Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #152
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest       Tuesday, July 7 1998       Volume 03 : Number 152

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 05:10:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3226 accepted

On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> 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

If it says "donate any items" then I'd say the replacement result would be
"donate any entity from the above lists"

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 05:55:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Why?

On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Randy Hall wrote:

> > > 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 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

I think there are better, softer, solutions.
In New Rishonomic, which is much smaller, and slower, than acka, we had
for a long time a rule that players who never voted do not count for
Qourum,and recently, following massive quorum failures, we passed an
amendment that says that for any given proposal, a player who did not vote
for the five proposal prior to that proposal does not count for quorum
either.
This solves both the new player problem, and the persistent absence
problem with no need to define new player states, or any player states at
all. 
The one problem it does not solve is random abstination. I don't think
that's a real problem, considering the normal rate of proposals, and the
methods we have to vote on them, I think most players vote, or fail to
vote, in batches.
The problem that remains here is the work involved, and I'd prefer to see
what the Tabulator has to say about that.

Niccolo Flychuck
ps- I'm not against reducing Quorum somewhat.

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 07:32:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (L'homme a tete de choux)
Subject: Acka: disclaimer schmisclaimer

>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

I'm not taking part in this argument, principally because I think it is very
silly. However, I would like to say, without prejudice, that I think this last
comment particularly silly. I'm afraid that putting a disclaimer at the end of
an offensive message does not stop that message from being offensive (I do not
hereby imply that the comment was offensive, merely that if it were, then the
disclaimer would not change that).

I believe it is a fundamental problem with email lists that as a rule those
taking part seem to lack the usual care and attention they would normally take
when trying to express themselves by other means (I have taken part in numerous
email lists and found the same problem in all bar none; I do not suggest that
*everyone* who takes part in email lists is guilty of this).

So-called 'smilies' are even worse than disclaimers. The common assertion that
smilies are required because it is impossible to express 'irony' or sarcasm in
an email is simply untrue. It simply requires more care and sensitivity to the
likely way the recipient of your message will read it. You can't blame people
for being offended when you say something offensive, whether you mean it or
not.

So, all I really want to say is if people make more effort to communicate
clearly and efficiently, these silly arguments would never happen -- at least
if you wish to qualify your statements, please do so explicitly rather than by
use of ambiguous colons and brackets.

thank you,

Ethelred

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 09:47:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3262

> Append to the list in Rule 975 (Yes Virginia) as a new entry:
> VII. If a Player is on a Moon and has been there for at least a week, e
> shall receive a random cheese from the list defined in rule 611 (Le
> Grand Fromage). If this results in em having more than one of a
> particular variety of cheese, e shall also receive a newly created
> Cheese-Whiz.

> {{[In the Cheese-Whiz case the extra chees will be destroyed by rule
> 611]}}

I think, in fact, the extra cheese might be destroyed before the Cheez-Whiz
(note proper spelling)clause takes effect, because if a person with a Gouda
receives a Gouda, this does _not_ "result" in them having more than one
Gouda.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Rick Springfield:What Kind of Fool Am I
Current Book--Tesseracts5
Everyone was acting normal, so I tried to act nonchalant.

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 09:48:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3267

> Proposal 3267
> The Good and The Bad
> K 2 (Kelly Kelly)

This Proposal is, I wager, removed from consideration.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Rick Springfield:What Kind of Fool Am I
Current Book--Tesseracts5
"I was getting the bananas.  For the sardines."

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 09:52:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3288

> Proposal 3288
> I Should Be Allowed to Think
> K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
> 
> I was young and foolish then, I feel old and foolish now.

> Repeal rule 1307, "Ackanomic Middle Ages".

> {{/dev/joe's score is increased by 10 points. K 2's Score is reduced by
> 10 points.}}

Unless the last clause was on the previous submission of this Proposal,
it is not in fact Foolish.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--They Might Be Giants:I Should Be Allowed To Think
Current Book--Tesseracts5
Jim just quit and packed extra bags for Liz Owen.

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 09:54:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3296

> Proposal 3296
> 'Ket, Bro!
> Alfvaen (Aaron Humphrey)

> This is a Modest proposal.

> Repeal Rule Rule 1308, "Bracket/Smiley Pedantry".

This is also invalid and removed from consideration.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Rick Springfield:What Kind of Fool Am I
Current Book--Tesseracts5
a^n+b^n=c^n. No solutions for n>2, as can be seen by |#@}NO_CARRI

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 10:24:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka; CFCJ 171 (JT)

Moo!
John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> > Initiator: K 2 (Sent 6 Jul 1998, 09:53 Acka)
> > Vynd committed the Crime of Original Sin on 6th of July 1998

> First and foremost, the harfers are often wrong.  Sorry to say it, but its
> true.  I simply can't stand by and assume that something that they say is
> going to be true.  

The recent untaxes would be a case in point here.

> So our [K 2] says that the Felicitous Populi card
> wasn't played.  

> The harfers say lots of things, and then a few hours later
> they realize they made a mistake, or missed a rule, or whatever.  And then
> if I'm not sitting around checking every email as it comes in, I miss out
> through no fault of my own.
> 
> So which causes less irritation and problems for the harfers?  Saying that
> I do something "if," or submitting a CFJ every time I'm not quite sure I
> agree with a harfer's interpretation of the rules?  I think this is a
> pretty damn stupid rule.  

Yeap.

> It ranks right up there with my own Caped
> Crusader Rule.  So anyway, I imagine I'll get convicted.  But next time I
> have a few hours to spare, I'm going to give this whole sins thing a good
> hard look, and I'd appreicate a fair hearing on the changes I'm sure to
> propose.

I also agree that conditional actions should be legal. I didn't vote for
this particular sin, since if it has to be a crime it would be better if
players weren't encouraged to commit it. Further more limited (as in
this case) use of conditionals often helpful. It would be better if they
were made legal. Since sins form part of a "Winning Condition" I think
that they should be reserved for actions which are both difficult to
commit and harfy.

So why did I submit the CFCJ. With the Cheesy Winning Conditions
convicting players of petty crimes can be considered a move and as such
have now axed the bries of three players (including myself).

It is the sin of insanity to start every public message for a month with
Moo! and end it with Quack Quack?

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 13:00:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3259

On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 3259
> K2
> K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
> 
> This is a Modest Proposal.
> 
> Create a new rule numbered 838 titled "The Mountain" with the text:
> 

This proposal would create a very odd situation if it were to pass, and
then my Land Reform proposal is accepted.  Yeah, I know, I haven't
proposed it yet.  But I've RFCed it (repeatedly, albeit slowly) and I was
only waiting for breadbox to return to us before I RFCed its final form,
one last time.  So anyways, it might be nice if this were retracted, but
if not, well then I guess things will just be a little confusing for
awhile.  I imagine we'll survive, but I thought I'd mention it now rather
than hear the same things I'm saying now from K 2 in another few days.

                            - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 13:16:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3285

On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 3285
> Hat Attack
> K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
> 
> Amend Rule 666 (End of Cycle) to replace the following text [from
> section b]:
> Agenda Hats that are not being worn are destroyed.
> with:
> Agenda Hats that are not being worn, or who's condition is true, are
> destroyed.
> #End proposal
> 

I don't like this idea much at all.  A player could spend months getting
working on his agendas, have only one thing left to do, and then someone
scams a Museum Win  through some loophole put into the rules last week,
and the poor schmuck with the Agenda Hats has to start all over.  Of
course, even more likely is that he will get a hat whose truth he has no
control over (The owner of this eggplant hasn't been selected for a CFJ in
the past week.  Hey, thats pretty good...), and lose out that way.  So
um, why do you think this is a good idea, anyway?

                               - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 13:21:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3294

On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 3294
> One Ring To Rule Them All
> Alfvaen (Aaron Humphrey)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> Create a new Rule, numbered 775, named "Vagueness", with text as
> follows(delimited by SEQ):
> 
> SEQ
> It is a crime to talk in a public dorum about publicly unknowable things.
> SEQ
> 

Everyone can see that this is a terrible idea, right?  Apart from the fact
that there are plenty of good reasons to talk about publicly unknowable
things, such as, oh, I dunno, whether or not this proposal will pass...
Apart from that, I guarantee you won't want to be the guy who has to judge
my CFJs on the nature of knowledge, the inherent biases of perception, and
well, you get the idea.

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 13:26:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 3294

I just think it means we can't talk in public dorums.  As soon as
someone creates a location called "The Public Dorum" or some such, we
might have cause to worry :)

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	John Frederic Mc Coy [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Tuesday, July 07, 1998 12:21 PM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Re: Acka: Proposal 3294
>
>
>
>> 
>> SEQ
>> It is a crime to talk in a public dorum about publicly unknowable things.
>> SEQ
>> 
>
>Everyone can see that this is a terrible idea, right?  Apart from the fact
>that there are plenty of good reasons to talk about publicly unknowable
>things, such as, oh, I dunno, whether or not this proposal will pass...
>Apart from that, I guarantee you won't want to be the guy who has to judge
>my CFJs on the nature of knowledge, the inherent biases of perception, and
>well, you get the idea.
>
>                                   - Vynd
>
>[email-masked]
>
>

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 14:24:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Goodbye

On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, JT wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, K2 wrote:
>
>>Moo!
>>A message of many parts:
>>i) Firstly I'm starting nominations for registrar.
>
>I nominate JT.

I donate A$1 to the TWITS, and wish they'd hurry up with my membership
application :)

- --JT

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 17:02:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3267

>> Proposal 3267
>> The Good and The Bad
>> K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
> 
> This Proposal is, I wager, removed from consideration.

You wager correctly.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 17:04:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3288

>> Proposal 3288
>> I Should Be Allowed to Think
>> K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
>> 
>> I was young and foolish then, I feel old and foolish now.
> 
>> Repeal rule 1307, "Ackanomic Middle Ages".
> 
>> {{/dev/joe's score is increased by 10 points. K 2's Score is
>> reduced by 10 points.}}
> 
> Unless the last clause was on the previous submission of this
> Proposal, it is not in fact Foolish.

Correct again, O Alfvaen.

This points up a minor problem with the concept of foolishness -
namely that it is essentially impossible to submit a foolish proposal
that was originally written by someone else, and adhere to good form.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 17:06:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3296

>> Proposal 3296
>> 'Ket, Bro!
>> Alfvaen (Aaron Humphrey)
> 
>> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
>> Repeal Rule Rule 1308, "Bracket/Smiley Pedantry".
> 
> This is also invalid and removed from consideration.

Incorrect this time. Oh well, two out of three isn't bad.

I presume you are thinking of Proposal 3290. Closer inspection will
reveal that in fact the text of the two proposals differ.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 17:16:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3288

On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Correct again, O Alfvaen.
> 
> This points up a minor problem with the concept of foolishness -
> namely that it is essentially impossible to submit a foolish proposal
> that was originally written by someone else, and adhere to good form.
> 
> breadbox
> 

Well, when I originally wrote it, you couldn't update anything, not even
Rule Pointers.

I never intended that you could steal someone else's good/bad idea and
double your pleasure/fun.

IB
feeling like a foundig father

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 20:31:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3296

> > This is also invalid and removed from consideration.

> Incorrect this time. Oh well, two out of three isn't bad.

> I presume you are thinking of Proposal 3290. Closer inspection will
> reveal that in fact the text of the two proposals differ.

Ah.  I'd forgotten about that wee change.  So it would require a CFJ to
remove it.  Maybe I'll submit it to avoid the retraction penalty.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Kenny Loggins:Vox Humana
Current Book--Tesseracts5
"Your bag!  Suddenly!  Here!  Now--gone!"

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #152
***********************************