Subject: ackanomic Digest V4 #204
From: [email-masked]
To: ackanomic digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 00:00:03 -0400 (EDT)

ackanomic Digest	Sunday, August 01 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 204

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

From: "Gavin Logan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Educational Hearing
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 12:26:04 -0400 (EDT)

I call an Educational Hearing on Emperor Ai! Pedrito!'s thesis below. The
valid responses are "Burn the Heretic!" [against] and "Students who THINK?
What will they
come up with next..." [for]. Players have three days to vote.

King Felix
(dean)

***
>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
>

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

From: "Gavin Logan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Educational Hearing
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 13:45:33 -0400 (EDT)

>I call an Educational Hearing on Emperor Ai! Pedrito!'s thesis below. The
>valid responses are "Burn the Heretic!" [against] and "Students who THINK?
>What will they
>come up with next..." [for]. Players have three days to vote.
>

Alternatively, reply to this message which was sent to ackanomic-priv.

King Felix

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

From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Educational Hearing
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 13:52:09 -0400 (EDT)

Just a few words on the final paragraph or so of this thesis.

I think it is unreasonable to ask that the players of Ackanomic be
"accepting" of scams. Scams can often be very disruptive to normal game
play, they bring "unfair" benefits to those who perpetrate them and, (lets
all be honest now) they make the people who are not a part of them feel a
bit like chumps. All the scams I've ever seen or heard about seem to be
this way, so I figure its pretty much the nature of the beast.

Thus, I feel that if you are going to try and perpetrate a scam, you have
to expect that some people will be angry with you. Perhaps even
unreasonably angry. Certainly I would hope that the "outsiders" in a scam
would not stoop to insults or revenge, but spirited counter-action and
angry (but not offensive) speeches against the scam seem to me a perfectly
reasonable response. Occasionaly, they are even effective.

So to sum things up: If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Any scam worthy of the name is going to piss somebody off, you should
expect this and be prepared to cope. Certainly you will annoy people
if you successfully pull off a scam, and then seem upset when
everyone else isn't delighted about it. After all, you are presumably
getting something that you wanted through your scam. If the joy and
adulation of other (uninvolved) players is what you were after, you
probably never should have gotten involved in a scam in the first place.
Pulling off a scam and then complaining if people aren't happy about it
is, in my opinion, being something of a poor winner. Not that we don't
have plenty of poor losers, too. ;)

Vynd, too lazy to scam

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Educational Hearing
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 14:34:19 -0400 (EDT)

At 01:52 PM 8/1/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Just a few words on the final paragraph or so of this thesis.
>

Let me speak to this.

You are not the first person to take issue with that section of my thesis.
I would encourage you to remember that you are talking about ONLY the
conclusion.  I tried my hardest to keep my opinions out of any of the rest
of it (by nature, the pro-scam/anti-scam division required my opinion).  I
wrote the piece to see what it would unearth, but that is not what a thesis
is about.  A thesis, as outlined in the rules,  as written by the previous
degree recipients, and in everyday usage, should have the subjective
results or conclusions of the student who wrote it, in addition to any
objective data.  Without that, it is no more than a research project.  

What was meant by that section was this:  Anger and bad blood over scam has
rarely helped anyone or anything.  Some people will scam no matter how much
anger and bad blood they have to face, and some people will hate scam no
matter what.  And you're right -- A scam may make players not involved feel
like chumps.  I cannot argue with that.  I view my conclusion not as a
mandate but as an empassioned plea to the players of Acka to fight scam
without hating it.  I know it is impossible for it to be entirely accepted,
but any improvement would be nice.

I hope that players who have a problem with my major will consider
responding to the work and the analysis involved, even if they do not agree
with it.  Am I a heretic?  If so, I suppose my thesis merits only
rejection.  But my opinion is that I thought and wrote on an issue in
Ackanomic with great personal significance, and provided future researchers
and participants in the field with at least a little pertinent data.  Vote
your conscience.

Yours,
-- Emperor Ai! Pedrito!
 DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Herald * Rule-Harfer
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Harfmeister * Student * Wrangler and Belt-Holder

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

From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Educational Hearing
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 14:49:52 -0400 (EDT)

I probably should have made it clear in my little speech that I think the
thesis itself was well researched and interesting. I have every intention
of voting for it, although I clearly take issue with some of the ideas you
choose to support with it.

Vynd

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

End of ackanomic Digest V4 #204
*******************************