Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #181
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Friday, August 7 1998      Volume 03 : Number 181

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 02:13:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3374

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> >Why?
> >Churches are the more interesting Organizations we have.
> 
> At the moment I don't feel that there is a sufficiently big difference
> between Churches and Societies to warrant a different structure.
> 
> MTM.

One big difference is that Societies are not even proper Organizations,
but simply a compromise between two Organizational structures, while
Churches are versatile - how many societies have their own Internomci
Liason?
As for the objection - I am/was a Church member and didn't see the
difference - I'd say that maybe some things just didn't occur to you.
Anyway, you repeal proposal would only REpeal the Church rule - it would
not destory Churches, and leave them as unregulated somethings, or at
least that's how I read Game Custom concerning entities that were orphaned
by the rules which created them.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > > ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 02:39:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Primes Defined

In a message dated 07/08/98  04:01:12, studge writes:

> 
>  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 definition is bit complicated, since we would officialy be obliged
to do the summation. It would allow for negative primes.

There is a list of the first 100,000 primes at
http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/lists/small/100000.txt
up to 1,299,827.

There is a list of test for prime testing at
http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/proving.html
including links to software programs that will do the
testing.

The simplest test is based on fermats little theorem.
if p is prime then for all a a^(p-1)=1 mod p
This test also allows pseudo primes such as 341
to pass it, but they are rarer than primes.

If we aren't concerned with possible primes over
one-million I'd define primes by the list.
For slightly larger numbers use fermats test
and just say any number which passes it is an
acka prime. If people might end up with 30
digit scores use the more sophisticated tests.
They can apparently test 50 digit numbers in just
a few minutes.

In any case we can choose to say that if the 
absolute value of a number is prime the number
is prime

Robin Hood

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 03:01:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACKA:  RFC   Multi-proposals

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Towsner wrote:

> >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"

Except that that would exclude one which passed without any NO votes, as
to calculate that ratio we would have to perform a division by zero.
We need to say "the one which received the greatest percentage of YES
votes" instead to avoid this problem.

Yours,
Slakko

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - Web-Harfer,RuneMaker,ChessUmpire,Map-Harfer - www.ackanomic.org

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 03:36:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACKA:  RFC   Multi-proposals

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Towsner wrote:

> >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"
>
Good catch.  I'll make that change. 

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 03:55:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bernard El-Hagin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Useless nebie revisited.

Look mommy, I've got Acka: in the subject! 

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Once this has been set up you'll be able to reach me at the above address
> (hopefully), Rig. If you also ask IB for a similar address then I'll be
> able to get back to you :-).

Hello, Idiot Boy (if that doesn't sound silly, I don't know what
does),

	Could I please, pretty please, have
[email-masked]? If that's too much
trouble I'll settle for [email-masked]. Thank you.

Cheers,
Rig R. Mortis

"I hope life is not a big joke, because I don't get it."

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 07:10:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Capitalist Promotion RFC

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:

> else...if wrote:
> 
> >   I think Niccolo is right that there is no conflict between the
> > capitalist promotors, point pools, and thralls.  I like all three, but
> > I think capitalism would work best if done before point pools.  So
> > here's my RFC for that:
> >
> 
> Question:  Should a promoter be allowed to post his own proposals, or
> should he be required to send them to another promoter?

Why not post his own proposals?

> 
> Also, is a promoter under this proposal considered to be an officer?  If
> not, are there any timeliness standards, or can he effectively sit on a
> proposal he doesn't like by claiming he "hasn't had time" to get around
> to it yet?  If he IS an officer, does the three day timeliness standard
> start when he receives the proposal, or when payment is received?

This is a consideration of quality of service, and can also be specified
in the terms of the Promotion License.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> I'm sure there are other questions...those are off the top of my head.
> It looks like a good first cut, though...
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 09:28:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Useless nebie revisited.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

(I added [email-masked], too)

IB

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Bernard El-Hagin wrote:

> 
> Look mommy, I've got Acka: in the subject! 
> 
> On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:
> 
> > Once this has been set up you'll be able to reach me at the above address
> > (hopefully), Rig. If you also ask IB for a similar address then I'll be
> > able to get back to you :-).
> 
> Hello, Idiot Boy (if that doesn't sound silly, I don't know what
> does),
> 
> 	Could I please, pretty please, have
> [email-masked]? If that's too much
> trouble I'll settle for [email-masked]. Thank you.
> 
> Cheers,
> Rig R. Mortis
> 
> "I hope life is not a big joke, because I don't get it."
> 
> 

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 10:35:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vending Machine

I wonder if I may point out to our inventor that e has been negligent in
the matter of my vending machine, could it be that e is holding out
until bonus vote add-ons are repealed ?

K 2

K2 wrote:

> I bid A$50.
>
> K 2
>
> Gavin M. Doig wrote:
>
> > I bid 30 A$ in the Vending Machine auction.
> >
> > Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 10:35:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AWOL

You mean in the same manner sending my votes to the tabulator is not specified
as private?

K 2

JT wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, K2 wrote:
>
> >You could have done it by private mail and informed us of eir responce....
>
> Actually, I don't believe I could have.  It's not specified that this
> notification can be a private action, and therefor it must by the rules be
> a public one.
>
> --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: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 10:35:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Questions

Oops, I _knew_ JM was part of metamorph :)

For some reason I gave em a Razor Proxy instead of the Metamorph proxy e
requested :)
[15 Jun 1998 14:16:39]

Which leads me into the goldenmean question, For what ever reason (prolly a cut
and paste error on my part) I thought
em undead on 5/07/1998  21:03:33. When undead ceased to be a player state e was
forcibly given an "On Ice" thingy as were all the other undeads. (This also
explains why the On Ice dates are incorrect).

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

I did say may :)

K 2

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 10:35:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

Tom Walmsley wrote:

> If I happen to be a member of any political party then I suggest that it
> disbands and then leave it.

On research?

> And I'll get round to doing those CFJs soon.
>
> MTM.

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 10:39:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, K2 wrote:

> Tom Walmsley wrote:
> 
> > If I happen to be a member of any political party then I suggest that it
> > disbands and then leave it.
> 
> On research?

For the newbies, some explanation may be required.
acka-research is the one mailing list which "does not count".  Any
messages sent to acka-research are purely informational.  They cannot
actually affect how a player performs directly.

Public actions cannot be performed on acka-research, so, when you intend
to act publicly in response to someone else's posting, check which mailing
list it will be going to before you send it.

The Postal Code (available from the Postmaster's Page) tells you all you
need to know about this, I believe.

This has been an Ackanomic Public Service Announcement.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer - www.ackanomic.org

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 10:40:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Drac

MTM's offer expired at 06 Aug 1998 12:35:33 so this is a new offer :)

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, K2 wrote:

> I denounce this suggestion.
> I suggest the following be apppended to the party manifesto (or
whatever):(---
> delimited)
> ---
> Moreover, should the concept of anti-voting ever be removed from this
fair game
> of Ackanomic, the members of AVPP shall be constrained to vote on each
and every
> proposal, especially those submitted by opponents of anti-voting, as
if they (the
> members of AVPP) (well, the opponents can too, I suppose) were able to
gain
> points for anti-voting.
> ---

Jenny wrote:

Oh, while I'm here, I offer MTM A$7 for an Otzma Card Lay Off! since our

draconian Financier nullified my previous one.  For the same reason, I
sent this to ackanomic instead of acka-finance.

- - 867-5309

I have not yet BEGUN to procrastinate!

K 2
Draconian Financier

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 10:48:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3387

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote:
>Proposal 3387
>32 Footsteps (Count 'em to Myself)
>K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
>
>This is a Grandiose Proposal.
>
>{{[This proposal (if it passes) will gut points from the rules. Almost
>without exception the offending points/score references have simply been
>removed leaving many etities defined but without function.
>
>Why? I just want to see what develops if points are repealed. We can
>always bring em back, this is nomic after all :)
>
>The Side effect of this proposal is that the only way to gain points
>from it is to vote yes and hope it doesn't pass, 'cause if it does no
>one will gain any points. ]}}

Umm..... No.. Voting No on it and it not passing will still give people
points.  Don't mislead the voters now K 2 :)

- --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: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 10:53:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Email

Just a note, IdiotBoy kindly set up the adress [email-masked] for me,
any players who have trouble contacting [email-masked] can use
this.

Exited by the prospect of an ackanomic.org domain I changed the reply to
address in my mail software, promptly forgetting that it was k2 not the
kii I was used to, thus recent private replies to [email-masked] have
bounced - try [email-masked] or [email-masked].

K 2

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 11:00:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AWOL

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, K2 wrote:
>You mean in the same manner sending my votes to the tabulator is not specified
>as private?

Heh.. it probably should be then.   However, I'm not going to worry about
it right now.

- --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: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 11:10:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3387

JT wrote:

> >{{[This proposal (if it passes) will gut points from the rules. Almost
> >without exception the offending points/score references have simply been
> >removed leaving many etities defined but without function.
>  gain any points. ]}}
>
> Umm..... No.. Voting No on it and it not passing will still give people
> points.  Don't mislead the voters now K 2 :)
>

This proposal was written and submitted before P3333 passed and  just at the
beginning of the points debate, I was beginning to believe breadbox hadn't
received it :)

K 2

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 11:40:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3387

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, K2 wrote:
>> >{{[This proposal (if it passes) will gut points from the rules. Almost
>> >without exception the offending points/score references have simply been
>> >removed leaving many etities defined but without function.
>>  gain any points. ]}}
>>
>> Umm..... No.. Voting No on it and it not passing will still give people
>> points.  Don't mislead the voters now K 2 :)
>>
>
>This proposal was written and submitted before P3333 passed and  just at the
>beginning of the points debate, I was beginning to believe breadbox hadn't
>received it :)

Okay. That makes sense.  Sorry for jumping to conclusions there K 2 :)

- --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: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 13:16:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Micah Smukler)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Primes Defined

>In a message dated 07/08/98  04:01:12, studge writes:
>
>>
>>  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 definition is bit complicated, since we would officialy be obliged
>to do the summation. It would allow for negative primes.
>
>There is a list of the first 100,000 primes at
>http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/lists/small/100000.txt
>up to 1,299,827.
>
>There is a list of test for prime testing at
>http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/proving.html
>including links to software programs that will do the
>testing.
>
>The simplest test is based on fermats little theorem.
>if p is prime then for all a a^(p-1)=1 mod p
>This test also allows pseudo primes such as 341
>to pass it, but they are rarer than primes.
>
>If we aren't concerned with possible primes over
>one-million I'd define primes by the list.
>For slightly larger numbers use fermats test
>and just say any number which passes it is an
>acka prime. If people might end up with 30
>digit scores use the more sophisticated tests.
>They can apparently test 50 digit numbers in just
>a few minutes.

Personally I would prefer to define prime so it means
"prime", not "either small and prime or probably prime."
I greatly doubt that we'll ever need to deal with large
enough numbers that proving primality will be a problem.

>
>In any case we can choose to say that if the
>absolute value of a number is prime the number
>is prime
>
>Robin Hood

This seems intuitive, since scores (at least) are integers
rather than naturals.

What about just adding the following definition to the
"Standards" rule:

"A number is said to be prime if it possesses exactly
four integer factors."

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 14:09:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998 [email-masked] wrote:
>There should also be an addendum saying that
>even if points are abolished members will still vote
>as though they could gain benefits by voting against
>the majority, and attempt to make the rules give all
>players such benefits.

I'm going to vent here for a bit.  This entire AVPP thing is the height of
petty and childish behavior.  Anti-voting existed in the rules for 2.5
years (or so someone claimed recently).  It got repealed.  Why don't you
just give it a chance without it for a while.  If the game *really* was
better with anti-voting, then it'll get put back eventually.   For now,
give the game a chance without it.  Who knows.. it *might* just be more
fun without it, but we won't know that unless and until it's given a fair
chance.

- --JT, getting midly irked at this entire thing.

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

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 14:31:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, JT wrote:

> --JT, getting midly irked at this entire thing.
> 

Why?

Was it less irksome that this has been proposed 4, I believe, times in the
past 2 months?  

I don't think it is petty and childish to hold ourselves to a higher
standard of behaviour than we hold others to.

IB
dumber than a box of hammers

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 14:39:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

>Was it less irksome that this has been proposed 4, I believe, times in the
>past 2 months?
	I don't object to a party dedicated to preserving anti-voting.  I
don't even object to continuing to anti-vote when there is no reward.
However continuing to anti-vote when the structure anti-voting depended on
is gone is just childish.

>I don't think it is petty and childish to hold ourselves to a higher
>standard of behaviour than we hold others to.
	You're going to have to explain to me how voting in such a way as
to randomly cause good proposals to fail and bad one to pass when there is
no rationale for such behavior is a higher standard.

- --
- -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: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 14:47:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Matt Miller wrote:
>On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, JT wrote:
>
>> --JT, getting midly irked at this entire thing.
>> 
>
>Why?

Because from the posts I've seen, it seems that the main reason for this
is to cause proposals submitted by those who supported the repeal of
anti-voting to fail.  *that* is what I was reacting to.  If you really
want anti-voting back.. propose it.  *I* will vote against it.  In no way
do I contest your right to do that.  Hell, I don't even contest your right
to 'mock anti-vote'.  I do object to the tone that this has been taking
however, which has reminded me of sandbox bickering in which the AVPP has
come across (to me) as saying 'well if we can't have our anti-voting,
we'll just take our toys and make life hell for all who oppose us'.
*THAT* is petty and childish.

>Was it less irksome that this has been proposed 4, I believe, times in the
>past 2 months?

Yes.  The fact that it kept getting proposed said that there were at least
some people who thought the change would be beneficial to the game as a
whole.  There is obviously a contingent who disagrees.  I have no problem
with that.  What I have a problem to (as I said above) is with the use of
the AVPP to effectively penalize those you don't agree with (or at least
attempt to).

- --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: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 14:58:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Towsner wrote:

> >Was it less irksome that this has been proposed 4, I believe, times in the
> >past 2 months?
> 	I don't object to a party dedicated to preserving anti-voting.  I
> don't even object to continuing to anti-vote when there is no reward.
> However continuing to anti-vote when the structure anti-voting depended on
> is gone is just childish.
> 

The second and third sentences seem to contradict each other.  Could you
rephrase so I could understand better?

> >I don't think it is petty and childish to hold ourselves to a higher
> >standard of behaviour than we hold others to.
> 	You're going to have to explain to me how voting in such a way as
> to randomly cause good proposals to fail and bad one to pass when there is
> no rationale for such behavior is a higher standard.
> 

Well, because we are requiring something of ourselves which we don't
require of nonmembers.  I'm sure you think that the result is valueless,
perhaps even detrimental.  But we have set a standard by which we are to
act... nonmembers are allowed to vote however they choose.. without having
to cosider the additional fact of, "What would I do if anti-votig were
still around?"  ==> higher standard.

Let's say you are an atheist.  If a Christian were to say that he is
holding himself to a higher standard than you by praying daily, would you
disagree merely because you believe his prayers have no effect?

You say there is no rationale for such behaviour, and yet you say it will
have some effect (changing the results of proposals).  I don't see how
these two things can coexist.

Also, please keep the "you're going to cause good proposals to fail"
rhetoric to a minimum.  I know people honestly believe it happens.  I have
made quite clear that I don't think it does.  We can disagree on that
point.  In fact, I will make that a premise as I read the replies.

IB
dtaboh

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 15:13:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, JT wrote:

> Because from the posts I've seen, it seems that the main reason for this
> is to cause proposals submitted by those who supported the repeal of
> anti-voting to fail.  *that* is what I was reacting to.  If you really
> want anti-voting back.. propose it.  *I* will vote against it.  In no way
> do I contest your right to do that.  Hell, I don't even contest your right
> to 'mock anti-vote'.  I do object to the tone that this has been taking
> however, which has reminded me of sandbox bickering in which the AVPP has
> come across (to me) as saying 'well if we can't have our anti-voting,
> we'll just take our toys and make life hell for all who oppose us'.
> *THAT* is petty and childish.
> 

That would be petty and childish.  That is not what is in the charter..
and I haven't seen ANY posts which suggest this. The charter says that we
will act as if there is ati-voting regardless of authorship.

It does not say for example, "Vote against all of JT's proposals."  You
might even garner a few extra YES votes. (Not from me, I never chaged my
voting either way because of anti-voting..so keeping up my part of this
agreement is easy.)

> >Was it less irksome that this has been proposed 4, I believe, times in the
> >past 2 months?
> 
> Yes.  The fact that it kept getting proposed said that there were at least
> some people who thought the change would be beneficial to the game as a
> whole.  There is obviously a contingent who disagrees.  I have no problem
> with that.  What I have a problem to (as I said above) is with the use of
> the AVPP to effectively penalize those you don't agree with (or at least
> attempt to).
> 

No, the fact that it kept being proposed implies only that at least 1
person who thought thechage would be benficial to the game as a whole.
There is no requirement for any kind of consensus to get a proposal in the
queue.  Oddly enough, you have to get a few people to agree in order to
create a Political Party.

I haven't seen any discussionof the thing you claim to be the problem i
your final setence.  Feel free to show me where I missed such a message. 

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 15:27:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: More Literature?

John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

>  Frankly, I wish that we still had to do this by
> proposal, so two guys like me, who has somehow missed out on the
> brilliant works of <insert name here> aren't the deciding factor on this
> stuff.

But it _can_ still be done by proposal - if a CSR fails a proposal might not...

K 2

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 15:39:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Matt Miller wrote:
>That would be petty and childish.  That is not what is in the charter..
>and I haven't seen ANY posts which suggest this. The charter says that we
>will act as if there is ati-voting regardless of authorship.

The following is quoted from digest v03.n260 dated 05 August and clipped
from a message you authored (the message I clipped it from is authored by
you, not necessarily the quote)

>>Moreover, should the concept of anti-voting ever be removed from this fair
>>game of Ackanomic, the members of AVPP shall be constrained to vote on
>>each and every proposal, especially those submitted by opponents of
>>anti-voting, as if they (the members of AVPP) (well, the opponents can
>>too, I suppose) were anti-voting and would gain points thereby.

Since the majority of proposals are 'useful' and 'good', this effectively
amounts to what I claimed above.  Even the modified version of K 2
quoted below amounts to the same thing.

K 2 said:
>Moreover, should the concept of anti-voting ever be removed from this
>fair game of Ackanomic, the members of AVPP shall be constrained to vote
>on each and every proposal, especially those submitted by opponents of
>anti-voting, as if they (themembers of AVPP) (well, the opponents can
>too, I suppose) were able to gainpoints for anti-voting.

Those two quoted passages above were what I was referring to as petty and
childish.

>No, the fact that it kept being proposed implies only that at least 1
>person who thought thechage would be benficial to the game as a whole.
>There is no requirement for any kind of consensus to get a proposal in the
>queue.  Oddly enough, you have to get a few people to agree in order to
>create a Political Party.

MTM and I discussed creating a political party.. I declined (and said that
I suspected tat most of the other supporters of repealling anti-voting
would as well) because most of the more vocal support were already members
of a political party and in some cases the swinger for that party,
something that I didn't wish to lose.

>I haven't seen any discussionof the thing you claim to be the problem i
>your final setence.  Feel free to show me where I missed such a message. 

See above.

- --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: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 15:55:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, JT wrote:

> The following is quoted from digest v03.n260 dated 05 August and clipped
> from a message you authored (the message I clipped it from is authored by
> you, not necessarily the quote)
> 
> >>Moreover, should the concept of anti-voting ever be removed from this fair
> >>game of Ackanomic, the members of AVPP shall be constrained to vote on
> >>each and every proposal, especially those submitted by opponents of
> >>anti-voting, as if they (the members of AVPP) (well, the opponents can
> >>too, I suppose) were anti-voting and would gain points thereby.
> 

Wow, I must have skimmed the "especially" part.. but that is overridden,
wouldn't you say by the each ad every proposal thing?  Ok, maybe someone
was window dressing to get your goat, but the charter doesn't truly
discriminate.

> Since the majority of proposals are 'useful' and 'good', this effectively
> amounts to what I claimed above.  Even the modified version of K 2
> quoted below amounts to the same thing.
> 

Hehe, I'd disagree with the above sentence.. but point taken.

(BTW, I am having big problems with the N key on this keyboard.. if
something seems to be missing add an N or two)

> Those two quoted passages above were what I was referring to as petty and
> childish.
> 

Ok, I see where you get this now.. but I still think your reaction is an
over one.

> MTM and I discussed creating a political party.. I declined (and said that
> I suspected tat most of the other supporters of repealling anti-voting
> would as well) because most of the more vocal support were already members
> of a political party and in some cases the swinger for that party,
> something that I didn't wish to lose.
> 

Ok.  That's interesting, I guess.

IB
dtaboh

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 16:10:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Matt Miller wrote:
>> Since the majority of proposals are 'useful' and 'good', this effectively
>> amounts to what I claimed above.  Even the modified version of K 2
>> quoted below amounts to the same thing.
>> 
>
>Hehe, I'd disagree with the above sentence.. but point taken.

That's a valid disagreement.  I didn't actually go and check every
proposal, but my memory (which is often faulty) leads me to believe that
the majority of the proposals are bug fixes and clarifications/expansions
rather than truly new legislation (mine included), which I consider to be 
useful/good (this is not to say that new proposals are not useful/good
since I think they are). And everyone's defination of useful/good is of
course their own.

>(BTW, I am having big problems with the N key on this keyboard.. if
>something seems to be missing add an N or two)

If there were any missing, I didn't see them :)

>Ok, I see where you get this now.. but I still think your reaction is an
>over one.

Perhaps it is/was.

>> MTM and I discussed creating a political party.. I declined (and said that
>> I suspected tat most of the other supporters of repealling anti-voting
>> would as well) because most of the more vocal support were already members
>> of a political party and in some cases the swinger for that party,
>> something that I didn't wish to lose.
>> 
>
>Ok.  That's interesting, I guess.

By that I meant myself, Niccolo Flychuck and /dev/joe who have been
reasonably vocal supporters.  I merely brought it up because you mentioned
forming parties to preserve anti-voting and that it took more effort than
queueing a proposal.

- --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: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 16:39:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Cheese

*The following players have Stiltons:
Alfvaen(2774-2865)
breadbox(2940-3177)
Slakko(2957-3060)
/dev/joe(2886-3185)
K 2(2800-2927)
Vynd(2895-2206)

*There are no Chedders in existance but the following players have had
two harfy proposals accepted:
MTM(2757,2888) - 3360?
Jenny(2726,3155)
/dev/joe(3185,3241)
Vynd(2935,3305)

*Edams are possesd by the following players:
Alfvaen
breadbox
devjoe
JT
K2
MTM
Slakko
if any one feels like it they can tell me for which offices...

*The Following Players _Don't_ have Bries
else...if(CFCJ168a 22/6)
K 2(CFCJ169 26/6)
Vynd(CFCJ171 6/7)

*The Following Players have Goudas
K 2 (GAD)
Slakko (Party Chess)
if some one who's been tracking the games could point me twards a tally
for everyone I'd apreciate it.

from memory /dev/joe was close....

K 2

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 17:03:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

In a message dated 07/08/98  18:51:12, you write:

> 	You're going to have to explain to me how voting in such a way as
>  to randomly cause good proposals to fail and bad one to pass when there is
>  no rationale for such behavior is a higher standard.
>  
Is it random? A really good proposal should get people to vote for it despite
the disadvantages in doing so. It encourages tactical voting and other
complexities adding texture to the game.

Robin Hood

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 17:50:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: More Literature?

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, K2 wrote:

> John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> 
> >  Frankly, I wish that we still had to do this by
> > proposal, so two guys like me, who has somehow missed out on the
> > brilliant works of <insert name here> aren't the deciding factor on this
> > stuff.
> 
> But it _can_ still be done by proposal - if a CSR fails a proposal might not...
> 
> K 2
> 

A good point.  I think I've decided now, I'm going to quit being nice and
go ahead and protest any Literature CSRs that would add something that I
personaly don't care to see as literature added to the list. I respect
others opinions, but this seems like the most reasonable way to voice my
own.

                                  Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 17:55:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, JT wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Aug 1998 [email-masked] wrote:
> >There should also be an addendum saying that
> >even if points are abolished members will still vote
> >as though they could gain benefits by voting against
> >the majority, and attempt to make the rules give all
> >players such benefits.
> 
> I'm going to vent here for a bit.  This entire AVPP thing is the height of
> petty and childish behavior.  Anti-voting existed in the rules for 2.5
> years (or so someone claimed recently).  It got repealed.  Why don't you
> just give it a chance without it for a while.  If the game *really* was
> better with anti-voting, then it'll get put back eventually.   For now,
> give the game a chance without it.  Who knows.. it *might* just be more
> fun without it, but we won't know that unless and until it's given a fair
> chance.
> 
> --JT, getting midly irked at this entire thing.
> 

Oh come now JT, this isn't fair of you at all.  Consider the AVPP a
protest rally, if it makes it easier for you to swallow.  I myself have no
intention of joining it, mind you, I almost never deliberately anti-voted,
in the sense that I voted a particular way purely because I thought it
would get me points.

And so far as this whole "quit being childish" argument is concerned,
after this message I'd say the AVPP would be perfectly justified in saying
the same to you. 

On a bit of an aside, I find it vaguely amusing that the player who
has been railing against anti-voting because, among other things, it
allowed proposals that "should" have passed to fail, and vice versa, has
no problem with using 6 "extra" votes to cause a proposal which "should"
have failed, to pass.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 18:10:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
>And so far as this whole "quit being childish" argument is concerned,
>after this message I'd say the AVPP would be perfectly justified in saying
>the same to you. 

Heh.. You're right Vynd, and I do apologize if I came off as seeming
childish and petty myself.  That wasn't my intent.  Thanks for making me
laugh about it :)

>On a bit of an aside, I find it vaguely amusing that the player who
>has been railing against anti-voting because, among other things, it
>allowed proposals that "should" have passed to fail, and vice versa, has
>no problem with using 6 "extra" votes to cause a proposal which "should"
>have failed, to pass.

Please note that I never said a proposal *should* or *should not* pass.
I said that a proposal should be voted for on its merit.  I believe that
the AV-Repeal proposal was in fact voted on that way (barring K 2's
admittedly goofed vote (at least I think it was K 2)).  I cared enough
about the way the vote went and the merit of the proposal to both spend
money on a Tammany bribe and to spend one of my scarce quantity of bonus
votes which ended up not getting counted.  I'm actually surprised that
only 5 bonus votes total got used as I was expecting quite a bit more.

Anyway.. I personally think this topic's been beaten to death.
(and for the record Vynd, I'm in favor of repealing both Tammany and the
bonus votes.  I just wasn't in favor of one piece of MTM's proposal to do
so which ended up causing me extra work.  I've been rethinking it however,
and probably will go back and change my vote on that proposal though I'll
have to ask K 2 each month what the players and their BV's should be.  Or
else just propose another change to the rule)

- --JT, not practicing sadonecrohippophilia today (at least not much)

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

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #181
***********************************