Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #218
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Monday, September 14 1998    Volume 03 : Number 218

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:04:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3590

On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, JT wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> > >> Heh.. I hadn't even considered that or ever doing something like that, but
> > >> you are quite right that I could.. heheheh :)
> > >> 
> > >> >Append the following quoted text to Rule 251:
> > >> >
> > >> >"If a player attempts to change their name to a name which they have
> > >> >previously held, then no player may object to this name change."
> > >> 
> > >> I will not do that just so folks know.
> > >
> > >What if it was seriously in your interest for some reason?
> > 
> > Then I'd honestly expect to get impeached.
> > 
> > >Also, what happens if you are no longer Registrar?
> > 
> > Same thing except I expect whomever was the Registrar would be the one
> > impeached.
> 
> Do you realise how hard it is to actually succeed in an impeachment?
> I don't know how many times it has been done, but I'm sure they have been
> few and far between.  I'd rather have a solid safeguard in the rules than
> rely on people to go for impeachment.
> 

I tried to impeach Malenkai from the office of Wizard (or whichever
scientist he was) over the Cheez-Whiz incident.  I think I ended up
retracting it.  Last serious attempt I can remember.

However, I agree with JT that this is not something we need to do, and
could in fact be a bad idea.  I think that if the registrar were to
prevent a, for lack of a better word, unobjectionable change back to an
old name, without any justification, I would vote to impeach him.  Frankly
I doubt it would come to that.

Vynd

[email-masked]

> -- 
> 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, 14 Sep 1998 00:08:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Trinket

On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, K 2 wrote:

> With this message Weishaupt would've became weird only e appears to be the
> harfmeister so e is really weird. I don't have anyone else listed as being
> Really Weird so e is either the first or someone needs to tell me something
> :)
> 
> K 2

Well, perhaps Hoover 2000 should be granted the title as well.  As a sign
of respect.

Speaking of Hoover, I'd always meant to ask...  Does anyone here know him
in some way, or did he just stumble across Acka?

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:16:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3590

> I tried to impeach Malenkai from the office of Wizard (or whichever
> scientist he was) over the Cheez-Whiz incident.  I think I ended up
> retracting it.  Last serious attempt I can remember.

Actually it failed as I recall, despite the obvious abuse of office
that scam was.  The point being that I agree with whomever said on
this thread something like impeachment is useless in acka.

As another example, Niccolo attempted to impeach me as Speaker over
the Vulcan coup scam.  There was no fear of the impeachment being
successful.  I'd be happy to just repeal it, and use proposals to
handle abuse of power.

saaremaa

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:19:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3590

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Randy Hall wrote:

> > I tried to impeach Malenkai from the office of Wizard (or whichever
> > scientist he was) over the Cheez-Whiz incident.  I think I ended up
> > retracting it.  Last serious attempt I can remember.
> 
> Actually it failed as I recall, despite the obvious abuse of office
> that scam was.  The point being that I agree with whomever said on
> this thread something like impeachment is useless in acka.

Yeah, well, I spent a lot more time and effort preparing to scam that rule
than you did, so I was pretty mad.  Maybe I did let it ride.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:40:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3590

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
>However, I agree with JT that this is not something we need to do, and
>could in fact be a bad idea.  I think that if the registrar were to
>prevent a, for lack of a better word, unobjectionable change back to an
>old name, without any justification, I would vote to impeach him.  Frankly
>I doubt it would come to that.

Actually, Vynd, you misrepresent what I said.  I agree with Slakko/Fo that
this is a good change in some respects.   I would however like to (as
registrar) maintain a way to object to a problematic name even if it had
once been previously held.   If there is a way to do both other than
relying on the Registrar not to abuse eir authority, I'm open to it.

- --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, 14 Sep 1998 09:19:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3593

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 3593
> Curses to you Slakko!!
> Mr. Tambourine Man (Tom Walmsley)
> 
> Append the following text immediately before the final paragraph of rule
> 506 (Trinkets):
> 
> "The Trinket Harfer may, as a privilege, object to any trinket creation.
> [e is encouraged to do so only if e believes it does not further the
> enjoyment of the game, e.g. was made only to exploit Malenkai's
> Loophole]. If e so objects then the trinket is not made and the creating
> player retains the AckaDollars. If the Trinket Harfer abuses this
> privelege then other players are encouraged to impeach em."
> 
> Any trinket with the primitive form "lincolnbedroom" is converted to
> AckaDollars.

My tactic was perfectly valid, IMHO.  I see my creation of a
lincolnbedroom trinket as an equal play to your creating a lincolnbedroom
house.  I did my creation to stop the Hat from becoming true, you did
yours in an attempt to let it come true.  I see no reason why your play
should be preferred over mine.

- -- 
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, 14 Sep 1998 12:39:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3602

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 3602
> Eliminate Hubert wherever we can
> saaremaa (Randy Hall)
> 
> {{[
> 
> (no offense if there is a player still named Hubert, BTW :-))
> 
> It appears that I Huberted Vynd out of being part of a full
> Cortex.  After considering the specific situation at great length
> at the request of a particular player, a general problem was apparent,
> at least to me -- that problem being that the current cortex system
> can lead to a general Hubert situation when a justice resigns, with 
> the cost of being Huberted meaning you may have to wait months to
> hear CFJ appeals.  This doesn't seem fair to Vynd, me, or anyone else
> who has earned the right to be a justice and would enjoy performing
> the duties.  We are here to have fun, after all.  (This won't occur
> all the time, and sometimes the "other" Justice being resigned on 
> can be "Huberted" in a backwards sense, but the fact that it occurred
> this time is proof by existence).

Vynd had the opportunity for more than a week.  Not really a Hubert
situation IMHO.

> 
> My solution is to replace the static Cortex system with Cortices 
> generated on the fly for each appeal.  While the system is slightly
> more tracking for the CotC, I believe eliminating Hubert where we can 
> in this game is is a worthy goal. (I also think it will be fun to
> mix and match who you work with over time, but even if there is
> contention on this effect, it doesn't seem fair to a particular 
> individual to exclude them completely in order to support the current
> system).

I feel that the present system has a major advantage in that appeal
verdicts come through in short order.  I believe Guy Fawkes set up the
system so that people could choose who they would work with, in order to
enable appeals to be dealt with effectively and quickly.  If this change
were implemented, I would expect a significant number of appeals to take
much longer than they do now.

I do not necessarily see that everyone who is entitled to be a Justice
should necessarily be a Justice.  The system introduced by Guy Fawkes did
enable greater participation, but right from the start it was clear that
someone could be excluded until another Justice came along.  

Personally, I think that the situation is not so awful that we need to
eliminate the benefits of consistent Cortices.  

> (Another thing accomplished by this proposal is to bring the cortex stuff
> in with the CFJ stuff, where it belongs, rather than have it spread out
> in both the 200s and 400s)

This part is a good idea, I think.

- -- 
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, 14 Sep 1998 13:01:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3590

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, JT wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> >However, I agree with JT that this is not something we need to do, and
> >could in fact be a bad idea.  I think that if the registrar were to
> >prevent a, for lack of a better word, unobjectionable change back to an
> >old name, without any justification, I would vote to impeach him.  Frankly
> >I doubt it would come to that.
> 
> Actually, Vynd, you misrepresent what I said.  I agree with Slakko/Fo that
> this is a good change in some respects.   I would however like to (as
> registrar) maintain a way to object to a problematic name even if it had
> once been previously held.   If there is a way to do both other than
> relying on the Registrar not to abuse eir authority, I'm open to it.
> 
> --JT

My apologies.  I'm still not particularly happy about the Registrars power
over name changing, actually.  But if we're going to do it, we should at
least do it right, and guard against the use of former names for scams.
Like JT (here I go again), I don't stand on the principle that the
Registrar be able to block them, but I think we should have something more
than what Fo has proposed.

Vynd

apologizes in advance for misreprestation of views other than his own

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:04:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3593

Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote:

> My tactic was perfectly valid, IMHO.  I see my creation of a
> lincolnbedroom trinket as an equal play to your creating a lincolnbedroom
> house.  I did my creation to stop the Hat from becoming true, you did
> yours in an attempt to let it come true.  I see no reason why your play
> should be preferred over mine.

I have no arguments with your actions: they were perfectly legal. You did not,
however, use the trinket rule in the manner it was initially intended. If I'd
noticed at the time I would have called a CPPIA hearing on it. I also note
that as it stands this can be a bit of a Hubert situation. Whoever notices
this loophole (which is what is is really, and quite a tired on at that IMHO)
first is the only one who has any chance of fulfilling the agenda condition.
All this proposal does is give the Trinket harfer a chance to object to inane
trinkets, and destroys one of the more inane ones (if you believe your trinket
has artistic merit and isn't inane then say so, and I'll retact the proposal
and submit a version where a CPPIA hearingis called on it. That way you would
get to keep it if people agreed with you but if they didn't you would stand
tolose more). I also would not be averse to a proposal which gavethe map
harfer similar privileges over building names, for example.

MTM

- --
Tom Walmsley [email-masked]
http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html
AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739
Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo.

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:04:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3596

nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 3596
> To Bb or not to Bb, that is the question
> Aunt Froot (Micah Smukler)

I've read through this twice and I still can't see what it actually does
other than introducean unnecessary complexity. Care to enlighten me?

MTM.

- --
Tom Walmsley [email-masked]
http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html
AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739
Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo.

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:45:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3593

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> 
> 
> Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote:
> 
> 
> > My tactic was perfectly valid, IMHO.  I see my creation of a
> > lincolnbedroom trinket as an equal play to your creating a lincolnbedroom
> > house.  I did my creation to stop the Hat from becoming true, you did
> > yours in an attempt to let it come true.  I see no reason why your play
> > should be preferred over mine.
> 
> I have no arguments with your actions: they were perfectly legal. You did not,
> however, use the trinket rule in the manner it was initially intended. If I'd
> noticed at the time I would have called a CPPIA hearing on it. I also note
> that as it stands this can be a bit of a Hubert situation. Whoever notices
> this loophole (which is what is is really, and quite a tired on at that IMHO)
> first is the only one who has any chance of fulfilling the agenda condition.
> All this proposal does is give the Trinket harfer a chance to object to inane
> trinkets, and destroys one of the more inane ones (if you believe your trinket
> has artistic merit and isn't inane then say so, and I'll retact the proposal
> and submit a version where a CPPIA hearingis called on it. That way you would
> get to keep it if people agreed with you but if they didn't you would stand
> tolose more). I also would not be averse to a proposal which gavethe map
> harfer similar privileges over building names, for example.

You couldn't have destroyed that Trinket with a CPPIA hearing anyway.  I
valued it at A$36.

- -- 
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, 14 Sep 1998 18:08:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3602

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 3602
> Eliminate Hubert wherever we can
> saaremaa (Randy Hall)
> 
> {{[
> 
> (no offense if there is a player still named Hubert, BTW :-))
> 
> It appears that I Huberted Vynd out of being part of a full
> Cortex.  After considering the specific situation at great length
> at the request of a particular player, a general problem was apparent,
> at least to me -- that problem being that the current cortex system
> can lead to a general Hubert situation when a justice resigns, with 
> the cost of being Huberted meaning you may have to wait months to
> hear CFJ appeals.  This doesn't seem fair to Vynd, me, or anyone else
> who has earned the right to be a justice and would enjoy performing
> the duties.  We are here to have fun, after all.  (This won't occur
> all the time, and sometimes the "other" Justice being resigned on 
> can be "Huberted" in a backwards sense, but the fact that it occurred
> this time is proof by existence).
> 

While I agree that the grafting process needs some refinement, I do want
saaremaa to know that I have no problem with him grafting onto The
Entitity formerly known as the Supreme Court. I have often threatened to
join a cortex, and never did. This time in particular, I had ample time
in which to graft, but I told breadbox that I was going to wait
until at least the end of last week, due to pressing concerns at work.
And then I decided to finish judging any CFJs I already had assigned to
me.  I'd just finished with 661, and I was checking for any others in my
100 odd unread messages, when I noticed that you had grafted yourself. So
I really was *just* about to do it, otherwise I doubt I would even have
mentioned it.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:46:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3602

> Vynd had the opportunity for more than a week.  Not really a Hubert
> situation IMHO.

That was my assessment as well.  However, I was told privately that
the office was spoken for on the 14th, and I took it on the 13th.
To me, that is a Hubert situation.  Moreover, I was asked to solve
a problem that I was unaware existed, but by implication of being
notified of the situation privately, was my responsibility.  This 
proposal was that solution, because clearly the current system is
flawed if an eligible Justice cannot simply take a seat that is vacant 
without having to deal with this sort of stress, need race for a seat
like Hubert, or when doing so would exclude Vynd, or myself, from 
participating in an enjoyable aspect of nomic for no otherwise real
tangible benefit.  If one of us is to be excluded, I ask for a better
reason than the one presented in the rest of your comments.

As I thought about it, however, forgetting about the week vacancy in
this case, the Hubert situation can exist in the general case, so I
think it should be fixed, as I said in my comments.

> I feel that the present system has a major advantage in that appeal
> verdicts come through in short order.  I believe Guy Fawkes set up the
> system so that people could choose who they would work with, in order to
> enable appeals to be dealt with effectively and quickly.  If this change
> were implemented, I would expect a significant number of appeals to take
> much longer than they do now.

The last time I was here, they were slower than erosion :-)  That is what
prompted my 30 day time limit proposal at the time.  In addition, there are
plenty of real cases where acting Justices have filled in, and that has
not slowed down the process at all.  The system has nothing to do with it,
really, as the evidence shows.
 
> I do not necessarily see that everyone who is entitled to be a Justice
> should necessarily be a Justice.  The system introduced by Guy Fawkes did
> enable greater participation, but right from the start it was clear that
> someone could be excluded until another Justice came along.

But the exclusion is arbitrary, not based on qualifications.  Thus it should
be eliminated.  Under the current system, either Vynd or myself will be
excluded, not because of merit, but because of an inherently unfair system
that rewards being on-line when a Justice forms a cortex or resigns. 
Imagine if you lived in parts of Africa, where in some cases entire 
*countries* are connected to the 'net via single analog modems.  
Eliminating race conditions where they can be is a Good Thing.

Imagine if you were excluded from something you enjoy.  You would ask,
perhaps, why?  The answer, on balance, should be that the cost of your 
exclusion is made up for in benefits to the rest of the population (and
even this premise is legitimately challengable).  In this case, however,
I don't even see the large benefit to the rest of the population that
merits the exclusion.
  
I have worked with Bascule, breadbox, /dev/joe, mr cwm, ThinMan, and possibly
others on the Supreme Court in the past.  I never once found that it was
a hindrance because I was working with someone new, in fact, it was fun to
get different perspectives.  The stability argument as an efficiency argument
is weak, IMO.  The stability argument for fun is more tenable, but I do not
believe, like I said, that it merits excluding Vynd or myself.  

saaremaa

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #218
***********************************