Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #62
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Friday, April 25 1997        Volume 02 : Number 062

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 23:05:20 -0700
From: Joshua Nave <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Organizational Attributes

I wanted to ask Mohammed about this anyway, and since he's broached the
subject...

Could the bot be set up to register secret organizations, maintain a
list, AND... also handle voting within the organization?  For example...
could it be set up so that any member of the Narfalone's could send the
command "#overthrow" and have the bot send a message to all Narfalones,
then record their vote on this issue, etc?  If so, could this be further
expanded?  I have some other ideas that may help streamline a lot of the
current organization rules (which seem to me to have suddenly increased
dramaticly in their complexity)

Narf

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 01:28:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  CGI puzzle prizes (stage 3)

Three winners jumped at the chance to own their share of the PCs offered 
as a prize in the CGI puzzle.  They were Vynd, Antimatter, and Habeous 
Corpus.

I am offering the following trades:
#transfer mohammed, vynd: 2 Processing Chips : CGI puzzle prize
#transfer mohammed, antimatter: 2 Processing Chips : CGI puzzle prize

Habeous Corpus is not a player right now, so I'll keep his 2 PCs in my 
pocket here.

Stage 3:

I am creating a Trinket worth A$ 1 called the Amber Heptahedron.  It is an
oddly cut block of amber about the size of a softball.  Three of its seven
faces are rhombic.  Three of its faces are five-sided shapes.  All the
faces are flat.  The Heptahedron is convex. 

Someone who owns the Amber Heptahedron may give it to me at any time to
cause me to vote YES or NO on any proposal (unless my vote for that
proposal has already been sold.)  This Trinket will go to the first of the
remaining winners to give me A$ 20 or publicly reveal how many edges the
Heptahedron has, giving conclusive reasoning.  Whoever claims the
Heptahedron will be removed from the list.

No non-Euclidean geometry, thanks.

- -- 
Mohammed
Six fools threatened weird Americans.

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 03:16:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Misc: What Phoebe Says

There is a matchbox on my bed.  Red and... I think it's blue, hard to tell
in the halflight streaming coming in through the door behind me.
Definitely a matchbox though, I can always tell about these things.

I just stand in the doorway, hardly even daring to breathe.  I think to
myself...

I don't smoke, do I?  Hrm, no, positive I don't smoke.

The black candles... hrm, no, have something else to light those of
course, how silly of me...

Hrm

Definitely not mine then.

So how did it get here??

I mean, it's on my bed, and it's not mine, and I don't use matches for
anything really.

Well then, someone must have snuck in and left it here.

A cold shiver runs down my spine.  I am not alone.

So, I think to myself, what now?

I could run for the door and try to escape, but no, they'd be expecting
that.  That's what most people would do, after all, if they found a
strange matchbox lying on their bed.  I mean, not just anything, but a
matchbox.  It's ominous, ominous in that it's extremely innocuous, so
subtle that many people probably wouldn't even notice it until it was too
late.  But I'm not like most people, not since, the accident....

...

Err, um, what was happening again?  Where am I... ?  Ah, yes, the
matchbox, it's all coming back now.  Very well, don't run out of the
house.  After all, you've never been out of the house, who knows what's
out there.  Best stick with what I know.  So, what are my other options...
Well, I could um, take the matches and set my house on fire!  Yes, yes, a
brilliant idea!  The smoke and heat will surely force the intruders out!

I rushed to grab the matchbox and carry out my inspiration, knowing that
they would intuit my plan if I did not act quickly.  I screached to a
halt, however, when the matchbox opened.  Something was inside, something
small and shiny.  I was instantly fascinated.

"Hello Vynd," the shiny thing said, "I've been waiting for you."

"Um, hello, err, shiny thing," I stuttered.

The shiny thing peered at me, or at least, that's what it looked like.
Then it said, "Don't you recognize me, Vynd?"

"Well, no, I don't think so.  I have so many small shiny things, I guess I
get them mixed up sometimes.  Most of them don't talk to me though, so I
feel kind of bad about not remembering..."

"I'm Phoebe, the Steel Flea.  Surely you must have heard of me!" the shiny  
thing, err Phoebe, said.

"Oh, I guess you're not mine.  Sorry to have gotten confused there.  Nice
to meet you Phoebe, although I must admit I haven't heard of you before.
I don't really get out much, you see..."

Phoebe seemed rather miffed.  She said, "I'm in the Rules, you don't have 
to 'get out' to hear about me.  You've got a copy right there under
that..." she did a double take, "that, um, thing, with the err, snowcones
sticking out of it.  Haven't you ever read them?"

"Well...  some of them.  The ones I wrote, mostly, but a few other
ones..."

Phoebe stared up (excuse me, down) at the heavens.  "Why don't you go read
the part about me then, Rule 909."

"Phoebe the Steel Flea lives in a mat..."

"Not out loud, Vynd"

"Oh, sorry...   Hrm.  OK, so you like, go around and impart wisdom, or
something?"

"That's the gist of it, yes."

"That's neat.  You make a good living, imparting wisdom?  It sounds like a
good job.  I just got elected Senator, but I bet I could do the imparting
wisdom gig on the side if it's worth it.  I've got lots of good ideas, ya
see.  I was thinking just yesterday how it might be neat if there was
some sort of object that got passed around at random each week, and
whoever has it will get extra points when their proposal pa..."

"The Magic Potato"

"Um, sure, we could call it that, I guess.  Kinda liked my name though,
'The Joyous Zepplin.' It has a nice, strong, ring to it."

"No, Vynd, you misunderstand me.  The object you describe already exists,
and it's name is The Magic Potato.  It's in the rules already, you see."

I was crestfallen.

"Vynd, I came here to impart wisdom to you.  I had intended to explain to
you the five ancient and infallible methods of winning the cycle..."

"Cycle?  Like, a bicycle?  I've already got one of those, althoug if
you're talking about a motorcycle, that'd be pretty cool."

Phoebe glared at me, then continued, "...the cycle, but it is obvious you
are not yet ready for such knowledge.  Instead, I would like to recommend
something far less complicated, but rewarding nonetheless."  Phoebe took a
deep breath, "Read the rules, Vynd."

With that, Phoebe closed her matchbox again.  Almost immediately, it began
to levitate into the air.  It went straight through my ceiling, and the
Chevy Suburban I was using as a light fixture, leaving a neat, matchbox
shaped, hole. Just before it passed out of sight in the area of the
dashboard, Phoebe called out to me, "Oh, and Vynd, try to get more sleep.
I was siting on your bed for 4 days."  And with that final message, Phoebe
was gone.

I think it would be a good idea if, whenever Phoebe comes to visit
someone, they post a message letting everyone know what she said.  That
way, her tremendous wisdom will be shared with all.  I realize a lot of it
may be over most people's heads, but I'm sure that the right people will
benefit in the end.  Thus this post, in which I have passed on Phoebe's
wisdom, as an example to you all.  Now that my task is complete, I think
I shall take Phoebe's advice to heart, well, that last part at least...

                         - Vynd, Crazy French-Scotsman

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 03:30:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  CGI puzzle prizes (stage 3)

On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> Three winners jumped at the chance to own their share of the PCs offered 
> as a prize in the CGI puzzle.  They were Vynd, Antimatter, and Habeous 
> Corpus.
> 
> I am offering the following trades:
> #transfer mohammed, vynd: 2 Processing Chips : CGI puzzle prize

I accept this.  Should I be doing some sort of funky thing for the bot?
Are we ever supposed to do anything for the bot if all we're doing is
accepting something?  I'm still rather confused by the whole thing, I'm
afraid.

                              - Vynd, still not quite in bed yet.....

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 14:43:13 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Gimme Shelter

I bid for the Gimme Shelter A$ 5

CarsesraC

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 14:43:14 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Trade Offers and other transfers

> #transfer Malenkai, CarsesraC : Otzma Card type Foul Fowl : 
> #transfer CarsesraC, Malenkai : 25 A$ :

> #transfer Malenkai, CarsesraC : Little Bag O' Chips E : Auction
> #transfer CarsesraC, Malenkai : 5 A$ : Auction

> #transfer ThinMan, CarsesraC : OCID 123 : Apr 24 1997, sale
> #transfer CarsesraC, ThinMan : 25 A$ : Apr 24 1997, purchase

> #transfer /dev/joe, CarsesraC: 5 A$: bribe for voting

I accept all those transfers

CarsesraC 

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 07:36:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Organizational Attributes

I think almost anything could be tracked with a bot... the question is how 
much we really want to automate.  We can't assume the botmaster will 
always be here (ie Wayne and the original nomicbot).  Aside from the 
(non-trivial) amount of work that goes into writing, testing, and 
maintaining the program, there is the matter that the bot is not 
guaranteed to be able (in fact, is pretty much guaranteed to be unable) 
to cope with all the possible rule changes that might occur.  What would 
happen to it if I were to submit 100 proposals right now?  And the bot 
certainly can't anticipate loophole-surfs it wasn't programmed to 
recognize.

Automation is nice for mundane and time-consuming tasks like Tabulation 
or entity transfer.  I would be weary of making any aspect of the game 
completely dependent on it, though.  The Nomic World MUD crashed because 
of its dependence on automation, and Thring has a web page from three 
cycles of theirs ago that says simply, "The Thring server is currently 
down for repairs" -- a monument to their attempts at automation.  The 
game should be playable without a bot, because there won't always be 
one.

Guy Fawkes

On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Joshua Nave wrote:

> I wanted to ask Mohammed about this anyway, and since he's broached the
> subject...
> 
> Could the bot be set up to register secret organizations, maintain a
> list, AND... also handle voting within the organization?  For example...
> could it be set up so that any member of the Narfalone's could send the
> command "#overthrow" and have the bot send a message to all Narfalones,
> then record their vote on this issue, etc?  If so, could this be further
> expanded?  I have some other ideas that may help streamline a lot of the
> current organization rules (which seem to me to have suddenly increased
> dramaticly in their complexity)
> 
> Narf
> 

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 06:08:18 -0700
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CGI puzzle prize (stage 3) 

> I am creating a Trinket worth A$ 1 called the Amber Heptahedron.  It
> is an oddly cut block of amber about the size of a softball.  Three
> of its seven faces are rhombic.  Three of its faces are five-sided
> shapes.  All the faces are flat.  The Heptahedron is convex.
> 
> This Trinket will go to the first of the remaining winners to give
> me A$ 20 or publicly reveal how many edges the Heptahedron has,
> giving conclusive reasoning.

The seventh face has to be triangular, otherwise two adjoining faces
would have to share more than one edge, which is not possible given
that every other face has more than three sides (and that the
heptahedron is convex, and the faces are flat).

Furthermore, the three five-sided faces must surround the triangular
face if the remaining faces are to have only four sides. Drawing a
Hamilton graph (or two or three) will quickly convince the reader of
this.

If the seventh face is shrunk down to a point, then we are left with a
hexahedron, all six faces having four sides. In other words, a cube -
or, since the faces are only known to be rhomboids, a rhombic
prismoid. The Amber Heptahedron thus essentially has the shape of a
rhombic prismoid with one corner lopped off (giving the seventh
triangular face, and turning the three rhombic faces adjoining that
corner into having five sides). It has ten vertices and fifteen edges.

xebra bod

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 09:29:34 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Gimme Shelter

I bid A$ 10 for the Gimme Shelter.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 09:38:24 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: RFC Organizational Attributes

Mohammed wrote:

> 	Coded entities:  these are entities with secret ownership.
> There 
> is a "code" (say, 15 random letters strung together) for each coded 
> entity, and an officer keeps track of the codes.
> 	If the officer goes AWOL or something equally bad happens, the 
> only solution I can think of is that the entities are destroyed (or 
> simply cannot be used.)
> 	To use a coded entity you own, send its code to the 
> coded-entity-harfer, and e will look it up and verify publically that
> it 
> is owned by the person who is using it.  The code itself stays
> private.
> 	To give the entity to someone, send them the code.  They can
> then 
> tell the coded-entity-harfer they want to change the code.
> 
This could be made more-or-less officer independant by using PGP.  An
entity's public key could be made available, but to use it the owner
would have to demonstrate that they have the corresponding private key.
We would still need someone capable of anonymizing key setting and
changing operations, but we wouldn't need anyone to perform actual
ownership verification.  Of course, the software investment required
is beyond my capabilities.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:09:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Observation

I don't know what to attribute it to... maybe it's a result of the Postal 
Code and asking people to subscribe to acka-voting-digest where it's 
harder to reply to individual proposal messages, or maybe because it's 
possible to vote without even going through the effort of formatting it 
for the bot, but I seem to have noticed a marked lack of debate 
concerning specific proposals lately.  Sure, there's an occasion spat of 
generalizations about a certain type of proposal, or someone brings up a minor 
flaw in a proposal and asks it to be retracted, but the only real specific 
debate I see is unfortunately when a proposal genuiunely offends someone.

In my opinion, this is really a shame of sorts; almost all the fun in 
this game for me lies in the discussion between players, and when 
proposals, the heart of this game, fail to generate that discussion, it 
rather disheartens me.  It seems that for the most part the players cast 
their votes with very little thought as to _why_ they oppose or support 
something -- certainly it seems very rare that the support or opposition is 
strong enough that the players feel it is worth mentioning.
 
There has recently been a spate of rather audacious proposals from 
snowgod and I (among others).  On my part at least, some of them were 
cast without regard to their passability but were instead attempts to 
write something shocking and maybe even offensive enough to provoke _at 
least one player_ to say something about it -- but instead there has not 
been a single peep.  Maybe it's that most of the players don't 
particularly care; if that is the case, I suggest saving the tabulator 
and several other officers some work and replacing the current voting 
mechanism with a random number generator.  Maybe it's because everyone is 
exceptionally busy at this time of year (which is completely 
understandable).  I don't know the cause, but I do find it a distubing 
trend.

Sorry for making this so long,
Guy Fawkes 

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 09:05:16 -0700
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation 

> There has recently been a spate of rather audacious proposals from
> snowgod and I (among others).  On my part at least, some of them
> were cast without regard to their passability but were instead
> attempts to write something shocking and maybe even offensive enough
> to provoke _at least one player_ to say something about it -- but
> instead there has not been a single peep.

I can't speak for others, but for me, such proposals do not incite
discussion in the least. It's quite obvious from the start that no
amount of debate is going to shape the proposal into something both of
us want to see in the ruleset, because my dislike of the idea (or my
dislike of the idea being a rule, to be precise) is not with any of
the details, but is with the idea itself.

Take, for example, snowgod's Binary Me proposal. I laughed when I
found the first version in the proposal archive. I laughed again when
he submitted it this time. But I absolutely do not want to have to
obey that as a rule, and there's no point in starting a discussion
about it. What the hell is there to say? "Hey snowgod, you might have
a better chance of getting that passed if it required hex digits
instead?" About all one can say is: "Pretty outrageous, snowgod. I
laughed, I cried, it became a part of me. By the way, if that sucker
actually passes, I'll kill you."

Or, considering a less extreme example, Making Use of the Gumball. I
don't support that one either, but I imagine it has a chance of
passing. Even so, there's not much I can say. It's pretty blindingly
obvious why players like me don't want that to become a rule, it's
equally obvious why the players who will vote for it do want to have
it as a rule, and I can't imagine what sort of debate could be brought
forth that would affect anyone's opinion. "Don't vote for that
proposal; it's got too many holes in it!" DUH.

Such proposals represent a philosophical difference of opinion, and
I'm not much good at changing other people's philosophies. All I can
do is cast my vote, and see what happens. When those kinds of
proposals get voted in more often than not, then I know I'm in the
minority. But I have no desire to force my minority viewpoint onto
everyone else. That's not why I play this game.

xebra bod

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 09:05:16 -0700
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation 

> There has recently been a spate of rather audacious proposals from
> snowgod and I (among others).  On my part at least, some of them
> were cast without regard to their passability but were instead
> attempts to write something shocking and maybe even offensive enough
> to provoke _at least one player_ to say something about it -- but
> instead there has not been a single peep.

I can't speak for others, but for me, such proposals do not incite
discussion in the least. It's quite obvious from the start that no
amount of debate is going to shape the proposal into something both of
us want to see in the ruleset, because my dislike of the idea (or my
dislike of the idea being a rule, to be precise) is not with any of
the details, but is with the idea itself.

Take, for example, snowgod's Binary Me proposal. I laughed when I
found the first version in the proposal archive. I laughed again when
he submitted it this time. But I absolutely do not want to have to
obey that as a rule, and there's no point in starting a discussion
about it. What the hell is there to say? "Hey snowgod, you might have
a better chance of getting that passed if it required hex digits
instead?" About all one can say is: "Pretty outrageous, snowgod. I
laughed, I cried, it became a part of me. By the way, if that sucker
actually passes, I'll kill you."

Or, considering a less extreme example, Making Use of the Gumball. I
don't support that one either, but I imagine it has a chance of
passing. Even so, there's not much I can say. It's pretty blindingly
obvious why players like me don't want that to become a rule, it's
equally obvious why the players who will vote for it do want to have
it as a rule, and I can't imagine what sort of debate could be brought
forth that would affect anyone's opinion. "Don't vote for that
proposal; it's got too many holes in it!" DUH.

Such proposals represent a philosophical difference of opinion, and
I'm not much good at changing other people's philosophies. All I can
do is cast my vote, and see what happens. When those kinds of
proposals get voted in more often than not, then I know I'm in the
minority. But I have no desire to force my minority viewpoint onto
everyone else. That's not why I play this game.

xebra bod

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:00:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> rather disheartens me.  It seems that for the most part the players cast 
> their votes with very little thought as to _why_ they oppose or support 
> something -- certainly it seems very rare that the support or opposition is 
> strong enough that the players feel it is worth mentioning.
>  

The mere fact that I choose not to solicit my fellow player's "advice and
consent" before casting my vote does not imply that I have given it "very
little thought."  I have not seen, recently, proposals which would affect
my enjoyment of the game tremendously.  I vote for the ones I appreciate,
against the ones which I think might detract, and don't presume to tell
others what they should be doing.  IMHO, it detracts fromt eh discussion
of /true/ issues when you make it your business to yap about every
proposal coming out of the bot.

> There has recently been a spate of rather audacious proposals from 
> snowgod and I (among others).  On my part at least, some of them were 
> cast without regard to their passability but were instead attempts to 
> write something shocking and maybe even offensive enough to provoke _at 
> least one player_ to say something about it -- but instead there has not 

I voted NO on the majority of your proposals, but I a) have faith that
others can see the problems with them, and b) don't see how the game would
be less enjoyable for me if they do pass.

> been a single peep.  Maybe it's that most of the players don't 
> particularly care; if that is the case, I suggest saving the tabulator 
> and several other officers some work and replacing the current voting 
> mechanism with a random number generator.  Maybe it's because everyone is 

That's insulting.

> exceptionally busy at this time of year (which is completely 
> understandable).  I don't know the cause, but I do find it a distubing 
> trend.
> 
> Sorry for making this so long,
> Guy Fawkes 
> 

IB

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:15:45 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Observation

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> I don't know what to attribute it to... maybe it's a result of the
> Postal 
> Code and asking people to subscribe to acka-voting-digest where it's 
> harder to reply to individual proposal messages, or maybe because it's
> 
> possible to vote without even going through the effort of formatting
> it 
> for the bot, but I seem to have noticed a marked lack of debate 
> concerning specific proposals lately.  Sure, there's an occasion spat
> of 
> generalizations about a certain type of proposal, or someone brings up
> a minor 
> flaw in a proposal and asks it to be retracted, but the only real
> specific 
> debate I see is unfortunately when a proposal genuiunely offends
> someone.
> 
> In my opinion, this is really a shame of sorts; almost all the fun in 
> this game for me lies in the discussion between players, and when 
> proposals, the heart of this game, fail to generate that discussion,
> it 
> rather disheartens me.  It seems that for the most part the players
> cast 
> their votes with very little thought as to _why_ they oppose or
> support 
> something -- certainly it seems very rare that the support or
> opposition is 
> strong enough that the players feel it is worth mentioning.
>  
> There has recently been a spate of rather audacious proposals from 
> snowgod and I (among others).  On my part at least, some of them were 
> cast without regard to their passability but were instead attempts to 
> write something shocking and maybe even offensive enough to provoke
> _at 
> least one player_ to say something about it -- but instead there has
> not 
> been a single peep.  Maybe it's that most of the players don't 
> particularly care; if that is the case, I suggest saving the tabulator
> 
> and several other officers some work and replacing the current voting 
> mechanism with a random number generator.  Maybe it's because everyone
> is 
> exceptionally busy at this time of year (which is completely 
> understandable).  I don't know the cause, but I do find it a distubing
> 
> trend.
> 
Writing outrageous proposals is usually not an effective way to get
_me_ to comment.  In such cases I generally figure that the author is
not interested in hearing comments to the effect of "Your proposal has
no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and I categorically refuse to vote
for it."  Moreover, I figure that the characteristics that contribute
to my opinion of such a proposal are sufficiently obvious that I need
not enumerate them for the other players.  I certainly care, and I
vote accordingly.

In general, I comment on proposals and RFCs as time, energy, and
interest permit.  Time is usually the one in shortest supply, but I
admit to, at times, a lack of energy to analyze complex RFCs.  And my
avoidance of categorical denunciations could be classified as a lack
of interest.  If I truly found something _offensive_ then I imagine
I would, indeed, say so.  Instead, however, I more typically find
proposals either good, bad, or inane.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:00:13 -0700
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 371 Appeal: Conflict of Interest 

After much heated discussion with mr cwm, I have determined that we
cannot convince ourselves that CFJ 371 definitely should be ruled
False. Therefore, this CFJ represents a Conflict of Interest for me
and I must decline to judge it as per Rule 417.

I apologize for waiting so long to do this, and I promise to whoever
is selected to judge it in my stead that I shall reimburse them for
all late fees they may have to pay as a result.

xebra bod

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:14:42 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 371 Appeal: Conflict of Interest

> After much heated discussion with mr cwm, I have determined that we
> cannot convince ourselves that CFJ 371 definitely should be ruled
> False. Therefore, this CFJ represents a Conflict of Interest for me
> and I must decline to judge it as per Rule 417.
> 
> I apologize for waiting so long to do this, and I promise to whoever
> is selected to judge it in my stead that I shall reimburse them for
> all late fees they may have to pay as a result.
> 
As Praetor, that would be me.  mr cwm, please send me what you've got.

ThinMan
Praetor

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:19:10 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Observation

IdiotBoy wrote:

> The mere fact that I choose not to solicit my fellow player's "advice
> and
> consent" before casting my vote does not imply that I have given it
> "very
> little thought."  I have not seen, recently, proposals which would
> affect
> my enjoyment of the game tremendously.  I vote for the ones I
> appreciate,
> against the ones which I think might detract, and don't presume to
> tell
> others what they should be doing.  IMHO, it detracts fromt eh
> discussion
> of /true/ issues when you make it your business to yap about every
> proposal coming out of the bot.
> 
[...]

> I voted NO on the majority of your proposals, but I a) have faith that
> others can see the problems with them, and b) don't see how the game
> would
> be less enjoyable for me if they do pass.
> 
I'm not sure what to think about the comparison, but sometimes it seems
that IdiotBoy is my good twin.

ThinMan
snowgod's evil twin
/dev/joe's evil twin
Malenkai's ironic twin

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:27:07 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Observation

I wrote:

> Instead, however, I more typically find
> proposals either good, bad, or inane.
> 
I should add that fun and harf both transcend the classifications I
mentioned, although for me they do tend to push proposals towards the
left-hand side of that scheme.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 15:06:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> I don't know what to attribute it to... maybe it's a result of the Postal 
> Code and asking people to subscribe to acka-voting-digest where it's 
> harder to reply to individual proposal messages, or maybe because it's 

Yes, blame the Postal Code.  It's worked well for me in the past.

> possible to vote without even going through the effort of formatting it 
> for the bot, but I seem to have noticed a marked lack of debate 
> concerning specific proposals lately.  Sure, there's an occasion spat of 
> generalizations about a certain type of proposal, or someone brings up a minor 
> flaw in a proposal and asks it to be retracted, but the only real specific 
> debate I see is unfortunately when a proposal genuiunely offends someone.
> 
> In my opinion, this is really a shame of sorts; almost all the fun in 
> this game for me lies in the discussion between players, and when 
> proposals, the heart of this game, fail to generate that discussion, it 
> rather disheartens me.  It seems that for the most part the players cast 
> their votes with very little thought as to _why_ they oppose or support 
> something -- certainly it seems very rare that the support or opposition is 
> strong enough that the players feel it is worth mentioning.
>  
> There has recently been a spate of rather audacious proposals from 
> snowgod and I (among others).  On my part at least, some of them were 
> cast without regard to their passability but were instead attempts to 
> write something shocking and maybe even offensive enough to provoke _at 
> least one player_ to say something about it -- but instead there has not 
> been a single peep.  Maybe it's that most of the players don't 
> particularly care; if that is the case, I suggest saving the tabulator 
> and several other officers some work and replacing the current voting 
> mechanism with a random number generator.  Maybe it's because everyone is 
> exceptionally busy at this time of year (which is completely 
> understandable).  I don't know the cause, but I do find it a distubing 
> trend.

Well, frankly I haven't seen many proposals lately that were really
creating any kind of major change.  The Entity Exchange stuff was probably
the last big one, and there was a modest debate over that one, although
apparently not enough of one considering what happened after it passed.  I
tend to agree with brea.. err, xebra bod, that there isn't much point in
getting into long debates over proposals like Binary Me, or Thank you 
Yakko, since there really isn't much common ground to talk about.  So I
guess to that extent you could say that yeah, I don't care too much about
a lot of the proposals.  This isn't to say that I don't care if they pass
or fail, I cackled madly when Thank you Yakko passed, and I would drop
dead if Binary Me went through.  It's just that they aren't really
interesting for anything but the shock value, so far as I can see.  Not
that I have anything against shock value, believe you me.  Furthermore, I
am indeed rather busy right now, some days I barely have the time to read
the proposals, let alone respond to them.

As far as sparking more debate goes, well, you've started one here.  You
seem to be pretty good at it.  I'd recommend that you mount vicious
attacks on other people's proposals and see what kind of response that
gets.  Seriously.  Failing vicious attacks, starting up the debates
yourself, rather than trying to manufacture them with wacky proposals,
might work pretty well.

                         - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 22:01:01 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: acrobot and retraction

#retract proposal 1964

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 22:29:12 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: acrobot and retraction again

#retract proposal 1965

Sorry everyone, I'll get it right eventually

Bascule

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:40:40 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation 

>I don't know what to attribute it to... maybe it's a result of the Postal
>Code and asking people to subscribe to acka-voting-digest where it's
>harder to reply to individual proposal messages, or maybe because it's

Thats it.  People don't reply to the voting messages because they are
signed up to acka-voting-digest and it makes it a lot harder to even think
of them as individual messages.  Why, just today I was thinking of changing
back to the non digest version (I got sick of wading through 25k proposals
to find the good stuff), and now I think I will.

>possible to vote without even going through the effort of formatting it
>for the bot, but I seem to have noticed a marked lack of debate
>concerning specific proposals lately.  Sure, there's an occasion spat of
>generalizations about a certain type of proposal, or someone brings up a
>minor
>flaw in a proposal and asks it to be retracted, but the only real specific
>debate I see is unfortunately when a proposal genuiunely offends someone.

would we be speaking of me here? :)

>There has recently been a spate of rather audacious proposals from
>snowgod and I (among others).  On my part at least, some of them were
>cast without regard to their passability but were instead attempts to
>write something shocking and maybe even offensive enough to provoke _at

Mine weren't made to provoke discussion.  They were just proposed in the
interest of fun and dillyness and beating CnH to 100 failed proposals, but
I gotta say, if Binary Me somehow passes, I would die laughing and you guys
would probably have my head (but that's another proposal altoghter :)

>least one player_ to say something about it -- but instead there has not
>been a single peep.  Maybe it's that most of the players don't
>particularly care; if that is the case, I suggest saving the tabulator
>and several other officers some work and replacing the current voting
>mechanism with a random number generator.  Maybe it's because everyone is
>exceptionally busy at this time of year (which is completely
>understandable).  I don't know the cause, but I do find it a distubing
>trend.

snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 21:24:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

Guy Fawkes wrote:
 
> I don't know what to attribute it to... maybe it's a result of the Postal
> Code and asking people to subscribe to acka-voting-digest where it's
> harder to reply to individual proposal messages, 

I am not on the digest version of acka-voting, and the above is one 
of the reasons.  I do believe it inhibits comments.  Also, I have 
sometimes  thought there was an underlying "don't waste bandwidth"
mentality in acka as well, as you will find elsewhere on the 'net,
especially with 'net veterans.  I could be completely wrong ;-)

> I seem to have noticed a marked lack of debate concerning specific
> proposals lately.

No offense intended towards snowgod, as this is all behind us, but the
comments I received in response to my comments about ETP have made me
reluctant to make *any* comments on *any* proposals in the future, for
fear of them being taken the wrong way.  For me, its more important to
keep the peace than risk comments about a proposal being taken personally
or coming out wrong and make the game less enjoyable for someone else.
Please don't take *this* the wrong way :).  Someone asked for a reason
and I am giving one.  Sometimes the truth is harsh :)

> but the only real specific debate I see is unfortunately when a
> proposal genuiunely offends someone.

To be honest, I have not seen anything that wows me lately, but have
seen some bandwidth-wasting gizz that I could not add value to by 
commenting on.  I must say that I rather *liked* the indentured thing,
however, and was somewhat suprised when it failed.
 
> It seems that for the most part the players cast their votes with
> very little thought as to _why_ they oppose or support something --
> certainly it seems very rare that the support or opposition is
> strong enough that the players feel it is worth mentioning.

This generalization is misplaced.  I feel fairly strongly about just
about every proposal (even if its about my score improvement if nothing
else).  However, I figure people are tired of my comments, especially
when, quite honestly, I have not seen to much come through the queue
lately that I personally like, and don't want every comment to be
"I don't like this".  For example, I personally disliked the organizational
re-org, and dislike proposals that re-word the writing of others.  People
know this; I don't need to say it every time such a proposal comes
through the queue.
 
> Maybe it's that most of the players don't particularly care; if that
> is the case, I suggest saving the tabulator and several other officers
> some work and replacing the current voting mechanism with a random
> number generator.

To some extent, I don't care.  Many proposals lately will not change the
way the game is played.  I simply vote for points on those.  I do not
care about all aspects of the game.  On such proposals as well, I will
again vote for points.  For example, 1962, 1960, 1957, and 1956 will not
change the way the game is played, if accepted, or I do not care about the
aspect of the game they regulate.  Perfect candidates for scoreboard
voting.  As for the gizz they will add to the rules, I'm used to playing
role-playing games with rulebooks a meter thick; it does not bother me
at all to have a large ruleset.  Also, I'm perfectly desensitized to the
BWG in acka's ruleset :)  Given the categorization of the rules and the
rules by 100s on wilma, the long download no longer works as an argument --
its actually *faster* now because you know what hundred to go straight
to.

I will say the area of interest to me is competetion and "game-like"
stuff.  Examples include the Runestone of Jukkasjarvi, Hidden Adjenda
(qv Phoebe's last post), winning conditions, treasure hunts, and 
subgames.  Since my attempts to solicit comments about these areas
have been unsuccessful for the most part (qv Phoebe's last post again),
I generally feel people do not hold the same level of interest in
these "game-like" things as myself (or do not have the time), and
have consequently invested my energy elsewhere, rather than make
comments about what is in the queue currently, or develop these ideas
to a playable level.

> Maybe it's because everyone is exceptionally busy at this time of year

I am exceptionally busy at this time planning some travel.

> I don't know the cause, but I do find it a distubing trend.

I have given you several reasons from my POV, hope it helps.

Malenkai
Exptert in Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #62
******************************