Subject: ackanomic Digest V4 #202
From: [email-masked]
To: ackanomic digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:00:02 -0400 (EDT)

ackanomic Digest	Thursday, July 29 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 202

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

From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Odd Man Out continues
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:14:44 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Joseph DeVincentis wrote:

> JT's 7-member set:
> two       -- All the rest have a duplicate letter.
> twelve    -- All the rest have an odd number of letters.
> sixteen   -- All the rest start with T.
> thirtytwo -- All the rest can be counted on just fingers and toes.
> tenth     -- All the rest are cardinal numbers.
> three     -- All the rest represent multiples of two.
> thimaanya -- All the rest are in English (thimaanya is 8 in Iraqi)

There is no Iraqi language.
There are various regional dialects of spoken Arabic, some of which are
spoken in Iraq, and not in other places.
The names of numbers are pretty similar across dialects, mostly with
differences in pronunciation. They also similar to the names of the
numbers in Hebrew.

Uri

> 
> The number theme has been done a fair bit, but this is distinct enough to
> be accepted.  (Note, though, that this significantly reduces the space
> of still-acceptable number-sets.)
> 
> scores: Odd Man Out
> ThinMan: 3
> Laa Laa: 2
> else...if: 4
> EAP: 3
> JT: 3
> 
> /dev/joe
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of ackanomic Digest V4 #200
> *******************************
> 

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

From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Odd Man Out
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:16:07 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Joseph DeVincentis wrote:

> After repeated attempts by JT to produce an acceptable list in this scheme,
> I am accepting this 9-member list:
> 
> Joseph        -- All the rest have 5 letters.
> Jesus         -- All of the rest are only usable as names. (Jesus is also
>                commonly used as an exclamation of disgust)
> Julia         -- All the rest are names which can refer to men.
> Trent         -- All the rest begin with J.
> James         -- None of the rest are common last names.
Juila is used as a last name.

> Jorge         -- All of the rest are commonin America.
> Jules         -- None of the others have a homonym.
> Jamie         -- All of the others are gender specific names.
> Jeffy         -- All of the others are formal names. (Jamie is both a
>                formal name and nickname.  I have never heard Jeffy used
>                in a forma situation)
> 
> EAP also asked me to reiterate my objection to lists in which all the
> reasons are variations on the same theme, and provided an endlessly
> extensible example:
> 
> 3*5*7*... : not divisible by 2
> 2*  5*7*... : not divisible by 3
> 2*3*  7*... : not divisible by 5
> 2*3*5*  ... : not divisible by 7
> ..           ...
> 
> Don't submit stuff like this, unless you think you have a particularly
> creative one.  However, it's OK to include a couple entries with reasons
> like this in a list where they do not represent an overwhelmingly large
> portion of the list.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Odd Man Out continues
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:47:53 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Uri Bruck wrote:
> > JT's 7-member set:
> > two       -- All the rest have a duplicate letter.
> > twelve    -- All the rest have an odd number of letters.
> > sixteen   -- All the rest start with T.
> > thirtytwo -- All the rest can be counted on just fingers and toes.
> > tenth     -- All the rest are cardinal numbers.
> > three     -- All the rest represent multiples of two.
> > thimaanya -- All the rest are in English (thimaanya is 8 in Iraqi)
> 
> There is no Iraqi language.
> There are various regional dialects of spoken Arabic, some of which are
> spoken in Iraq, and not in other places.
> The names of numbers are pretty similar across dialects, mostly with
> differences in pronunciation. They also similar to the names of the
> numbers in Hebrew.

Okay.. I found this on a web page listing the numbers 1-10 in a large
number of languages.  Given that it was accurate for every language I
could actually count to 10 in (about 5), I saw no reason to doubt its
veracity in this regard.

--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: Odd Man Out
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:48:58 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Uri Bruck wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Joseph DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > After repeated attempts by JT to produce an acceptable list in this scheme,
> > I am accepting this 9-member list:
> > 
> > Joseph        -- All the rest have 5 letters.
> > Jesus         -- All of the rest are only usable as names. (Jesus is also
> >                commonly used as an exclamation of disgust)
> > Julia         -- All the rest are names which can refer to men.
> > Trent         -- All the rest begin with J.
> > James         -- None of the rest are common last names.
> Juila is used as a last name.

That is why the caveat was 'common'.  Yes, Raul Julia has Julia as his
last name, however it is not *common*.

--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: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 15:15:34 -0400 (EDT)

I go on vacation with an estimated date of return of this Tuesday. I
appologise profusely to everybody for not submitting moves in subgames,
replying to CFJ reasoning, holding a nomination for treasure harfer,
voting and all other such things. I meant to do them but time somehow
seemed to dissapear on me.

Laa Laa.

-- 
Tom "I am not a walrus" Walmsley. mailto:[email-masked]
http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html ICQ: 2925739
"Among wizards?" said Ridcully. "Mister Stibbons, unusual behaviour is
perfectly ordinary for wizards." - Terry Pratchett, The Last Continent

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Thesis
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:25:21 -0400 (EDT)

I perform the conversion of 1 mannna to A$2 13 times to supply myself with the
SHF.

Submitted as a Thesis for a Bachelor's in Scamology:

Limited Statistical Analysis of Selected Proposals and Results with regard to
Scam and Scamology in Ackanomic, Year Four, Months Four through Six

Table of Contents:
Section I       Abstract
Section II      Introduction
Section III     Proposals
Section IV      Proposal Data
Section V       Voting Data
Section VI      Sample Response
Section VII     Analysis and Conclusion

I. Abstract
An analysis of the votes and proposal submissions of a convenient sample of 11
players of Ackanomic over a 3 month period.  Data includes sample's responses
to questionnaire and voting expenditures of sample members, P4153-P4254  

II. Introduction

While I must laud the other students and alumni of Ackanomic University, and
congratulate them on the veracity and intelligence of their theses, I must
also
confess a certain apprehension about the scope of these theses.  It was
obvious
that /dev/joe's thesis, while correct in every detail, was unable to go into
the minutiae of the specific treasures involved, e.g.: "Treasures 113, 114,
118, 121, 124, 127, 129, 132, 133, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 147, 151, and
155 were other encodings." (1)  Else...if's theses were more ambitious still,
and made broad, sweeping statements such as "There is a single factor which
distinguishes nomics which succeed at this stage from those which fail" (2)

I do not presume to argue with my distinguished colleagues about their chosen
areas of concentration, nor do I condemn them for attempting such ambitious
projects.  They are widely acclaimed as masters in their respective fields,
and
are articulate, analytical writers whose points are undeniably true.  However,
I felt it would be inappropriate to attempt a full analysis of Scamology in
Ackanomic during this stage of my University career.  

I therefore restrict my analysis to the scams of the last quarter, that is
from
April 23 through July 23.  To further focus my research, I decided to take as
my statistical test subjects the 11 players who responded to my questionnaire
on scamology, and to only analyze those scams and scam-related activities that
occurred in proposals, since their record is public, clear, and unambiguous. 
These players are:

404 not found, A German Dog, Blest Lax Monk Pal, /dev/joe, K 2, King Felix,
rufus, Slakko, Studge, ThinMan, and Vynd, who I will refer to as subjects A
through K, respectively.

This group represents a good sample of Ackanomic's oldest and most active
players.  Since the survey details were confidential, I can only give a
statistical rundown on how players' self-images compared with actual action; I
cannot fully explain the consistencies and discrepancies of each.   For the
remainder of this thesis, I refer to these players as A through K,
respectively.

The number of proposals involved, and the difficulty of quantitatively
measuring scam means that even this topic is much too broad.  I have
arbitrarily divided the proposals between 4153 and 4254 into pro-scam,
anti-scam, and scam-neutral, according to various basic premises and
experiential and empirical knowledge of the field.  I attempt in this
thesis to
perform an in-depth analysis of the statistical data of the proposals in this
range, but my analysis cannot begin to approach completeness or even the level
of thoroughness that I would like.  The rest of the thesis is arranged as
follows:

Section III explains the distinction among my three categories and discusses
(briefly) my reasons for each choice.  Section IV consists of proposal
submission data for the players involved, and section V consists of voting
data.  Section VI focuses on questionnaire results, and Section VII is my
analysis of the data and conclusion.

Section III. Proposals

In Ackanomic, scam is a nebulous term, and as such is difficult to pin down or
define absolutely.  However, often there is consensus on which acts and
proposals were scammy or scam-oriented.  I call those proposals pro-scam
which,
acknowledged at the time or not, were conducive to acts of a scammy nature.  I
call proposals which consciously reduced the probability of scammy acts to a
significant degree anti-scam, and call those proposals which were neither
pro-scam nor anti-scam, scam-neutral.  Many scam-neutral proposals have some
effect on scam; the designation Scam-Neutral merely means that their positive
effect is small and their negative effect, if any, is unintentional.  

Many proposals in Ackanomic can be divided into a few basic types:

Fixes: These are proposals that eliminate holes or inconsistencies in the
rules.  They are generally anti-scam or scam-neutral, although a few, because
of careless wording, are pro-scam

Tweaks: These are minor changes to the ruleset that are almost always
scam-neutral

Cleanups: These are minor changes such as spelling fixes and elimination of
old
references.  While these are nominally anti-scam, their effect is so small
that
it is safe to consider them scam-neutral

Null: These are fluff proposals that have little or no real game effect. 
Examples include 4164(Order of the Fifteen Minutes) and 4168 (Nothing but
Furniture).  While the latter was actually a null proposal, the former was
not,
showing that Null, as I use it to describe a proposal, is not overtly related
to nullity as defined by the rules of Ackanomic.  Nearly all null proposals
are
scam-neutral

Repeals: These are usually scam-neutral, occasionally employed to snuff out
scam, and often pro-scam because of carelessness.  It is rare that a repeal
eliminates all references to the repealed rules and entities; depending on
what
part of a rule structure remains, this can be meaningless bait for a Cleanup
prop OR some very pro-scam leftovers.

Most other proposals add something new to the rules, but because these include
concepts that are by definition unexplored in Acka, they are capable of being
any of the three, and should be examined on a case basis.

Here, accompanied by explanations, are the proposals which I consider to be
pro-scam, anti-scam, and scam-neutral, excluding the retracted proposals 4193,
4202, 4217, 4230, and 4252, and the nonexistent proposals 4240 and 4241.  P
designates a Pro-Scam proposal, A an Anti-Scam proposal, and N a Scam-Neutral
proposal:

4153: P Defined war, opened the door for war scams (c.f. Phoebe's Wisdom,
7/17/99)
4154: P Created war with Agora, caused war scam potentiality (Ibid.) 
4155: N Defined Unaming (Naming with numbering)
4156: N Party Chess/Institutions fix
4157: N Offices fix, cutting out dead wood
4158: N Rule-Harfer tweak
4159: N Sphere tweak
4160: N INTO fix
4161: N Mass repeal/Rules reset
4162: N Mass repeal of all but chess rules
4163: N Repeal of chess rules
4164: N Null: Order of Fifteen Minutes
4165: P Mass repeal, created multiple scams.  Most infamously, the repeal of
AFP helped along the war scam of P4153, and the loss of happiness led to the
Ode to Joy scandal later on.
4166: N Otzma repeal
4167: N Mass repeal
4168: N Null: Furniture
4169: P a Random Proposal, left the door open for scammy props of the past.
4170: N Lit List tweak
4171: N Chemist Flea, new elements/compounds
4172: P Fuzzy Diktat, gave 3 players control over the ruleset
4173: P Treasury depletion, gave each voter A$3000
4174: N Sphere tweak
4175: N Sphere tweak
4176: N Speaker tweak
4178: P Declaration of War: Canada, helped various war scams
4179: N Crime fix
4180: N Null: Anti-Canada propaganda
4181: N Games repeal
4182: N Puzzle Piece cleanup
4183: N Speaker tweak
4184: N Web-Harfer tweak
4185: N Map-Harfer tweak
4186: P Defined Tyrant -- gave players an incentive to attempt to control
Ackan
votes.
4187: A Limited VC increases
4188: N Null: useless prop
4189: N Null: anti-vowel prop
4190: N Modesty repeal
4191: N Mass Repeal
4192: N Subcommittee tweak
4194: N SHF tweak
4195: N The Town
4196: N Games Repeal
4197: N Paradigm/APP cleanup
4198: N Ingesting
4199: A Limited Cheesium Creation
4200: P Pomp and Circumstance ASS song, generated the ASS token used in the
Ode
to Joy scam
4201: A Limited High VC abuse
4203: N Speaker fix
4204: P Cover Prop for Ode to Joy Scam
4205: P Cover Prop for Ode to Joy Scam
4206: P Cover Prop for Ode to Joy Scam
4207: P Linchpin for Ode to Joy Scam
4208: N Summarizer
4209: N Subgames repeal
4210: N Otzma repeal
4211: N Boredom tweak
4212: N Organization cleanup
4213: P Defined Tweaks, would have allowed rule changes as public actions,
given enough camouflage
4214: N Path through the Wilds
4215: N Chess repeal
4216: N Math Troll and Chemicals
4218: P Polymerization, "prolly a scam waiting to happen" (3)
4219: N Codified pragmatism fix
4220: N Harfer protection tweak/fix
4221: N Colour tweak    
4222: N Omnibus cleanup
4223: A Limited Conversions and fixed VC abuse
4224: A Ended the Ode to Joy Diktat
4225: A Made VC range smaller
4226: A Limited Treasury Funds
4227: N Observer tweak
4228: N Bacon tweak
4229: N Locations Fix
4231: A Limited Illuminatine creation
4232: N Omnibus cleanup
4233: N War tweak, would have eliminated the War Scam, but unintentional
4234: N True names repeal
4235: N Time zone tweak
4236: N Ackanomicon fix
4237: P Scoring change for voters and proposers, would have caused the next
player to propose and vote on an accepted prop win the cycle
4238: N Crescent fix
4239: N Newspaper fix
4242: N OC repeal
4243: N Elements
4244: N Tower tweak
4245: P Caused 4246 to pass, would have generated an Ackanomic Unity Day
4246: N Omnibus fix
4247: N Proposal submission tweak
4248: N Rule cleanup
4249: N Null: mass rename
4250: N Viruses tweak
4251: N Crescent tweak
4253: N Supreme court cleanup
4254: N Null: shrubbery rule

Of these, the only scam-neutral proposals that fall in the last category are:
4155, 4171, 4195, 4198, 4208, 4214, 4216, 4243.  All of these were
proposals to
add something new to the rules.  4155 defined a new type of naming, a
profoundly unscammy addition to the rules.  4171 had potentiality for
scamminess, as it provided an alternate way of generating puzzle pieces,
but by
that time, puzzle pieces were repealed, and later proposals further eliminated
the possibilities for scam.  4195 defined the Town, but although miswording in
the proposal left numerous holes in the rules, no players tried to take
advantage of it before it was fixed.  4198 defined ingestion of chemicals,
which, while scammy-seeming, was too limited and negative in orientation to
allow for much in the way of scams.  4208 defined the new office of
Summarizer,
another very unscammy proposal.  4214 provided for the Road, which would have
generated money at the expense of voting.  Again, while this seemed somewhat
scammy, there was no real advantage to be gained over anything but the long
run, making this proposal difficult to accurately call a scam.  4216 defined
the Evil Math Troll again, as well as a couple of new elements.  There was
little to no opportunity for scam therein.  4243 also defined new elements,
and
all nay-sayings on acka-research to the contrary, was totally harmless.

Thus, the proposals whose results will be examined in detail in this thesis
are:

Pro-Scam: 4153(A), 4154(A), 4165(A), 4169(A), 4172(R), 4173(R), 4178(R),
4186(A), 4200(A), 4204-4207(R?), 4213(R), 4218(A), 4237(R), 4245(R)
Anti-Scam: 4187(R), 4199(A), 4201(A), 4223-4226(A), 4231(A)

IV. Proposal Data

Proposals during period in question:  
94 Total (100%): 
17 Pro-Scam (18.1%): 7(41%) Accepted, 10(59%) Rejected
08 Anti-Scam (8.5%): 7(88%) Accepted, 1(13%) Rejected
69 Scam-Neutral (73.4%): 

For each test subject, I now submit a line of data.  The first number is the
total number of proposals the subject submitted during Ackanomic quarter 14. 
The second number is the number of these that were pro-scam, and the third and
fourth are this number represented as percentages of their total proposal
activity and of the total pro-scam activity of the quarter.  The fifth, sixth,
and seventh serve the same function for anti-scam proposals.

PA  1      0   0   0      0   0  0
PB  3      0   0   0      0   0  0
PC  0      0   *   0      0   *  0
PD  1      0   0   0      1 100 13
PE 24      4  17  24      5  21 63
PF 10      1  10   6      0   0  0
PG  1      1 100   6      0   0  0
PH  4      1  25   6      0   0  0
PI  5      4  80  24      0   0  0
PJ  0      0   *   0      0   *  0
PK  0      0   *   0      0   *  0

V. Voting Data

For the 94 proposals in the period in question, I have created the following
table of data, which may be out of alignment in certain fonts due to tab
characters.  I have tried to make it as uniform as possible, and I
apologize if
anyone's mail-viewing programs render it difficult to read.

Note that for the purposes of computing the absolute average vote and the
average mannna expenditure per proposal, I divide by the number of proposals
voted upon.  This means that these averages would be closer to zero in cases
where the player in question abstained on any of the proposals in a group of
proposals.  Because there are many reasons for abstentions, I felt that
including abstentions as a 0-vote in my analysis would cause an undue
change in
the statistics involved.

Key:
High: The highest vote on any of the proposals in a group of proposals.
Low: The lowest vote on any of the proposals in a group of proposals.
Ave: The average vote on all the proposals in a group of proposals.
Abs: The average absolute value of the votes on all the proposals in a
group of
proposals
Tot: The number of proposals for which a vote was recorded
Man: The net change in Mannna due to the standard mannna costs and rewards:

"a) Players who cast a vote with an absolute value greater than 100 loose
[sic]
100 less than the absolute value of their vote in Mannna.  
b) Players who cast a vote with an absolute value between 60 and 100,
inclusive, gain 50 less half the absolute value of their vote, rounded
down, in
Mannna. 
c) Players who cast a vote with an absolute value less than 60 gain 20
Mannna."(4)

Ave Man: The average mannna change per proposal voted on
Total Ave: The average vote of all Ackanomic players' votes on a group of
proposals
Total AbsAv: The average absolute value of all Ackanomic players' votes on a
group of proposals
Tot Man: The total net mannna change in Ackanomic due to the standard mannna
costs and rewards
Ave Man: The average mannna change per vote of all Ackanomic players' votes on
a group of proposals

For all 94 proposals in the group:

High    Low     Ave     Abs     Tot     Man     Ave Man
PA:     100     100     100     100     7       0       0
PB:     400     -400    8       78      93      -310    -4
PC:     400     -140    -8      85      63      180     2
PD:     120     -150    4       65      92      1145    12
PE:     300     -300    54      104     85      -2239   -27
PF:     300     -100    34      53      81      1200    14
PG:     200     -100    8       28      30      451     15
PH:     100     -300    5       77      26      156     6
PI:     200     -200    41      70      79      1018    12
PJ:     100     -100    12      48      68      1220    17
PK:     100     -115    -40     89      8       5       0
Total Ave: 22  Total AbsAv: 70  Tot Man: 6447 Ave Man: 5

For the 17 Pro-Scam proposals:

        High    Low     Ave     Abs     Tot     Man     Ave Man
PA:     100     100     100     100     1       0       0
PB:     400     -400    -26     130     17      -620    -37
PC:     200     -100    -15     88      12      20      1
PD:     120     -150    -63     80      15      30      2
PE:     300     -300    13      135     15      -720    -48
PF:     300     -60     27      78      14      20      1
PG:     7       -100    -25     28      6       100     16
PH:     60      60      60      60      4       80      20
PI:     160     -60     70      78      14      120     8
PJ:     60      -100    -35     69      10      120     12
PK:     100     -115    -70     102     6       -15     -3
Total Ave: 4  Total AbsAv: 87  Tot Man: -814 Ave Man: -5

For the 8 Anti-Scam proposals:

        High    Low     Ave     Abs     Tot     Man     Ave Man
PA:     *       *       0       0       0       0       0
PB:     100     -80     10      65      8       110     13
PC:     140     60      70      70      8       100     12
PD:     100     -100    37      62      8       120     15
PE:     300     -5      96      97      8       -142    -18
PF:     60      -60     1       32      8       160     20
PG:     6       4       5       5       2       40      20
PH:     60      -60     0       60      2       40      20
PI:     60      -121    -8      67      8       119     14
PJ:     100     -10     30      35      8       140     17
PK:     *       *       0       0       0       0       0
Total Ave: 31  Total AbsAv: 58  Tot Man: 1253 Ave Man: 12

VI. Sample Results

The questions I posed to my selection of Ackans were on the whole matters of
public record.  The questions that actually had to do with opinion were the
following:

How many scams (approximately) have you participated in?  
If you have participated in scams, have you felt guilty afterwards?
Do you consider yourself pro-scam or anti-scam?

On average, the 11 players who responded had participated in 4.35 scams each,
in their average of 21.3 months in the game, making for a scam every 5 months,
on average, for each player.  However, the numbers involved varied from only a
scam every 18 months to a scam every 2 months.

Only a few of the respondents had ever felt guilt for a scam, and the few who
did explained it as applying only to "scams which have been un-counter
scamable" or "Not about the scamming itself.  About the strife and sometime
hard feelings associated with the overall situation"(5).

Five of the respondents declared themselves unequivocally pro-scam, and two
called themselves anti-scam.  The other four indicated that it depended on the
circumstances.

The pro-scam players as a group submitted a large percentage of the pro-scam
proposals, but also generated anti-scam proposals.  Further, not one of them
voted higher than average on pro-scam proposals, lower than average on
anti-scam, and higher than average absolutely on both.  More than one voted
less than average on the pro-scam proposals.  On average, they participated in
a scam about once every five months.

Only one of the two who declared themselves anti-scam truly lived up to the
name, submitting anti-scam proposals, voting far below the average, but higher
absolutely, to reject pro-scam proposals, and voting for anti-scam proposals
more strongly as well as absolutely more strongly than average.  The other
actually submitted pro-scam proposals and voted slightly higher than
average on
the pro-scam proposals anti lower than average on the anti-scam proposals in
the period in question.  Also, both "anti-scam" players participated in more
scams than average.

Some of the comments I received were pertinent to this thesis.  I include only
a few, for brevity's sake.

"Scams are one of the most fun things in nomic; both the thrill of finding
some
way to twist the intent of the rules, and the desperate scramble to
counterscam
someone else's attempt to do so."

"One of the important features of a scam is that all player should have the
ability
participate; either in the scam itself or in attempting to prevent the scam."

"The more attempts it takes to make a scam work, the less fun it is.  A second
try is tolerable, but three or more tries are just annoying." (5)

These statements highlight a key issue about scam in Ackanomic that I will
discuss in the next section.

VII. Analysis and Conclusion

PA: 404 Not Found
PB: A German Dog
PC: Blest Lax Monk Pal
PD: /dev/joe
PE: K 2
PF: King Felix
PG: rufus
PH: Slakko
PI: Studge
PJ: ThinMan
PK: Vynd

First, a comparison of the questionnaire responses to the actual voting
results
reveals that self-image has very little to do with the actual truth.  Both the
players that called themselves 'pro-scam' and the players that called
themselves 'anti-scam' were actually about half and half pro-scam and
anti-scam, by the hard data of the proposal results.  Of course, due to the
small sample size, these results must be taken with a grain of salt.

Further, much of the data on pro-scam proposals could be construed as
mildly to
wildly inaccurate, because pro-scam proposals can be either stealthy or
blatant.  A good example of a blatant Pro-Scam prop is 4172, which allowed 3
players to collectively alter the rules.  4200, which indirectly gave a player
an entity which was used in later scam, is an example of a stealthy Pro-Scam
prop.  In this set, 4169, 4172, 4173, 4186, 4204-4207, & 4218 are blatant and
4153, 4154, 4165, 4178, 4200, 4213, 4237, & 4245 are stealthy.  Because of
time
considerations and to narrow my focus, I did not take stealth into account
when
computing my averages, and as a result, the data may not reflect others'
opinions.

The indications of my data are very interesting.  Players A, B, E, G, J, and K
(more than half of my sample) voted in the same manner with regard to the
average on all three proposal groups.  These players are certifiably
scam-neutral in their voting, at least to some degree.  Player D was
definitely
anti-scam, changing both eir average vote and eir mannna expenditures to vote
strongly on anti-scam proposals.  Player C was also anti-scam, voting lower
than average usually but more positively on anti-scam proposals.  The extra
mannna expended by this player indicates that this is not just a fluke in the
data.  Players F and I were the reverse of this, voting higher than average
usually, but more negatively on anti-scam proposals.  This might indicate that
they are pro-scam, but because of the small absolute value of Player F's
votes,
it could just be a fluctuation due to sample size.  Player H was somewhat
pro-scam as well.  Eir normal pattern of voting lower than average on most
things, but with more mannna, but e voted higher than average on pro-scam
proposals.    

Thus, considering the voting actions of the 11 players in my sample, and
allowing for standard deviation, I am led to believe that between 10% and 40%
of Acka is pro-scam with regard to the rest of Acka, and between 5% and 30%
are
anti-scam.  This means that the anti-scam players are more vehement in their
beliefs, or at least express themselves with more mannna.  Looking at pro-scam
and anti-scam on an absolute scale turns out to be an unrewarding mish-mash.

Acka on the whole is mildly anti-scam.  My results show, unsurprisingly, that
pro-scam proposals are more controversial and polarizing, and anti-scam
proposals less so.   But a factor that gives me great hope is that our
nomic is
an accepting nomic, and even scams pass, on average. (In this sample, 7 or 8
pro-scam proposals passed, between 40% and 50%)

The quotes of questionnaire respondents in the last section show us something
important about scam.  While some of these statements were overtly anti-scam,
or were submitted by anti-scam players, they all seemed to validate scam in
various circumstances.  Perhaps there is a scam etiquette, as one respondent
suggested, that would make scams more enjoyable and tolerable to all.

In conclusion, I hope that these results will spark a greater understanding
and
acceptance of scam and pro-scam proposals.  As evidenced by these figures, on
average, Acka votes positively on pro-scam proposals, and even if it votes
more
positively on anti-scam proposals, this indicates that the prevailing mood in
Acka is one of tolerance toward scam.  Too many players view scam with
bitterness and disgust; it is time to reexamine our views.  Scamsters are
players too, and they too have feelings.  Their alternate playing style
choices
may not be your own, but you should be able and willing to respect their
choices.  They give Acka much-needed diversity and help make our nomic the
'harfy nomic.'  The average Ackan opposes scam, and fights it with the
resources at hand, but does not condemn it.  My dream for the future is that
all anti-scam players of Ackanomic are like this.  It fosters the type of
player relationships necessary to keep a nomic running smoothly, and generally
leads to happier, more carefree lives.  

Footnotes:
(1) /dev/joe's thesis for a BA in treasure-hunting 
(2) else...if's thesis for a BA in History
(3) P4218
(4) Rules of Ackanomic, Rule 2-1-2
(5) Scamology Survey Results

-- Emperor Ai! Pedrito!
 DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Harfmeister * Herald * Rule-Harfer * Wrangler
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Really Weird * Weird

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

From: Henry Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 723 (Emperor Ai!Pedrito)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 20:21:33 -0400 (EDT)

Call for Judgement 722 - June 22, 1999
Subject: Cheesy!
Initiator: JT
Judge: Emperor Ai!Pedrito
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:
JT has an Unclaimed Winning Condition by Rule 8-7.

Initiator's Reasoning:
All the following cheeses were gained after /dev/joe's cheese win
on or about P3810, in December 03, 1998.  At that time all cheeses
were destroyed.

Since I had 5 offices at that time (Trinket Harfer, Illuminatus, Herald,
Speaker, President) so I immediately regained the Edam.

With the win of Ghost on Monday, July 26, 1999, I gained a Gouda
for having won 2 games of Ghost (the other ending on June 15, 1999), and
one game of Fictionary (ending on 08/13/1998).

I have a Stilton from my 21 accepted proposals from P3868 to P4073, all of
which occured after /dev/joe's cheese win.

I have a Cheddar for the 3 harfy proposals (3079, 3567, 3868), the third
of which was aquired (and thus the cheese gained) after /dev/joe's cheese
win.

I have a Brie for my victory against else...if in a Duel (Limericks) which
ended on March 31, 1999.

With these 5 cheeses, I have achieved a winning condition by rule 8-7.

Judge's Reasoning:
	The initiator's reasoning is correct.

-- 
-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: Henry Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 722 (K2, A German Dog)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 20:21:57 -0400 (EDT)

	A German Dog will fill in for LaaLaa on CFJ 722.

--
-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: CFJ 722 (K2, A German Dog)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 23:13:22 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Henry Towsner wrote:
> 	A German Dog will fill in for LaaLaa on CFJ 722.

I don't think I can since I believe I had declined to judge this CFJ.
If I did not decline to judge this CFJ, I do so now feeling that while I
would render impartial judgment, I am not the best choice to judge this
one.

--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 ackanomic Digest V4 #202
*******************************