Subject: acka-research Digest V5 #1
From: [email-masked]
To: acka-research digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 00:00:05 -0500 (EST)

acka-research Digest	Thursday, January 06 2000	Volume: 05  Issue: 001

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

From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4394 rejected
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 22:47:53 -0500 (EST)

At 03:31 PM 1/6/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Votes to accept:
>  Ape Idiom Reporter     60    +20  ==> 40
>  Quoth the Raven       100         ==> 0
>  Blest Lax Monk Pal     60    +20  ==> 20
>
>Votes to reject:
>  Studge                -60    +20  ==> 20
>  Cthulhu              -100         ==> 0
>
> Proposal 4394
> She's An Angel 4394
> Quoth the Raven
> Status: rejected
> 
> 
> Ackanomic (the good one, not the one where everything got repealed) is
still 
> officially alive, as will be proved in subsequent days and weeks by the
huge 
> flurry of proposals generated.

I just wanted to point out that I totally agreed with the spirit of this
prop, but it had the same problem as the mistaken release of the prop that
started this whole mess in the first place:  a statement to be included in
a rule instead of a statement about how the rules were to be changed.

Go Team!... but also, Go Clarity!

:)

Studge

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

From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC a duty to propose
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 22:49:30 -0500 (EST)

At 10:57 AM 1/5/00 -0500, you wrote:
>This is just a vague idea at the moment based upon something that they 
>either have, had or were going to have at some point in Agora.
>
>There exists a list of all voting players. Whenever a player makes a 
>proposal e is moved to the bottom of the list. Every week the active player 
>nearest the top of the list has to make a proposal or suffers some sort of 
>penalty. If they fail to make the proposal during the week they are moved to 
>the bottom of the list anyway.
>
>Ideas anyone? Is it worth me writin this up properly or is everyone just 
>going to vote against it anyway?
>

I think that duties will interfere with the harfiness of Acka.  Especially
considering Acka's precarious status.  It doesn't have a whole lot of
strength to be demanding much of people right now.

Studge

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

From: "Rachel Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4394 rejected
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 23:47:24 -0500 (EST)

>I just wanted to point out that I totally agreed with the spirit of this
>prop, but it had the same problem as the mistaken release of the prop that
>started this whole mess in the first place:  a statement to be included in
>a rule instead of a statement about how the rules were to be changed.

Well, not exactly. It was actually intended to be a null proposal :-). I 
knew that it would have had absolutely no effect if it had passed, so I 
don't mind much that it hasn't :-).

Quoth the "hmm, 04:44, time for bed perhaps?" Ravel. Or something.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

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

End of acka-research Digest V5 #1
*********************************