem logical to many (all) players. Still, it's my right,
it's my decision, and I don't want it taken away from me. Think of it as a
really weak political statement and protest.

>>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 don't think so. If there is a factor that is not apathy, then there is a
factor that is not apathy, irrespective and independently of whether there
are other factors.

> 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.

But what an collosal accident! That's the beauty of it all. Well, imho.  : )

Why take that accident away from me and anyone else who wishes to do the
same? The effect is neither great nor long lasting but is noticable by all
at the time. This is the essence of a reasonable and responsible political
statement. (if it were more, like finding a real loophole, that would border
on pure anarchy)

>	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.

First of all, it's not that they are boring. They are lacking (for want of a
better word) and I explained why: few if any make any impact on the status
quo, we are not evolving. That may not be important and on sunny days, I'll
agree with that. Still, right now I care.

I am demanding that my no-vote count to create a crisis, not to make
proposals fail. That's just a side effect (which I do not mind), let's keep
the discussion on the quorum crisis.

>	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.

Let's clear up a myth right here and now. The first 100 proposals in Acka
are not substancially better than the last 100. The texts themselves are not
much worse (or much better). That's not my point and won't be. In fact,
authors are more technically accurate. HOWEVER (caps because I want caps)
the first rules where amazing because there was _no_ Acka backdrop to them.
Of the last 100, how many can claim such an impact on the game? Little
things, sure, which might build up over time. Perhaps, perhaps indeed,
before some equally small change obliterates them and their would be
effects... Where's the plan and purpose?

Perhaps we can never be as bold as we have been in the past, because we now
cherish what we have. But if paradise is being stuck with no (grandly)
meaningful and amazing things to do, them I understand why souls would want
to live as humans, who have worlds to master and the universe to marvel at.

>	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.

I do not wish to vote against a proposal. What led you to this impression?
Well, perhaps it's just hard to imagine someone wants to rock the boat (and
just rock the boat) on purpose.    : )

I can see an argument as to why not voting should not influence whether a
proposal passes or not. I don't care though. What I'm interested in is the
crisis.

>	No.  The proposal queue belongs to all voting players. I certainly
>didn't intentionally say that, and I assume saraamea didn't either.

"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"

I am more than willing to believe that the "left alone" and so forth do not
mean what I read it to mean. I just don't want this to be part of the mindset.

>	The only use I've seen is this idea that not voting is similar to
>voting against, which it isn't.

And you've got me supporting you there. They are nothing alike for my money.

CnH

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

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 23:21:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Why?

>Please do not be offensive intentionally on any of these mailing
>lists again.

I take note of your wishes and will do my best to abide by them. It is in
the expectation and prospect of equal reciprocity that you find me,
especially in the light of your initial offending remarks which led me to
post in the first place.

The only one who has put a disclaimer at the end at the end of his messages,
CnH

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #151
***********************************