Subject: acka-research Digest V4 #151
From: [email-masked]
To: acka-research digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:00:05 -0400 (EDT)

acka-research Digest	Friday, August 20 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 151

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4321 rejected
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 03:25:10 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 [email-masked] wrote:
> Votes to reject:
>   Calvin N Hobbes       -60    +20  ==> 600
>   Blest Lax Monk Pal   -140    -40  ==> 799
>   Alfvaen               -75    +12  ==> 1023
>   ThinMan               -60    +20  ==> 2376
>   Rachel L Walmsley    -180    -80  ==> 890

I am curious as to why you folks didn't like this proposal?
If there was any thing about it that could be changed that would make you
like it, please let me know.

--JT

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Crime
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 06:12:35 -0400 (EDT)

OK.  We've had a crime reform bill proposed and rejected.  The main reason
for the rejection, from the emails being set, appears to be that the
replacement system is too obviously politicised, as it uses a Hearing
rather than a proper court of appeals.

I am (fairly obviously, given my explicit interest in reform) of the
opinion that the system as it currently exists is not appropriate.  The
following aspects of it are not particularly useful:

1.  The filing fee of A$25.  This means that crimes where the likely
punishment is less than A$25 are not going to be prosecuted except under
exceptional circumstances.  However, looking at all CFCJs issued during
the past year (all 7 of them), there has been only one TRUE verdict, and
that resulted in a fine of A$50.  So people have spent A$175 on the
system, and the penalties total A$50.
  I think that some restriction is needed on the prosecution of crimes,
but the existing system restricts it to the point where there is no
benefit in prosecuting anything.  We may as well abolish Crime altogether
IMHO if the present system is considered worth keeping.

2.  The long, laborious process.  Due to Supreme Court decision-making
difficulties, recent CFCJs under appeal have had to wait for months.
Justice should be fair, but justice should ideally also be swift, and the
delays were getting beyond a joke.

Do people have any alternative suggestions on how to avoid the problems of
1 or 2?

Yours,
Slakko
-- 
Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/
Queens' College Cambridge, 2nd Year Ph.D. (Pure Maths) - Graph Theory
Insert random funny line here.

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

From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Crime
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 09:45:09 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote:

> 
> 1.  The filing fee of A$25.  This means that crimes where the likely
> punishment is less than A$25 are not going to be prosecuted except under
> exceptional circumstances.  However, looking at all CFCJs issued during
> the past year (all 7 of them), there has been only one TRUE verdict, and
> that resulted in a fine of A$50.  So people have spent A$175 on the
> system, and the penalties total A$50.
>   I think that some restriction is needed on the prosecution of crimes,
> but the existing system restricts it to the point where there is no
> benefit in prosecuting anything.  We may as well abolish Crime altogether
> IMHO if the present system is considered worth keeping.

I don't quite understand why there is this sentiment that because CFCJs
are not being issued on a frequent basis, there is a problem. Granted, I
am not devoting a lot of attention to Acka these days, but I haven't
noticed a great deal of unpunished criminal activity. Perhaps people just
aren't committing a significant amount of crime lately?

So far as the poor ratio of fees to fines goes, I think that lowering the
filing fee would be a reasonable, if less than dramatic, step. Penalties
could perhaps be raised.

> 
> 2.  The long, laborious process.  Due to Supreme Court decision-making
> difficulties, recent CFCJs under appeal have had to wait for months.
> Justice should be fair, but justice should ideally also be swift, and the
> delays were getting beyond a joke.

I think the problem here lies much more within the Supreme Court than with
CFCJs. Figure out a way to speed up Court decissions, and the CFCJ problem
goes away.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Crime
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:09:54 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 1.  The filing fee of A$25.  This means that crimes where the likely
> > punishment is less than A$25 are not going to be prosecuted except under
> > exceptional circumstances.  However, looking at all CFCJs issued during
> > the past year (all 7 of them), there has been only one TRUE verdict, and
> > that resulted in a fine of A$50.  So people have spent A$175 on the
> > system, and the penalties total A$50.
> >   I think that some restriction is needed on the prosecution of crimes,
> > but the existing system restricts it to the point where there is no
> > benefit in prosecuting anything.  We may as well abolish Crime altogether
> > IMHO if the present system is considered worth keeping.
> 
> I don't quite understand why there is this sentiment that because CFCJs
> are not being issued on a frequent basis, there is a problem. Granted, I
> am not devoting a lot of attention to Acka these days, but I haven't
> noticed a great deal of unpunished criminal activity. Perhaps people just
> aren't committing a significant amount of crime lately?

Actually, I'd say petty crime is still fairly constant.  Delays in Officer
Duty performance (myself included) are regular occurrences, and some have
reached the point of excessive silliness (witness the Summarizer
situation, where we had a Summarizer who took the office with no intent of
doing any work towards the Summary).  I am not of the opinion that every
single instance of failure to perform Official Duties within the
timespan suggested should be punished, but the situation is such now that
no punishment is even suggested for the most irritating and obvious
breaches.

I understand that no CFCJs issued does not imply that there is a problem
with issuance.  However, I've seen enough instances of crime going on to
think that we probably could do with something to make it more feasible to
initiate proceedings against players.

> So far as the poor ratio of fees to fines goes, I think that lowering the
> filing fee would be a reasonable, if less than dramatic, step. Penalties
> could perhaps be raised.

The only way to raise penalties is to institute minimum penalties for
either certain crimes, or crimes in general.  IMHO, that seems like a bad
idea, because it can create a line beyond which punishment for a crime is
easily made excessive.  Also, the idea of token warning fines would then
go out the window (albeit such fines are only likely to have any use if
there is regular prosecution of crimes).

> > 2.  The long, laborious process.  Due to Supreme Court decision-making
> > difficulties, recent CFCJs under appeal have had to wait for months.
> > Justice should be fair, but justice should ideally also be swift, and the
> > delays were getting beyond a joke.
> 
> I think the problem here lies much more within the Supreme Court than with
> CFCJs. Figure out a way to speed up Court decissions, and the CFCJ problem
> goes away.

That's true.  The question is, how do we actually ensure that the Supreme
Court makes a decision quickly?  If we make the final court of appeal the
entire Supreme Court, then we need to get agreement on a reasoning between
all members.  The alternative would be to require each Justice to write
their own reasoning, and then publish them all, with the individual
verdicts determining the result provided there is at least a 2/3rds
majority on the court.  Justices that fail to provide a reasoning within 2
weeks could be treated as no longer being part of the Supreme Court for
the purposes of that CFJ.

Finally, an idea I had today as an alternative to the politicised nature
of Hearings.  Instead of having Hearings when infringement notices are
appealed, issue infringement notices under similar conditions to CSRs.  If
any justice, other than the player named as the criminal in the IN (if
they are a justice), objects then the IN is discarded, otherwise (as no
other justices have a problem with it) it passes and the penalties are
applied.

Yours,
Slakko
-- 
Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/
Queens' College Cambridge, 2nd Year Ph.D. (Pure Maths) - Graph Theory
Insert random funny line here.

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

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4321 rejected
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:14:46 -0400 (EDT)

JT wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 [email-masked] wrote:
>> Votes to reject:
>>   Calvin N Hobbes       -60    +20  ==> 600
>>   Blest Lax Monk Pal   -140    -40  ==> 799
>>   Alfvaen               -75    +12  ==> 1023
>>   ThinMan               -60    +20  ==> 2376
>>   Rachel L Walmsley    -180    -80  ==> 890
>
>I am curious as to why you folks didn't like this proposal?
>If there was any thing about it that could be changed that would make you
>like it, please let me know.

Most importantly: I don't like the general idea.  I think people should vote
for themselves or not vote.  [The strength (or lack thereof) of this sentiment
is reflected by the absolute value of my vote on the issue.]

In addition, although I didn't see any specific holes in the framework you
proposed, it was sufficiently complex to be open to scamming -- either now
or in the future.

Also, I did note at least one technical problem with the prop.  (The
definitions of the characteristics of a proxy did not match the list of
characteristics that a proxy has.)

ThinMan

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

From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4321 rejected
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:56:19 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> JT wrote:
> >On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 [email-masked] wrote:
> >> Votes to reject:
> >>   Calvin N Hobbes       -60    +20  ==> 600
> >>   Blest Lax Monk Pal   -140    -40  ==> 799
> >>   Alfvaen               -75    +12  ==> 1023
> >>   ThinMan               -60    +20  ==> 2376
> >>   Rachel L Walmsley    -180    -80  ==> 890
> >
> >I am curious as to why you folks didn't like this proposal?
> >If there was any thing about it that could be changed that would make you
> >like it, please let me know.
> 
> Most importantly: I don't like the general idea.  I think people should vote
> for themselves or not vote.  [The strength (or lack thereof) of this sentiment
> is reflected by the absolute value of my vote on the issue.]

There is one case where I do not believe this doctrine should necessarily
be applied.  I believe that when a player is on vacation, their long-term
interest in the game does not suddenly disappear.  However, their ability
to affect possible game changes which have long-term impact is impaired.
Allowing proxies for vacationing players is something I would be very
happy to see implemented (the last set of proxying rules broke down when I
tried to use them when going on vacation).

Yours,
Slakko
-- 
Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/
Queens' College Cambridge, 2nd Year Ph.D. (Pure Maths) - Graph Theory
Insert random funny line here.

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4321 rejected
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:46:45 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, John Bollinger wrote:
> Most importantly: I don't like the general idea.  I think people should vote
> for themselves or not vote.  [The strength (or lack thereof) of this sentiment
> is reflected by the absolute value of my vote on the issue.]

Okay.. That I can respect.

> In addition, although I didn't see any specific holes in the framework you
> proposed, it was sufficiently complex to be open to scamming -- either now
> or in the future.

I actually did a fair amount of work, including having the prop fairly
closely reviewed by other players whose opinions I respect to try and
eliminate any scamming holes.

> Also, I did note at least one technical problem with the prop.  (The
> definitions of the characteristics of a proxy did not match the list of
> characteristics that a proxy has.)

That would be because of a last minute naming change and should be fixed
if I resubmit it.  I'm only vaguely considering doing so at this point.

--JT

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4321 rejected
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:48:33 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote:
> There is one case where I do not believe this doctrine should necessarily
> be applied.  I believe that when a player is on vacation, their long-term
> interest in the game does not suddenly disappear.  However, their ability
> to affect possible game changes which have long-term impact is impaired.
> Allowing proxies for vacationing players is something I would be very
> happy to see implemented (the last set of proxying rules broke down when I
> tried to use them when going on vacation).

This was my primary motivation for attempting to establish these rules as
well.  I did try very hard to make sure that vacationing players who had
given a proxy away would work as intended.

--JT

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Proposal 4328
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:51:13 -0400 (EDT)

From Proposal 4328:

>Replace the first 5 paragraphs of rule 2-2-6 (Let there be Harf) with the
>following 
>---HARFY_NEVER_LOOKED_SO_GOOD-delimited text:
>
>---HARFY_NEVER_LOOKED_SO_GOOD

[...]

>time. The Harfmeister can designate such players "Funky and Stylish" as a
>public action.  This action fails if the player so designated is the
>Harfmeister, or if this action has been performed in the last calendar
>week.  When a player is designated "Funky and Stylish", e gains 5 points. 
>---HARFY_NEVER_LOOKED_SO_GOOD

Shouldn't it be the case that a Funky and Stylish designation fails if the
action has _not_ been performed in the last calendar week?

ThinMan
still working on funk

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

From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: Proposal 4328
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 14:18:14 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, John Bollinger wrote:

> >time. The Harfmeister can designate such players "Funky and Stylish" as a
> >public action.  This action fails if the player so designated is the
> >Harfmeister, or if this action has been performed in the last calendar
> >week.  When a player is designated "Funky and Stylish", e gains 5 points. 
> >---HARFY_NEVER_LOOKED_SO_GOOD
> 
> Shouldn't it be the case that a Funky and Stylish designation fails if the
> action has _not_ been performed in the last calendar week?

!(HM v LCW) => (!HW ^ !LCW)

IB

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: Proposal 4328
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 20:54:04 -0400 (EDT)

At 01:51 PM 8/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>From Proposal 4328:
>
>>Replace the first 5 paragraphs of rule 2-2-6 (Let there be Harf) with the
>>following 
>>---HARFY_NEVER_LOOKED_SO_GOOD-delimited text:
>>
>>---HARFY_NEVER_LOOKED_SO_GOOD
>
>[...]
>
>>time. The Harfmeister can designate such players "Funky and Stylish" as a
>>public action.  This action fails if the player so designated is the
>>Harfmeister, or if this action has been performed in the last calendar
>>week.  When a player is designated "Funky and Stylish", e gains 5 points. 
>>---HARFY_NEVER_LOOKED_SO_GOOD
>
>Shouldn't it be the case that a Funky and Stylish designation fails if the
>action has _not_ been performed in the last calendar week?

Err, perhaps my wording isn't sufficiently clear.  What is meant is this:

If I am Harfmeister, and attempt to declare someone Funky and Stylish, it
fails if:
1) I am declaring myself FnS
2) I have done this already this week

the purpose of 2, of course, is to prevent me from declaring, say, IdiotBoy
Funky and Stylish 300 times in a row, giving him a point win.

If, on rereading this prop, anyone thinks this is poorly specified, I will
retract and resubmit.

-- Emperor Ai! Pedrito! B(Scam)
DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Herald * Rule-Harfer
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Student (Scamology)

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

End of acka-research Digest V4 #151
***********************************