Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #246
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Wednesday, October 21 1998    Volume 03 : Number 246

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

Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 00:16:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Comments on Current Proposals

On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>3677: I dislike the extra administration this will put on my shoulders.  I
>oppose this proposal (although the idea itself is interesting, I think it
>is too much harf for the value it provides).

Slakko, is there any way that this could be done such that you don't feel
it would add excessive burden to you?   It came out of discussions I had
with Rambo R Minuteman about P3676.  He felt Party Chess should have
greater rewards because it incurred a greater expense on the players.  We
then discussed it a bit and came up with this idea for lowering the
expense on the players.  It's (in my mind) not much more effort than I
need to currently track for things like the ackanomicon (IE, has it been
exercised this month or not for each player)

- --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: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 02:48:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3685

On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 [email-masked] wrote:

> Proposal 3685
> The end of Swingpoints
> JT
> Due: Tue Oct 27 23:07:39 1998
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> {{
> If Proposal 3676 is accepted then the following effects occur in
> order:
> JT loses 5 points.
> Slakko gains 2 points.
> Every player gains points equal to 1/2 (rounded down) the number of
> Swingpoints that player owns.
> All Swingpoints are destroyed.
> }}
> {{[
> I believe that this will be a null proposal if 3676 is rejected and
> this is accepted (as should be).   If this is accepted and 3676 is also
> accepted then I forfeit the points for making this fix and give Slakko 2
> for having noticed my error.
> ]}}

Unfortunately, this "fix" opens a big, BIG scam door.  The entityhood of
existing Swingpoints is maintained even though 3676 repeals the
definition, because entityhood can only be removed explicitly.  However,
new non-entity Swingpoints can be created if 3676 passes, being converted
into points should 3685 pass.  This change really needs to be incorporated
into the original proposal, I'm afraid.

(I would have told you earlier but I was asleep).

- -- 
Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/    Ackanomic     | U. of Cambridge
Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator  | 2nd Year PhD(PMa)

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

Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Comments on Current Proposals

> 3654: Anti-voting returns, but with a twist - modest proposals are
> anti-voting exempt.  This is an interesting compromise position which
> might make the vote interesting.

Before P2257, I believe that Modest proposals were five points for the
author and no points for anyone else if they were accepted, but all
proposals were -7 for the author and +3 for yes-voters.  Still, this is
somewhat of a return to the earlier state.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Gene Clark:This Byrd Has Flown
Current Book--Juanita Coulson:Legacy of Earth
Sometimes I can't recall my mental blocks, so I try not to think about it.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #246
***********************************