Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #186
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Tuesday, August 11 1998     Volume 03 : Number 186

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:34:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal RFC (Office Simplification)

On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > Here is the first part of my suggested reform of Offices.  It covers all
> > of the major changes - the only parts remaining are minor tinkering to
> > other Officers necessary to ensure this works.
> > 
> > Useful comments would be much appreciated.
> > 
> > 
> > #submit proposal Schultz, Office!
> > 
> > [Aim of this proposal: To radically revamp the structure of Offices in the
> > game, by simplifying the system.
> > We currently have three types of Offices: Functional, Political, Capital.
> > Why?  The lack of significant difference between the way these offices are
> > used indicates we can probably bring them all back under the one system.]
> 
> While I understand your motivation here, I'm not sure if trying to
> radically simplify the offices is such a good idea.  Yes, they are
> complicated, but I think that is because they need to be.  Simplification
> isn't ALWAYS a good idea, in my view, so I would like to hear why you
> think we should simplify things at all, seeing as how things seem to work
> fairly well as they are.

The section of the rules dealing with Offices is, with the exception of
the Games & Contests Rule Suite, the largest single block of rules in the
game.  When I last checked the size of each 100 block, the 400s were the
only section (other than the 1250 rule suite) whose html file exceeded
100K.  I appreciate that there are a lot of Offices, so there may not be
much that can be done.  However, the complexity in this section limits the
amount of complexity that can be introduced elsewhere.

The Speaker is a political office.  Yet the Clerk of the Court is
functional.  One is the substitute for the other.  Why must this be so?
I cannot see any reason for maintaining the divide between Functional and
Political Offices.

> 
> > 
> > Create a new Rule, numbered 400, titled "Offices: Preamble", with the
> > following DEFN-delimited text:
> > 
> > DEFN
> > Offices are named, tradeable entities.
> > 
> 
> I can think of a few good reasons NOT to do this, I'm curious why you did.
> It doesn't seem to be necessary.  As usual, I feel like I'm missing
> something here.

One thing it does is make the transfer of Offices much easier when someone
wants to get rid of an office.  With Functional Offices we need only wait
for nominations, but with Political ones we need to go through the whole
election shebang.  This creates discontinuity in Office holding
(especially in the Speakership) - if we can simply transfer (even for a
fee) the Offices it might be a better system.

> I'm guessing that you don't really intend to hand out a salary to every
> office holder. Indeed, I would think it would be easier to specify what a
> salary is, and then say the default is none.  Then specify in their
> respecitve rules the few offices that actually collect a full salary.  But
> thats just a suggestion, I'm sure it woudl work either way.

Well, a couple of things here:
(1) Part of the full changes (possibly this bit would merit a separate
proposal) would strip the designation of Officer from Swingerships.  That
would reduce the number of Offices.  

(2) However, I don't see why the
President should not receive a Salary while the Speaker does, nor why
the Chess-Umpire gets one but the RuneMaker doesn't.  There are a lot of
inconsistencies in the Office salary structure - I think that simply
paying each officer a flat A$25 would be straightforward, reasonably fair,
and hopefully simpler to administer.

> OK this I just don't understand.  Are we suddenly in such a big hurry that
> we don't want to vote in our own elections.  I mean, sure, if it was the
> real world I'd go for this, who can tell politicians apart these days.
> But there have been players in this game (coughHovercoughmumble) that, to
> be brutaly honest, I wouldn't trust with the office of Poet Lauterate, let
> alone Speaker.  But there's nothing in this new system that would stop
> them from nominating themselves, and they'd have every bit as good a
> chance of getting the office as someone who had held it for a year or so.
> I can't think of any circumstances when I would vote in favor of a system
> where our officers were randomly selected.
> 
> It seems to me that you're trying to sort of mesh the methods of choosing
> Political and Functional Officers together.  I would say that you have
> sacrificed the best points of both methods in favor of speed.  And, as I
> said, I don't even understand what the big hurry is here.

When I saw that the RuneMaker job took over a month to fill, I started
wondering why we bother with the trappings of elections for Offices.

The Functional Office mechanism as it stands is a vehicle for Presidential
patronage.  The Political Office mechanism is reasonable, but I'm getting
a bit concerned about the time elections are taking.

> 
> 
> > F. Dealing with Vacancies
> > 
> > A vacancy exists in an Office if the number of players Owning that office
> > is fewer than the maximum number of players which may Own that office.
> > The number of vacancies is equal to the difference between the maximum and
> > current owner counts.
> > 
> > The Grand High Whatchamacallit is the player who owns the first of the
> > below-mentioned Offices which is owned by a player:
> > (a) Speaker
> > (b) President
> > (c) Clerk of the Court
> > (d) Promoter
> > (e) Web-Harfer
> > 
> > If vacancies exist in an Office, the Grand High Whatchamacallit may
> > specify players to be Lackeys to that Office while the vacancy exists.
> > There may only be as many Lackeys as vacancies.
> > When the vacancy disappears the Lackeyships cease.  Lackeys are required
> > to perform the Duties of the Office as if they owned it, but receive none
> > of the Privileges.  Lackeys may resign from their Lackeyships.
> > If a vacancy has no associated Lackey, then the Grand High Whatchamacallit
> > shall be required to perform the Duties of that Office as if e owned it.
> > 
> 
> The list for Grand High Whatchamacallit is too short, I think.  It might
> be better to do something like, the player who holds the lowest numbered
> rule describing an office in the rules.  Obviously that needs a littl
> epolishing, but you get the idea.  I'm not really certain, but I think we
> have had as many as 4 of the 5 offices on your list vacant at one point.

The lowest numbered rule describing an office in the rules would make the
list the following:

Promoter (mentioned in Rule 104)
Scorekeeper (mentioned in Rule 205)
Justices (mentioned in Rule 212)

I agree the list could be longer.  Perhaps if I add Justices, in order of
their assumption of that Office?  If all Justices are missing, as well as
the Offices above in the High Whatchamacallit list, then we are in real
trouble.

> 
> I assume that Lackeys (I like that idea, if nothing else) are supposed to
> be Acting Officers?  What happened to appointing Acting Officers for
> players who are on Vacation?  With this new Dealing With Vacancies method,
> and the new rules on Timing, a player that was inactive would never be
> substituted for by a Lackey, and indeed would not be required to complete
> his duties until he returned, if ever.

Okay.  That's a problem.  I'll have to look into it.  Perhaps defining a
seat to be Free if it is currently occupied by an Inactive player.
Can you see any problems if I should force the GHW to be the highest
Active player, and allow Lackeys to be used for both vacant and Free
Offices?

> The lack of Acting Officer replacements also means that if a player on
> vacation might become the Grand High Whatchamacallit, which could be real
> bad if he was, say, the Tabulator. So Lackeys would also have to be able
> to become the Grand High Whatchamacallit Lackey, or something.  And there
> would have to be some way to guard against that Lackey retiring, because
> if he did there wouldn't be any way to replace him. Bascially what I'm
> trying to say here is, there are a lot of ways for this part of the new
> rule to turn into an awful mess.

See my above comments for a suggested way to prevent the mess.

> > Repeal Rules 401, 401.1, 402 and 403.
> > [Now redundant.]
> > 
> > Amend Rule 404, "Offices, Impeachment", to read as delimited by IMP below:
> > 
> > IMP
> > This rule defers precedence to other rules which describe methods for
> > impeaching officers. 
> > 
> > An Officer is Impeached by the following process: 
> > 
> > (i) An Impeachment Paper (IP) is authored by a voting Player and posted to
> > the public forum. The IP shall contain the stated intent to remove
> > one Player from one Office held by that Player. An author may only have
> > one IP pending at any one time. A player may not submit more than
> > one IP per calendar week, and may not submit more than one IP against the
> > same officer in a calendar month. 
> > 
> > (ii) All voting Players except the Officer named in the IP shall be able
> > to cast one vote either YES or NO on the matter of removing said Officer
> > from Office. The voting period shall be 3 days. All votes on the IP shall
> > be cast in the public forum. 
> > 
> > (iii) At the expiration of the voting period, there will be a resolution
> > of ACCEPTED or REJECTED for the IP. An IP is REJECTED unless it meets
> > ALL of the conditions below, in which case it is ACCEPTED: a) At least 1/2
> > of all active players, excluding the Officer named in the IP, voted
> > YES. b) At least 2/3 of all Players who voted on the IP voted YES. 
> > However, if the IP is retracted before the voting period expires, no
> > resolution shall occur.
> > 
> > (iv) If the IP is ACCEPTED, the Player named in the IP loses ownership of
> > that Office.
> > 
> > (vi) If the IP is REJECTED, the author of the IP is penalized 10 points. 
> > 
> > (vii) The Rules may specify additional means of impeachment without
> > invalidating the process outlined above. As well, this rule defers to all
> > other rules on the matter of what conditions are required for an IP to be
> > ACCEPTED. 
> > 
> > IMP
> > 
> 
> OK, remember all those times I said I was going to bring something up
> again later, well this is the place.  I saved this all to the end because
> its basically all part of one big problem, which is that you're making
> offices tradeable entities.
> 
> If an office is tradeable, a lot of weird, unpleasant things will be
> possible, if two people decide to work together.  Term limits become a
> joke, because a player only has to give the office to someone else for a
> few minuts to start a whole new term.  Impeachment can be gotten around
> just about as easily, just give the office to someone else, wait for the
> impeachment hearing to be over, get removed from an office you don't hold
> any more, and then have your friend give it back. Tradeable entities in
> the Treasury can be auctioned, and I think that even if someone were to be
> elected to the office it would probably still be transfered to the winner
> of an auction. And lets not forget that tradeable entities can be owned by
> a lot of things other than voting active players, such as non-voting
> players, organizations, treasures, other nomics, and in fact any entity so
> empowered by the rules.

Easy way to fix the impeachment problem: The Office goes Somewhere Else.
Regardless of who is holding it.  Would that be alright?

Also, to avoid the auction problems, if an Office ever becomes unowned,
rather than go to the Treasury, it goes Somewhere Else.  If an Office is
ever owned by a non-player entity, that non-player entity loses ownership
of that Office.

If people continually switch an Office between themselves to avoid term
limits, then if it becomes enough of a problem Impeachment (as amended)
should fix the problem.

> 
> There's probably more stuff like what I've mentioned lurking around, that
> was just off the top of my head.  A slightly different issue is what to do
> with all the offices that don't fit the standard mode, such as the
> Scientists, the Harfmeister, Count Tabula.

(1) I am hoping that two of the Scientists will be repealed.  If not, I
may have to deal with it.  The Archaeologist could always remain an
exception, just changing the "holding" language to "owning".

(2) The Harfmeister is a Title, not an Office.

(3) breadbox (I believe, I know someone did) has already suggested that
the roles of Count Tabula and the Tabulator should be divorced (e.g. when
he became Acting Count Tabula when MTM was on vacation).  Presumably the
appointment of CT by the Tabulator would cease if such division occurred.

(4) The other wierd offices I can think of are the Swingers, which I
wanted to redefine away from being Offices anyway.

> 
> So, like I said earlier, I don't see why offices should be made tradeable.
> To deal with all the problems I've mentioned, you'd have to place so many
> special limitations on them that they would be tradeable entities only in
> name, and we'd go from having one complicated officer structure to
> another.

See my above comments for how to get around this problem, yet not change
the tradeable nature of Offices one whit.

> I assume there is more along these lines to come.

Only if my suggestions eliminate sufficiently many of the problems you
have put forward.

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: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:53:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal RFC (Office Simplification)

>When I saw that the RuneMaker job took over a month to fill, I started
>wondering why we bother with the trappings of elections for Offices.
>
>The Functional Office mechanism as it stands is a vehicle for Presidential
>patronage.  The Political Office mechanism is reasonable, but I'm getting
>a bit concerned about the time elections are taking.

I agree with some of your comments above.  I personally like the
distinction between political offices and functional, but I'm not too
attached to them.  However, the comment above deserves at least an answer.
If elections are taking too long then the officer holding the election
isn't fulfilling their duties as an officer, plain and simple.  We are lax
about it for the most part because on the whole it's not to important.

What I'd prefer to see, rather than this drastic streamlining is a way for
political offices (such as speaker) to be held and performed adequately
while the election is being carried out.   That would solve most of the
continuity and orderly transition problems.

- --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: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:43:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3351 accepted

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:
> 
> > I think it did raise quorum, if there is significant opposition...but the reason
> > I voted against this is that now if 36% of the head count wants something, they
> > can get it, as long as no one else votes.  Probably a rare occurrence, but it

I thought I had explained that this system was actually _fairer_ than the
pre-existing one.

Which of the following indicates a more well-supported proposal:

(A) 36% in favour, 0% against, 64% abstained.
or
(B) 36% in favour, 24% against, 40% abstained.

I would wager that it would be A, rather than B.  Surely outright voting
against a proposal is a stronger indication of dislike than an abstention.

Yet under the old system, A would fail, yet B would pass.  Under my
system, such a situation cannot happen, and both A and B pass.
Can anyone tell me what is actually _wrong_ with eliminating this
counter-intuitive part of the rules?
- -- 
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: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:53:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: About Offices

> The Speaker is a political office.  Yet the Clerk of the Court is
> functional.  One is the substitute for the other.  Why must this be so?
> I cannot see any reason for maintaining the divide between Functional and
> Political Offices.

It's pretty simple, IMHO. Functional Offices are Offices that are
centered around specific duties. And, unless the Office is Optional,
they are typically duties that are important to the basic functioning
of the game. Political and Optional Offices are still necessary, but
less so. (Every Office is necessary in that the rules require them to
exist, but some Official duties could not go unfulfilled without a
significant rewrite of the rules.) Political Offices are more likely
to be coveted for their privileges or prestige, thus they are filled
by Election. Only a few people covet a non-Optional Functional Office.

As you noted, the Speaker is the exception to the above. The reason is
that having this position filled by someone competent and committed is
so important that a full Election is seen as warranted. (ISTR that
when the Rules defining Offices were first hammered out, the idea of
having the Speaker defined as a third type of Office all by itself was
considered. While this may have been more aesthetically pleasing, I
imagine it was decided not to be worth the extra complexity.)

> (2) However, I don't see why the President should not receive a
> Salary while the Speaker does, nor why the Chess-Umpire gets one but
> the RuneMaker doesn't.

It seems clear to me that the only Offices that should have salaries
are the ones that come with important duties and few privileges. Most
Political Offices should not, in general, have salaries - if holding
the Office isn't attractive enough in itself, then why have Elections
for it?

Admittedly, some of the Offices are inconsistent with the above
paragraph, but you can bet that I voted against those.

> When I saw that the RuneMaker job took over a month to fill, I
> started wondering why we bother with the trappings of elections for
> Offices.

That was in large part due to MTM's technical difficulties and my
unpreparedness for assuming eir duties. The RuneMaker is an Optional
office, so I (unfairly, I confess) gave it a lower priority. I do not
believe that this was necessarily a representative situation.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:45:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3406

> {{[I fail to see why CSR needs to limited to a few players. The inbuilt
> properties of a CSR doesn't lend itself to a scam. Furthermore many
> CSRable changes now days go the proposal route anyway. This proposal
> repeals the CSRR and CSR restrictions and introduces a standard harfer
> fee penalty for rejected CSRs.]}}

I have had certain ideas along this line myself, but I think that it might
be a good idea to keep the CSRR Office around for one reason: to assign
numbers to CSRs.  E might even want to serve as a sort of Promoter for
them.  But if each player has to try to keep track of which CSR number
they're on, let alone whether three days have passed and it's been
accepted...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Alanis Morisette:Jagged Little Pill
Current Book--Sheri S. Tepper:Shadow's End
If you are what you eat, then I'm dead meat.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:17:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3351 accepted

Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, David Scheidt wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:
> >
> > > I think it did raise quorum, if there is significant opposition...but the reason
> > > I voted against this is that now if 36% of the head count wants something, they
> > > can get it, as long as no one else votes.  Probably a rare occurrence, but it
>
> I thought I had explained that this system was actually _fairer_ than the
> pre-existing one.

You explained that YOU thought it was fairer.  I do not agree.

>
>
> Which of the following indicates a more well-supported proposal:
>
> (A) 36% in favour, 0% against, 64% abstained.
> or
> (B) 36% in favour, 24% against, 40% abstained.
>
> I would wager that it would be A, rather than B.  Surely outright voting
> against a proposal is a stronger indication of dislike than an abstention.

But you STILL have significantly fewer than half the voters in favor.  I liked it
better when you had to have more than half the voters voting "aye".

>
>
> Yet under the old system, A would fail, yet B would pass.  Under my
> system, such a situation cannot happen, and both A and B pass.
> Can anyone tell me what is actually _wrong_ with eliminating this
> counter-intuitive part of the rules?

Nothing...but a better solution would be to require 50%+1 COUNTING ABSTENTIONS.  Then
BOTH of your examples would fail.    As you have it, there is no difference between
abstaining and voting yes.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:26:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3392

Tom Walmsley wrote:

> >If any public message posted on April 23 is not solely in the form of
> >blank verse (unrhymed iambic pentameter), the poster of that message
> >shall be fined A$3.
>
> Not wanting to sound dumb or anything, but wouldn't this be a bit difficult
> for those of us who haven't a clue what iambic pentameter is?

It's perhaps the commonest form of rhythm for a poem:

duh-DUH duh-DUH duh-DUH duh-DUH duh-DUH

And so on, for as many lines as you want to continue.

I presume you know why he chose this date for such an observance...

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:45:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3392

>> Not wanting to sound dumb or anything, but wouldn't this be a bit difficult
>> for those of us who haven't a clue what iambic pentameter is?
>
>It's perhaps the commonest form of rhythm for a poem:
>
>duh-DUH duh-DUH duh-DUH duh-DUH duh-DUH

10 sylabble lines with every second sylable stressed? Who's to say what
counts as stressed though?

>And so on, for as many lines as you want to continue.
>
>I presume you know why he chose this date for such an observance...

I can make a reasonable guess, mostly going from the title. Literature and
poetry, and for that matter history, have never my strong points but I
would guess Shakespeare's birthday.

MTM.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:55:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3351 accepted

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:

> 
> Nothing...but a better solution would be to require 50%+1 COUNTING ABSTENTIONS.  Then
> BOTH of your examples would fail.    As you have it, there is no difference between
> abstaining and voting yes.

That is exactly the point.  In any non-consensus based voting system,
abstention is an implicit expression of disintrest.  Disintrested parties
should not be able to block change.  Neither should they want to:  If you
oppose something, vote against it!  

rufus

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:06:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3392

Tom Walmsley wrote:

> >
> >I presume you know why he chose this date for such an observance...
>
> I can make a reasonable guess, mostly going from the title. Literature and
> poetry, and for that matter history, have never my strong points but I
> would guess Shakespeare's birthday.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!

We have a winner!    :)

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:17:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: "else...if" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Another idea

  This is another idea I just thought of.  Using a new currency,
called, for the moment, Quirons, players can buy words for 10 times as
many times as the word has been used in all proposals to the date. 
Once a player owns a word, others have to pay royalties.  If a
proposal containing an owned word is made and the word's owner points
it out, the player who made the proposal must may royalties of 5
quirons to the owner.  I have a number of other ideas to expand on it,
but what do people think of the basic part?
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:20:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3351 accepted

David Scheidt wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:
>
> >
> > Nothing...but a better solution would be to require 50%+1 COUNTING ABSTENTIONS.  Then
> > BOTH of your examples would fail.    As you have it, there is no difference between
> > abstaining and voting yes.
>
> That is exactly the point.  In any non-consensus based voting system,
> abstention is an implicit expression of disintrest.  Disintrested parties
> should not be able to block change.  Neither should they want to:  If you
> oppose something, vote against it!

I guess we have a difference in philosophy.  I believe the opposite -- that a minority
should not be able to force change on a majority, and that disinterest = contentment with
the status quo.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:26:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another idea

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, else...if wrote:

>  This is another idea I just thought of.  Using a new currency,
>called, for the moment, Quirons, players can buy words for 10 times as
>many times as the word has been used in all proposals to the date. 

This could be really hard to calculate unless someone wants to run all of
the proposals to date through a word counting program?

>Once a player owns a word, others have to pay royalties.  If a
>proposal containing an owned word is made and the word's owner points
>it out, the player who made the proposal must may royalties of 5
>quirons to the owner.  I have a number of other ideas to expand on it,
>but what do people think of the basic part?

If the word's owner doesn't point it out does it become 'public domain'?
:) (I would also say that common words (used more than 1000 times prior
to this rules enactment?) should be public domain as well. (that would
hold things like 'the' and 'a' free.)  If that cannot be done due to
retroactivity, I'll buy the words 'the', 'a', 'an', and 'it' :)

While I think the idea is kinda cool.  i think implementation could be a
bear.

- --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: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:31:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3351 accepted

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:

> David Scheidt wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Nothing...but a better solution would be to require 50%+1 COUNTING ABSTENTIONS.  Then
> > > BOTH of your examples would fail.    As you have it, there is no difference between
> > > abstaining and voting yes.
> >
> > That is exactly the point.  In any non-consensus based voting system,
> > abstention is an implicit expression of disintrest.  Disintrested parties
> > should not be able to block change.  Neither should they want to:  If you
> > oppose something, vote against it!
> 
> I guess we have a difference in philosophy.  I believe the opposite -- that a minority
> should not be able to force change on a majority, and that disinterest = contentment with
> the status quo.

Ah, but a minority cannot force their will on the majority.  The majority
has to consent to the minorities wishes.  How does the majority  consent?
By not opposing it, of course.  Disinterest may imply satisfaction with
the status quo, but it also implies satisfaction with whatever interested
parties do decide to do.

rufus

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:42:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3351 accepted

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:

> Duncan Richer wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, David Scheidt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think it did raise quorum, if there is significant opposition...but the reason
> > > > I voted against this is that now if 36% of the head count wants something, they
> > > > can get it, as long as no one else votes.  Probably a rare occurrence, but it
> >
> > I thought I had explained that this system was actually _fairer_ than the
> > pre-existing one.
> 
> You explained that YOU thought it was fairer.  I do not agree.
> 
> >
> >
> > Which of the following indicates a more well-supported proposal:
> >
> > (A) 36% in favour, 0% against, 64% abstained.
> > or
> > (B) 36% in favour, 24% against, 40% abstained.
> >
> > I would wager that it would be A, rather than B.  Surely outright voting
> > against a proposal is a stronger indication of dislike than an abstention.
> 
> But you STILL have significantly fewer than half the voters in favor.  I liked it
> better when you had to have more than half the voters voting "aye".

When was that?  That was never the case.  I amended the rules from
50% of people must vote 
to
36% of people must vote YES or 60% of people must vote.

Previously 30% YES, 20% NO, 50% ABSTAIN would see a proposal passed.
That won't happen any more.

From the point of view you are talking about (minimum YES percentage to
get a proposal passed) I have actually made things _harder_.

> > Yet under the old system, A would fail, yet B would pass.  Under my
> > system, such a situation cannot happen, and both A and B pass.
> > Can anyone tell me what is actually _wrong_ with eliminating this
> > counter-intuitive part of the rules?
> 
> Nothing...but a better solution would be to require 50%+1 COUNTING ABSTENTIONS.  Then
> BOTH of your examples would fail.    As you have it, there is no difference between
> abstaining and voting yes.

This is blatantly wrong.  Here is an example.

Vote 1: 20 YES, 10 NO, 0 ABSTAIN.  Passes.
Vote 2: 0 YES, 10 NO, 20 ABSTAIN.  Fails.

How can abstentions be equivalent to YES votes under my system?

- -- 
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, Clerk of the Court, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:44:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another idea

JT wrote:

>
>
> If the word's owner doesn't point it out does it become 'public domain'?
> :) (I would also say that common words (used more than 1000 times prior
> to this rules enactment?) should be public domain as well. (that would
> hold things like 'the' and 'a' free.)  If that cannot be done due to
> retroactivity, I'll buy the words 'the', 'a', 'an', and 'it' :)

I like the public domain flourish.

I don't see why retroactivity should prohibit this...just state that any word
which had already been used more than 1000 times as of the date this proposal
is enacted, are in the public domain, and may not be purchased.

Perhaps rather than letting the player just buy the word he wants, it should
go through a bidding process?  In essence, the player posts a public action,
"I am placing the minimum bid of A$XXX against the word voluminous.  If no one
responds in three days, it's mine!"

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:45:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3351 accepted

David Scheidt wrote:

> > I guess we have a difference in philosophy.  I believe the opposite -- that a minority
> > should not be able to force change on a majority, and that disinterest = contentment with
> > the status quo.
>
> Ah, but a minority cannot force their will on the majority.  The majority
> has to consent to the minorities wishes.  How does the majority  consent?
> By not opposing it, of course.  Disinterest may imply satisfaction with
> the status quo, but it also implies satisfaction with whatever interested
> parties do decide to do.

As I said, we view things differently.  I guess I'll leave it at that.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:51:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another idea

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:
>> If the word's owner doesn't point it out does it become 'public domain'?
>> :) (I would also say that common words (used more than 1000 times prior
>> to this rules enactment?) should be public domain as well. (that would
>> hold things like 'the' and 'a' free.)  If that cannot be done due to
>> retroactivity, I'll buy the words 'the', 'a', 'an', and 'it' :)
>
>I like the public domain flourish.

Thank you :)

>I don't see why retroactivity should prohibit this...just state that any word
>which had already been used more than 1000 times as of the date this proposal
>is enacted, are in the public domain, and may not be purchased.

The reason that retroactivity might prohibit it is that it depends on past
game actions (the past proposals).  Assuming sufficient precedence was
taken this wouldn't be a problem, but might otherwise which is why I
mentioned it.

>Perhaps rather than letting the player just buy the word he wants, it should
>go through a bidding process?  In essence, the player posts a public action,
>"I am placing the minimum bid of A$XXX against the word voluminous.  If no one
>responds in three days, it's mine!"

Perhaps.  That certainly avoids the hubert situation of just buying by
fiat, which I think is a good thing to avoid.

- --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: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:55:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another idea

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, JT wrote:

> The reason that retroactivity might prohibit it is that it depends on past
> game actions (the past proposals).  Assuming sufficient precedence was
> taken this wouldn't be a problem, but might otherwise which is why I
> mentioned it.

This is not actually a problem.  Retroactivity requires changing events in
the past.  What you are looking at is merely having present actions depend
on past events (namely the proposal log).  This happens all the time and
does not invoke retroactivity at any point.

- -- 
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, Clerk of the Court, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:56:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3392

In a message dated 11/08/98  19:52:42, you write:

> 
>  10 sylabble lines with every second sylable stressed? Who's to say what
>  counts as stressed though?

Most dictionaries will. However the standard stress is differs between
American and British English for many words, while many more have variable
stress. 

Robin Hood

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:56:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3392

In a message dated 11/08/98  19:52:42, you write:

> 
>  10 sylabble lines with every second sylable stressed? Who's to say what
>  counts as stressed though?

Most dictionaries will. However the standard stress is differs between
American and British English for many words, while many more have variable
stress. 

Robin Hood

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:59:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another idea

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, JT wrote:

> >Perhaps rather than letting the player just buy the word he wants, it should
> >go through a bidding process?  In essence, the player posts a public action,
> >"I am placing the minimum bid of A$XXX against the word voluminous.  If no one
> >responds in three days, it's mine!"
> 
> Perhaps.  That certainly avoids the hubert situation of just buying by
> fiat, which I think is a good thing to avoid.

I am placing the minimum bid of my Total Worth against the word "Hubert." 

Hubert Hubert Hubert Hubert Hubert Hubert Hubert Hubert Hubert Hubert.

Try it, /dev/joe.  Say it.  It feels good. :-)

- - 867-5309, whose .sig generator seems to like the below message (and who
also saw Tombstone again last night, and thus considers its prescience
fulfilled)

A Smith & Wesson beats four aces every time. 

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:01:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another idea

JT wrote:

>
>
> >I don't see why retroactivity should prohibit this...just state that any word
> >which had already been used more than 1000 times as of the date this proposal
> >is enacted, are in the public domain, and may not be purchased.
>
> The reason that retroactivity might prohibit it is that it depends on past
> game actions (the past proposals).  Assuming sufficient precedence was
> taken this wouldn't be a problem, but might otherwise which is why I
> mentioned it.

You just have to word it carefully...don't make it depend on prior game action,
make it depend on current game status.  "If a word is CURRENTLY used more than
1000 times in the Ruleset, THEN the word is in the public domain."

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:01:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another idea

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, JT wrote:
>
>> The reason that retroactivity might prohibit it is that it depends on past
>> game actions (the past proposals).  Assuming sufficient precedence was
>> taken this wouldn't be a problem, but might otherwise which is why I
>> mentioned it.
>
>This is not actually a problem.  Retroactivity requires changing events in
>the past.  What you are looking at is merely having present actions depend
>on past events (namely the proposal log).  This happens all the time and
>does not invoke retroactivity at any point.

Okay.. then no problem indeed.

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ 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 #186
***********************************