Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #198
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Monday, August 24 1998      Volume 03 : Number 198

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

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 01:51:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Eleusis Game 1 - Round 2 - 867-5309's play

On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
>> >I leave the game of Eleusis of which I am a member.
>
>> Unlike Alfvaen, I am going to harf this as your hand being played by a
>> bot from here on.
>
>Why?  I couldn't find anything in the Rules which would lead one to believe
>this.  There are three games(Fictionary, Game of Pure Skill, and Diplomacy,
>I believe)which specify that a bot takes the place of a player who leaves.
>But there is nothing in the Eleusis rules, nor in the general game rules,
>which would lead one to that assumption.  Maybe one of your proposed fixes
>would handle this, but until that time I think it would be unwarranted for
>you to consider there to be a bot playing in 867-5309's former place.

I do in fact have a proposal in the queue that would fix this.  Given that
the rules do not state what happens when a player leaves the game, what
occurs when a player leaves the game is unregulated. Since it's not
prohibited for me to replace a leaving player with a bot (by rule
101), I believe that I am within my rights to do so.  I'm willing to hear
arguments to the contrary however.  (Note by this same rule you were free
to handle K2's leaving in the manner you chose to for Game 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: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 04:27:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3462

On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> > 
> > This will make voting look like a public Auction.
> 
> Is there anything necessarily wrong with that?
> 

I wouldn't vote for such a change.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 05:19:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3462

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > > This will make voting look like a public Auction.
> > Is there anything necessarily wrong with that?
> I wouldn't vote for such a change.
That's not actually what I was asking.  Just because you wouldn't vote for
it doesn't mean there's necessarily anything wrong with the idea per se,
it just means that you are not in favour of it.
- -- 
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, Clerk of the Court

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

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 05:41:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Point Pool RFC, Draft 3

At 22:03 22/08/98 -0400, you wrote:
>	Thank you /dev/joe for your help.  If there are no major complaints
>this will probably be the last RFC, though I'm waiting for something from
>JT before proposing it.
>
>#submit Let's all go point swimming
>	Create a new rule reading as delimited by TIMEDELAY
>
>TIMEDELAY
>	The following HEREGOESNOTHING-delimited text will not do anything
>until two weeks from when this rule is created, at which point it will take
>effect.

Shouldn't there be some sort of clause to delete the time delay rule after
it has taken effect? I couldn't see one.

MTM.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 07:21:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3462

At 05:19 24/08/98 -0400, Slakko wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>> 
>> > > This will make voting look like a public Auction.
>> > Is there anything necessarily wrong with that?
>> I wouldn't vote for such a change.
>That's not actually what I was asking.  Just because you wouldn't vote for
>it doesn't mean there's necessarily anything wrong with the idea per se,
>it just means that you are not in favour of it.

Well, just off the top of my head it would be very confusing for newbies
and quite probably make breadbox's life more difficult. There are probably
more problems as well that I just haven't thought of yet.

MTM.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 08:22:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3462

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> At 05:19 24/08/98 -0400, Slakko wrote:
> >On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:
> >> On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> >> 
> >> > > This will make voting look like a public Auction.
> >> > Is there anything necessarily wrong with that?
> >> I wouldn't vote for such a change.
> >That's not actually what I was asking.  Just because you wouldn't vote for
> >it doesn't mean there's necessarily anything wrong with the idea per se,
> >it just means that you are not in favour of it.
> 
> Well, just off the top of my head it would be very confusing for newbies
> and quite probably make breadbox's life more difficult. There are probably
> more problems as well that I just haven't thought of yet.

Actually, a modification of this might well work.

You have two levels of vote:

Normal votes are cast as now.
You can cast a double vote by publicly announcing it.  Doing so costs you
A$50.  Double votes can be YES or NO.

Any comments?
- -- 
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: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 08:30:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Eleusis Game 1 - Round 2 - 867-5309's play

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, JT wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
> >> >I leave the game of Eleusis of which I am a member.
> >
> >> Unlike Alfvaen, I am going to harf this as your hand being played by a
> >> bot from here on.
> >
> >Why?  I couldn't find anything in the Rules which would lead one to believe
> >this.  There are three games(Fictionary, Game of Pure Skill, and Diplomacy,
> >I believe)which specify that a bot takes the place of a player who leaves.
> >But there is nothing in the Eleusis rules, nor in the general game rules,
> >which would lead one to that assumption.  Maybe one of your proposed fixes
> >would handle this, but until that time I think it would be unwarranted for
> >you to consider there to be a bot playing in 867-5309's former place.

I believe the game may well have collapsed.  Notwithstanding any Rule 701
questions, the loss of 867-5309 has taken the game under the minimum
number of players, therefore it does not satisfy the conditions to make it
a game, and hence it cannot be a game any more.

- -- 
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, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 08:36:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3462

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Actually, a modification of this might well work.
> 
> You have two levels of vote:
> 
> Normal votes are cast as now.
> You can cast a double vote by publicly announcing it.  Doing so costs you
> A$50.  Double votes can be YES or NO.

In such a system, for simplicity, both Tammany and Bonus Votes would be
abolished, and each Bonus Vote in existance would be converted into A$50.
- -- 
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, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 09:58:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Pizolato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3462

:On Sat, 22 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
:> On Sat, 22 Aug 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:
:> > > So the Tammany would only succeed if less than two people cared
:> > > sufficiently to try to sink the proposal.  I don't think that this is
:> > > sufficient to unbalance the game.
:> >
:> > This has nothing to do with caring sufficiently. It's not realistic to
:> > expect players to tammany every propsal they happen to care about on
the
:> > off chance that someone will try to scam that specific proposal.
:>
:> What if we adjusted it by requiring Tammany bribes to be public?
:
:This will make voting look like a public Auction.

In American politics, it is.

;-)

Piz

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

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 11:42:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Eleusis Game 1 - Round 2 - 867-5309's play

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, JT wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
>> >> >I leave the game of Eleusis of which I am a member.
>> >
>> >> Unlike Alfvaen, I am going to harf this as your hand being played by a
>> >> bot from here on.
>> >
>> >Why?  I couldn't find anything in the Rules which would lead one to believe
>> >this.  There are three games(Fictionary, Game of Pure Skill, and Diplomacy,
>> >I believe)which specify that a bot takes the place of a player who leaves.
>> >But there is nothing in the Eleusis rules, nor in the general game rules,
>> >which would lead one to that assumption.  Maybe one of your proposed fixes
>> >would handle this, but until that time I think it would be unwarranted for
>> >you to consider there to be a bot playing in 867-5309's former place.
>
>I believe the game may well have collapsed.  Notwithstanding any Rule 701
>questions, the loss of 867-5309 has taken the game under the minimum
>number of players, therefore it does not satisfy the conditions to make it
>a game, and hence it cannot be a game any more.

You didn't quote anything I said, so I'm curious as to what you were
replying to.  You might however be right.  Even if the leaving player was
replaced with a Bot, it might in fact cause the game to fall over.  I'd
prefer that the game is still alive (of course :) but I'll go with a
consensus opinion.  So far I've only heard from Slakko and Alfvaen on this
regards.   I'll probably submit a CFJ to clear it up in a few minutes.

- --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: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 11:57:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3439 accepted

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote:
>Results of Proposal 3439
>18/23 votes: Quorum achieved
>13/17 YES votes: Proposal accepted
>
>> {{
>> If there is no game of Eleusis currently in existance known as game 1 that
>> has as it's players exactly the entities known as (or formerly known as)
>> Mr. Tambourine Man, /dev/joe, 867-5309 and else...if, then this game now
>> exists with the state of the game being that declared by the referee, the
>> position of which is filled by JT
>> }}

Amusingly enough, even if Slakko was correct that the game did in fact
disperse when 867-5309 left the game, I believe this rule would in fact
reincorporate the game with 867-5309 in the game, and since he is on
vacation, he will now play the default actions anyway.   I have however
submitted a CFJ on the issue of whether or not the game actually dispersed
when 867-5309 left.

- --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: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 12:09:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3443 accepted

Unless I'm horribly mistaken, proposals 3443, 3444, 3445, 3446, and
3448 are all Null Proposals.

I believe that as of Proposal 3369, the rules no longer define
Blueprints as capable of being Debunked - only Discoveries.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 12:18:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3449 accepted

> Proposal 3449 - Mon 17 Aug 1998 08:01 EDT
> This Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Pi, I Think
> Attila the Pun (Micah Smukler)
> 
> Create a new rule, numbered 1240.14, entitled "Otzma Card of type Training
> Regime", with the following HEAVEHO-delimited text:

Since a Rule numbered 1240.14 already exists, this rule has been added
to the Miscellaneous Rule Suite instead. Thus it does not define a new
Otzma Card type.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind folks that the rules
define a method to specifically avoid this kind of error when adding
rules to a rule suite. It should be used whenever possible.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 12:39:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3443 accepted

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Unless I'm horribly mistaken, proposals 3443, 3444, 3445, 3446, and
> 3448 are all Null Proposals.

That's why I voted for them. :-)

- -- 
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, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 13:23:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Contacting Slakko

Slakko, I can't get through to you by email. I've tried @cam.ac.uk and
@hermes.cam.ac.uk and I can't rach either. Any ideas?

MTM.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 14:49:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Contacting Slakko

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Slakko, I can't get through to you by email. I've tried @cam.ac.uk and
> @hermes.cam.ac.uk and I can't rach either. Any ideas?

Try again.  If it still doesn't work for some reason, then try
[email-masked]

As far as I know that still gets forwarded here.

- -- 
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, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 15:56:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Pizolato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Question on CFJ/CFCJ procedure

When I did CFJ 638, I posted my judgement on the ackanomic mailing list. I
get the feeling that I was supposed to send it to someone instead, and that
person is responsible for publicly posting it. Am I correct? If so, who do I
send it to?

I have a judgement for CFCJ 173 - I just want to handle it properly.

Thanks,
Piz

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

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:20:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Question on CFJ/CFCJ procedure

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Michael Pizolato wrote:

>When I did CFJ 638, I posted my judgement on the ackanomic mailing list. I
>get the feeling that I was supposed to send it to someone instead, and that
>person is responsible for publicly posting it. Am I correct? If so, who do I
>send it to?

Either mailing it privately to slakko ([email-masked]) or posting it
publically is allowed.  It's not official however until the Clerk of the
Court posts it publically.

- --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: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 17:04:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Question on CFJ/CFCJ procedure

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Michael Pizolato wrote:

> When I did CFJ 638, I posted my judgement on the ackanomic mailing list. I
> get the feeling that I was supposed to send it to someone instead, and that
> person is responsible for publicly posting it. Am I correct? If so, who do I
> send it to?

The Clerk of the Court.

Currently, that's me.

> I have a judgement for CFCJ 173 - I just want to handle it properly.

That would be great.
- -- 
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, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #198
***********************************