Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #180
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Thursday, August 6 1998     Volume 03 : Number 180

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 18:41:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Yet Another New Order

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > Another, unrelated idea, but that could be easily combined with any
> > system, is to open up some roles for free enterprise. Let us take the
> > Promoter's job. Why have only one Promoter.
> 
> Think about consistent (as in non-duplicated) Proposal numbers. 

This is not really an issue, provided the number of licences is limited.
Simply allocate last digits.  It screws up the order, but that is really a
different issue.

> Think
> about having one Tabulator, who knows precisely, at any given time,
> what Proposals are up for voting and which aren't. Think about an
> accurate and well-maintained Proposal archive.

This last one is the big problem.
- -- 
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 - Web-Harfer,RuneMaker,ChessUmpire,Map-Harfer - www.ackanomic.org

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 18:41:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC  Reconsideration

Request for Comment:

Create a new rule with the number 106.5 and the title “Reconsideration
of Proposals”, with the following RECONSIDER-delimited text:

RECONSIDER
Any proposal which is accepted or rejected may be reconsidered.
Proposals may only be reconsidered as described in this Rule.

A proposal is reconsidered if any player who voted on the winning side
notifies the Promoter within 24 hours of the announcement of the outcome
of the vote that e wishes for the proposal to be reconsidered.  The
Promoter shall then place the proposal on the proposal queue in the
normal manner, and post as a Public Action that the proposal is being
reconsidered, and name the player who has requested reconsideration.

The voting deadline for a proposal which is being reconsidered shall be
three days.  This paragraph takes precedence over Rule 106, if they are
found to be in conflict.  All other Rules governing voting on,
acceptance and rejection of proposals remain in force.

A particular proposal may be reconsidered only once.

Enforcement of any Rule created by the proposal being reconsidered shall
be suspended while the proposal is being reconsidered.  However, if the
original outcome is upheld, any Rule created by the proposal which was
reconsidered shall be enforced as if it had never been suspended.  This
paragraph takes precedence over Rule 103, if they are found to be in
conflict.

If the outcome of the reconsideration is the same as the original
ballot, the player requesting reconsideration shall be penalized 10
points.  If the original outcome is overturned, the player requesting
reconsideration shall receive 5 points.  Other players shall be rewarded
and/or penalized as voting rules may prescribe.  This paragraph shall
take precedence over all other Rules governing points and scoring.
RECONSIDER

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 18:48:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Real Life Antivoting

else...if wrote:

> >but believe it may pass, I might vote in favor of it, >because I can
> then move to reconsider the vote if >circumstances change later on.
>    I believe there are strict limits on how quickly you can do this.
> My memory is by the following session, but I could be wrong.
>
> >Hmm.  Ackanomic doesn't seem to have a reconsider >provision.  Maybe
> I'll propose one...
>    Yes we do.  It's called resubmitting. Reconsidering is used
> primarily when unusually few people are present, and a person believes
> voting again at the next meeting with different membership will change
> the result.  That doesn't really happen in Acka.

That's not the ONLY time it's used, bu it is a common reason.  An
reconsideration might be a way to short-circuit the (comparatively) drawn
out process of submitting a new proposal.  Most importantly, it makes a
big difference whether it is a new proposal (effectively a proposal to
repeal) and a reconsideration, since 60% is required for passage.

To give a recent example...I recently voted for a proposal for
anti-voting points, thinking that the proposal would never pass -- but it
did!  If there was a reconsideration rule, I could move to have it
reconsidered, and thus change my vote.  If enough others did likewise,
the outcome would be changed.

Now I have no beef with what happened...I'm new, but I'm not THAT new,
and I realized this could happen.  But it did get me to thinking that a
reconsideration provision might be interesting.  I've posted a draft to
research.

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 18:50:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC  Reconsideration

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:

> Request for Comment:
>=20
> Create a new rule with the number 106.5 and the title =93Reconsideration
> of Proposals=94, with the following RECONSIDER-delimited text:
>=20
> RECONSIDER
> Any proposal which is accepted or rejected may be reconsidered.
> Proposals may only be reconsidered as described in this Rule.
>=20
> A proposal is reconsidered if any player who voted on the winning side
> notifies the Promoter within 24 hours of the announcement of the outcome
> of the vote that e wishes for the proposal to be reconsidered.  The
> Promoter shall then place the proposal on the proposal queue in the
> normal manner, and post as a Public Action that the proposal is being
> reconsidered, and name the player who has requested reconsideration.
>=20
> The voting deadline for a proposal which is being reconsidered shall be
> three days.  This paragraph takes precedence over Rule 106, if they are
> found to be in conflict.  All other Rules governing voting on,
> acceptance and rejection of proposals remain in force.
>=20
> A particular proposal may be reconsidered only once.
>=20
> Enforcement of any Rule created by the proposal being reconsidered shall
> be suspended while the proposal is being reconsidered.  However, if the
> original outcome is upheld, any Rule created by the proposal which was
> reconsidered shall be enforced as if it had never been suspended.  This
> paragraph takes precedence over Rule 103, if they are found to be in
> conflict.
>=20
> If the outcome of the reconsideration is the same as the original
> ballot, the player requesting reconsideration shall be penalized 10
> points.  If the original outcome is overturned, the player requesting
> reconsideration shall receive 5 points.  Other players shall be rewarded
> and/or penalized as voting rules may prescribe.  This paragraph shall
> take precedence over all other Rules governing points and scoring.
> RECONSIDER

The concept is interesting.  The main problem I see with it is the
likelihood of a reconsideration failing quorum.  Given that I am
reasonably confident people don't necessarily send in votes every three
days, I suspect that when this starts we could see perfectly well accepted
proposals being overturned because quorum is not reached on the
reconsideration.

Also, while the use of precedence language is a good insurance policy, I
think you may have overdone it slightly.  This rule does quite a bit of
precedence clobbering, which might, if it were placed in the right
part of the Ruleset, prove unnecessary.

I am wavering over whether to vote for this or not.
You're doing a very good job for a newbie in providing non-trivial
proposals.  Certainly better than I did when I joined.
- --=20
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 - Web-Harfer,RuneMaker,ChessUmpire,Map-Harfer - www.ackanomic.org

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 18:58:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC  Reconsideration

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:
>Request for Comment:

[reconsideration proposal snipped]

As has already been mentioned, we arlready have this concept in the rules
(see foolish proposals).  Now granted, this allows accepted proposals to
be reconsidered.  Unfortunately, it will make Tammany votes and Bonus
votes useless, since those only tend to get used on 'contentious'
proposals anyway.  Now, assuming at least one 'mole' on the winning side
(for whatever reason), those bonus votes and the tammany bribes will need
to be paid again making them almost completely inneffective to be used
in the first place.  Add to this the fact that the player body doesn't
change substatially over a week, and the only reason I can see for this
is to make Tammany and Bonus votes useless.  While I'm not adverse to
doing this, if that is your intention, submit that proposal instead
(someone already has, I know).  If Tammany votes and Bonus votes do get
repealed, then this proposal has even less use since the voting body
isn't likely to change substantially over a week.  For these reasons,
I would vote against this.

I would also not see the voting period shortened at all.  3 days is the
'limit' for most things now so that players don't have to check their
acka-mail every day if they don't want to.  Proposals, being of a somewhat
serious nature, by rights deserve the longer period so that players can in
fact look at and consider their votes on proposals.

Resubmitting a failed proposal or submitting a proposal to undo the
recent proposal suffice, and are already in the rules.

- --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: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 19:02:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Real Life Antivoting

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:
>To give a recent example...I recently voted for a proposal for
>anti-voting points, thinking that the proposal would never pass -- but it
>did!  If there was a reconsideration rule, I could move to have it
>reconsidered, and thus change my vote.  If enough others did likewise,
>the outcome would be changed.

This is one of the major reasons I wanted to repeal anti-voting.  Now
there is no reason not to vote your concience initially.  And thus even
less need for a reconsideration.
I addressed your other issues in a prior post.

BTW, don't take this amiss.  The proposal was reasonably well thought out.
I just don't like the effects it would have :)

- --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: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 19:29:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Real Life Antivoting

Publius wrote:
>
>else...if wrote:
>>
>>>but believe it may pass, I might vote in favor of it, 
>>>because I can then move to reconsider the vote if 
>>>circumstances change later on. I believe there are 
>>>strict limits on how quickly you can do this.
>>>My memory is by the following session, but I could 
>>>be wrong.
>>>Hmm.  Ackanomic doesn't seem to have a reconsider 
>>>provision.  Maybe I'll propose one...
>>
>>    Yes we do.  It's called resubmitting. Reconsidering
>>is used primarily when unusually few people are present,
>>and a person believes voting again at the next meeting 
>>with different membership will change the result.  That 
>>doesn't really happen in Acka.
>
>That's not the ONLY time it's used, bu it is a common 
>reason. An reconsideration might be a way to short-circuit
>the (comparatively) drawn out process of submitting a new 
>proposal.  Most importantly, it makes a big difference 
>whether it is a new proposal (effectively a proposal to 
>repeal) and a reconsideration, since 60% is required for 
>passage.
>
>To give a recent example...I recently voted for a proposal for
>anti-voting points, thinking that the proposal would never 
>pass -- but it did!  If there was a reconsideration rule, I 
>could move to have it reconsidered, and thus change my vote.  
>If enough others did likewise, the outcome would be changed.

This would also change the usefulness of Bonus Votes and Tammany, if you
wanted to slide something into power with tricks, you'd need enough stuff
to do it twice.  The "will of the people" would gain strength with respect
to the "will of the strong."

Studge

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 20:10:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Leaving

>> I suggest that anyone who wishes to join a political party in favour of
>> anti-voting could join Klingon. I approve of this suggestion as well.
>
>Not so sure how to harf this.... Open membership policy?
>
I just intended it to be an invitation, rather than a change to membership.
The invitation still stands, and I'm very unlikely to turn anyone down.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 20:17:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ?

Duncan Richer wrote:

> >From the judgement on CFJ 637 came the following definition:
>
> "An integer greater than one is called a prime number if its only
> positive divisors (factors) are one and itself."

In defence I point to the "game custom" section of my ruleing...

K 2

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 20:26:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Potato, Oars and Tuba

JT wrote:

> I'm curious as to the actual state of the location of the Raft.  I recall
> recieving it (recently), but the PE page doesn't show it anywhere and
> the Holder of Unique Entities page that Slakko maintains shows Goldenmean
> holding it, but that page also still shows /dev/joe hlding the *ping*
> machine, so it's not up to date.
>

I have Goldenmean ffinding the raft on 2/08/1998  8:37:51 - so MTM must've dun
it....

Goldenmean is on the "On Ice" page so it may not have been legal for em to do
so....

K 2

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 20:44:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Potato, Oars and Tuba

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, K2 wrote:
>I have Goldenmean ffinding the raft on 2/08/1998  8:37:51 - so MTM must've dun
>it....
>
>Goldenmean is on the "On Ice" page so it may not have been legal for em to do
>so....

I'm curious how he got on the On-Ice page since I've had him listed as
Active/Non-Voting on the registrar page as did Alfvaen before me.  I just
sent him an AWOL letter yesterday.

Therefore, I believe he should in fact have the raft and should not be on
the On-Ice page.

- --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: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 20:49:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

I beleive Call for Judgement 641 spells out why I beieve what I beleive.

Brian Raiter wrote:

> > For the record (broken) It is my opinon that no player of the
> > _Ackanomic_ name "Tom Walmsley" has ever existed so *I* am going to
> > harf this as refering quite unambiguously to Mr. Tambourine Man -
> > fortunately for em e in unaligned at the moment....
>
> What are you talking about?
>
> The Ackanomic Player with the RL name of "Eric Plumb" held the
> Ackanomic name "Tom Walmsley"

Nope cause the Registrar objected to the change - but CFJ 641 will
hopefully give a definitve verdict or at least adress the issue.

> from July 29th until yesterday, when the
> "True Names" proposal forced him to assume the Ackanomic name of
> "867-5309".
>
> breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 21:47:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: ACKA:  RFC   Multi-proposals

Here's yet another draft -- this one is designed to allow the submission
of up to five independent proposals, with the players able to chose
which one shall be accepted.  It uses what is called "approval voting",
in which you can vote in favor of as few or as many of the independent
proposals as you like, but only the one with the most votes will win:

====================================
Create a new rule with the number 304 and the title “Multi-proposals”,
consisting of the following BINARY-delimited text:

BINARY
A player may submit multiple proposals (or Multi-proposals) with the
intention that only one of them (at most) be adopted.  Only proposals
submitted as described in this Rule shall be considered as
Multi-proposals.

A Multi-proposal shall consist of two or more independent and complete
proposals, written and submitted as described in the Rules governing
proposals.  In addition to this, each of the proposals must abide by the
following:

1.  All proposals in a Multi-proposal must be submitted by the same
author.

2.  There may be no more than five individual proposals contained in any
given Multi-proposal.

3.  All proposals in a Multi-proposal must address substantially the
same subject matter.  The Promoter may declare Invalid any part of a
Multi-proposal, if e believes that this requirement has not been met.

4.  Each proposal in a Multi-proposal must begin with the following
CAVEAT-delimited text:

CAVEAT
[This proposal is part  of Multi-proposal NAME.  This is Proposal X of
Y.]
CAVEAT

Where NAME is an arbitrary, unique character string of not less than
three or more than ten alphanumeric characters, which designates the
name of the overall Multi-proposal; Y is the number of proposals
contained in Multi-proposal NAME; and X is a positive unique integer no
greater than Y.

5. No more than one hour may separate the submission of the first
proposal of a Multi-proposal from the submission of the last proposal.

Individual proposals contained in a Multi-proposal shall be processed by
the Promoter in all respects as if they were regular proposals, except
that the Promoter shall make a reasonable effort to place the individual
proposals of a Multi-proposal next to each other on the voting queue,
and to give them sequential Proposal numbers.

Individual proposals contained in a Multi-proposal shall be voted upon
by the players in all respects as if they were regular proposals.  In
tabulating the vote, however, only that proposal with the highest number
of votes shall be accepted, and all other proposals from the same
Multi-proposal shall be rejected, regardless of their vote totals and
quorum status.  To be accepted,a proposal must also meet all other
requirements prescribed by the Rules for acceptance of a regular
proposal.  In the event that two or more proposals within the same
Multi-proposal shall receive the same number of votes, and both meet the
requirements to be accepted, the proposal with the lowest value for X,
as described in the CAVEAT-delimited text, above, shall be accepted, and
the other proposal(s) shall be rejected.

As long as one proposal within a Multi-proposal is accepted, the author
shall receive the points to which e would be entitled if the proposal
had been presented and accepted as a regular proposal, divided by the
number of proposals contained in the Multi-proposal.  If none of the
proposals are accepted, the author shall lose one point for each Modest
Proposal contained in the Multi-proposal; five points for each Grandiose
proposal contained in the Multi-proposal; and three points for each
immodest, non-grandiose proposal contained in the Multi-proposal.

Individual proposals within a Multi-proposal may be retracted by the
author in the same manner as prescribed in the Rules for regular
proposals.

Each individual proposal within a Multi-proposal may be Modest,
Grandiose, or neither, without regard to the status of any other
individual proposal within the same Multi-proposal.
BINARY

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 22:12:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACKA:  RFC   Multi-proposals

>Here's yet another draft -- this one is designed to allow the submission
>of up to five independent proposals, with the players able to chose
>which one shall be accepted.  It uses what is called "approval voting",
>in which you can vote in favor of as few or as many of the independent
>proposals as you like, but only the one with the most votes will win:
	He's one of us now...
	Very nice.  Robert's Rules of Order have a similar, although not
quite identical, provision called filling by blanks or something like that.
You start by voting on the most radical proposal and the go on to the next
most radical until a majority supports something.  I like it, and would
vote for it.  I'll trust someone else try to find any linguistic errors,
but the concept is great.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and
enjoy it.
		-Logan Pearsall Smith

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 22:16:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACKA:  RFC   Multi-proposals

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:

> Here's yet another draft -- this one is designed to allow the submission
> of up to five independent proposals, with the players able to chose
> which one shall be accepted.  It uses what is called "approval voting",
> in which you can vote in favor of as few or as many of the independent
> proposals as you like, but only the one with the most votes will win:
>=20

This is a pretty interesting idea.

> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Create a new rule with the number 304 and the title =93Multi-proposals=94=
,
> consisting of the following BINARY-delimited text:
>=20
> BINARY
> A player may submit multiple proposals (or Multi-proposals) with the
> intention that only one of them (at most) be adopted.  Only proposals
> submitted as described in this Rule shall be considered as
> Multi-proposals.
>=20
> A Multi-proposal shall consist of two or more independent and complete
> proposals, written and submitted as described in the Rules governing
> proposals.  In addition to this, each of the proposals must abide by the
> following:
>=20
> 1.  All proposals in a Multi-proposal must be submitted by the same
> author.
>=20
> 2.  There may be no more than five individual proposals contained in any
> given Multi-proposal.
>=20
> 3.  All proposals in a Multi-proposal must address substantially the
> same subject matter.  The Promoter may declare Invalid any part of a
> Multi-proposal, if e believes that this requirement has not been met.

This part will probably function as intended, but that doesn't mean it
will function without controversy.

>=20
> 4.  Each proposal in a Multi-proposal must begin with the following
> CAVEAT-delimited text:
>=20
> CAVEAT
> [This proposal is part  of Multi-proposal NAME.  This is Proposal X of
> Y.]
> CAVEAT
>=20
> Where NAME is an arbitrary, unique character string of not less than
> three or more than ten alphanumeric characters, which designates the
> name of the overall Multi-proposal; Y is the number of proposals
> contained in Multi-proposal NAME; and X is a positive unique integer no
> greater than Y.

I don't see any reason why you don't allow Multi-Proposals to use any
legal name.  Then you don't need to have all these restrictions placed on
them here, and there would be the added benefit of the names having to be
unique.  It would probably be a good idea not to put them in brackets
either.

>=20
> 5. No more than one hour may separate the submission of the first
> proposal of a Multi-proposal from the submission of the last proposal.
>=20
> Individual proposals contained in a Multi-proposal shall be processed by
> the Promoter in all respects as if they were regular proposals, except
> that the Promoter shall make a reasonable effort to place the individual
> proposals of a Multi-proposal next to each other on the voting queue,
> and to give them sequential Proposal numbers.
>=20
> Individual proposals contained in a Multi-proposal shall be voted upon
> by the players in all respects as if they were regular proposals.  In
> tabulating the vote, however, only that proposal with the highest number
> of votes shall be accepted, and all other proposals from the same
> Multi-proposal shall be rejected, regardless of their vote totals and
> quorum status.  To be accepted,a proposal must also meet all other
> requirements prescribed by the Rules for acceptance of a regular
> proposal.  In the event that two or more proposals within the same
> Multi-proposal shall receive the same number of votes, and both meet the
> requirements to be accepted, the proposal with the lowest value for X,
> as described in the CAVEAT-delimited text, above, shall be accepted, and
> the other proposal(s) shall be rejected.
>=20

I don't think this will quite work as intended.  As its written, I think
this would cause the proposal which received the most total votes, total,
to be the only one considered.  So if 20 people voted on 4 of 5 proposals,
and 19 on the 5th, that 5th one wouldn't be accepted even if it was the
only one that otherwise would have passed.

                                Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 22:21:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACKA:  RFC   Multi-proposals

>I don't think this will quite work as intended.  As its written, I think
>this would cause the proposal which received the most total votes, total,
>to be the only one considered.  So if 20 people voted on 4 of 5 proposals,
>and 19 on the 5th, that 5th one wouldn't be accepted even if it was the
>only one that otherwise would have passed.
	You should probably have the one "which has the largest YES/NO
ratio of those which make quorum"

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and
enjoy it.
		-Logan Pearsall Smith

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 23:11:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACKA:  RFC   Multi-proposals

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Towsner wrote:
>>Here's yet another draft -- this one is designed to allow the submission
>>of up to five independent proposals, with the players able to chose
>>which one shall be accepted.  It uses what is called "approval voting",
>>in which you can vote in favor of as few or as many of the independent
>>proposals as you like, but only the one with the most votes will win:
>	He's one of us now...
>	Very nice.  Robert's Rules of Order have a similar, although not
>quite identical, provision called filling by blanks or something like that.
>You start by voting on the most radical proposal and the go on to the next
>most radical until a majority supports something.  I like it, and would
>vote for it.  I'll trust someone else try to find any linguistic errors,
>but the concept is great.

I like the proposal, I'm not sure if I like the rewards/penalties.  It
seems to be more beneficial (in the long run) to submit them seperately.
Perhaps all multi-proposals should be scored as a group (IE, if any of the
proposals pass then the player gets full points for acceptance).

- --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: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 23:51:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Primes Defined

I don't know yet what this will do to the recent CFJ, but in the confusion
that seemed to follow I thought this might be appropriate.  Well, time to
jump into the water and hope I learn how to swim. 

Please comment on the following ONTHEFOLLOWING-delimited proposal:

ONTHEFOLLOWING

Primes Defined

1. In any case in the Set of Rules where a reference is made to a prime
number, the determination of which numbers satisfy the reference shall be
determined by

a) eir satisfaction of The Equation Of Prime Testing and

b) the number in question being a real number.  

2. A number will be considered to have satisfied The Equation Of Prime
Testing if and only if the number, when substituted for "r" in The Equation
Of Prime Testing, makes The Equation Of Prime Testing mathematically true.

3. The Equation Of Prime Testing is:

r * ( summation starting with j=1 and moving up to r-1 of [ lim as y ->
infinity of { cos ^ ( 2 * y ) of [ { r * pi } / j ] } ] = r

[This equation can be found in proper mathematical notation at the
following PRIME-delimited www address: 

PRIME
http://www.sonic.net/~mueller4/tom/ackanomic/prime.gif
PRIME
]

4. This rule takes precedence over all other rules.
ONTHEFOLLOWING

Hopefully,
Studge

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #180
***********************************