Subject: acka-research Digest V4 #81
From: [email-masked]
To: acka-research digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 00:00 EDT

acka-research Digest	Sunday, May 09 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 081

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

From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4161
Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 11:29:41 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 8 May 1999, Mueller wrote:

> The Voting Bot wrote:
> >Proposal 4161
> >Time to Cash in Our Chips
> >else...if
> >Due: Wed May 12 20:53:22 1999
> >Sphere: Tocpe
> >
> >Replace the rules with the following TAKETWO-delimited text
> >TAKETWO
> 
> <pretty much the original ruleset snipped>
> 
> >TAKETWO
> >Destroy everything except for the rules and the players
> >
> 
> Please do not vote for this.
> 
> I am in favor of the basic idea (a radical simplification of the rules and
> a fresh start), but this implementation is terrible.  
> 
> All of the old proposals would be gone with the number restarting at 301,
> all the anachronistic Suber stuff (like a rule explicitly permitting
> DEBATE) would be in, and worst of all, all the very useful solutions to
> basic nomic problems would be erased.  Ackanomic would have to worry again
> about basic metaphysical problems like creating a zillion points through
> the permisability of the unprohibited.
> 
> Better: lets chop the ruleset away section by section.  Trim it down to
> say, 100k of the most useful rules and basic structures.
> 
> If you insist on totally new foundations, then at that point we can
> massively restructure easily because the rules will be so small, but this
> prop is just a can of worms.
> 
> ...By two bits.
> 
> Studge
> 
> 

I think the fact that Studge's message ehre is about all the debate 4161
has generated so far is a good demonstration of the fact that something
like this is needed. Acka just doesn't seem to have the active player base
anymore to make everything in the rules work.

Still, I agree with Studge that this particular proposal isn't the best
idea.Thanks to our excellent historians (not including myself) it won't be
very difficult to figure out how to scam wins, points, or what have you.
In fact, I don't doubt that someone who was interested in such a thing
could crash the game completely.

So I'm not going to vote for 4161. But if there were another proposal(s),
more along the lines of what Studge is talking about, I would support
them. I can't guarantee I would be any more active under a new system
(Vynd was startled to discover that working full-time really DOES
interfere with playing nomic), but I feel like its worth a shot.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4161
Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 12:46:24 -0400 (EDT)

	I think both Vynd and Studge misundersand my intend with 4161.  I'm
not trying to restart Acka, I'm trying to create a new game with a
significant player base, so it has a chance of surviving.  The Suberian
ruleset is intentionally flawed: it means we need to fix it, and find our
own way of fixing it.  If we start with a simple, effective, flawless
ruleset, then we'll have nothing to do but build out around it.  The idea
is to have to build it from the ground up, and let the solutions we find to
the problems in the initial ruleset define the game we end up with.

--
-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

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4161
Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 13:50:45 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 9 May 1999, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> I think the fact that Studge's message ehre is about all the debate 4161
> has generated so far is a good demonstration of the fact that something
> like this is needed. Acka just doesn't seem to have the active player base
> anymore to make everything in the rules work.

I agree with this.

> Still, I agree with Studge that this particular proposal isn't the best
> idea.Thanks to our excellent historians (not including myself) it won't be
> very difficult to figure out how to scam wins, points, or what have you.
> In fact, I don't doubt that someone who was interested in such a thing
> could crash the game completely.

So what (as far as scamming wins).   As for crashing the game, that didn't
happen before, I doubt it'll happen now.   And MAYBE, just MAYBE we'll
come up with different and interesting solutions to those scams we all
seem so damned worried about.

> So I'm not going to vote for 4161. But if there were another proposal(s),
> more along the lines of what Studge is talking about, I would support
> them. I can't guarantee I would be any more active under a new system
> (Vynd was startled to discover that working full-time really DOES
> interfere with playing nomic), but I feel like its worth a shot.

I'm going to vote for 4161.   I think saying 'well this isn't good enough,
let's wait and see if anyone else proposes something better' is just an
invitation to slide further into oblivion.

--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 V4 #81
**********************************