Subject: ackanomic Digest V4 #264
From: [email-masked]
To: ackanomic digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 00:00:03 -0400 (EDT)

ackanomic Digest	Thursday, September 30 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 264

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

Subject: Acka: *ping*
From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 04:42:05 -0400 (EDT)

Today is Thursday, the 30th day of September, and 
the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.
Since I have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 12 times.

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

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 730 (TRUE)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 11:51:14 -0400 (EDT)

So, too bad about that rule that fat-acka once had -- the one that said that
proposals took effect in the form in which they were voted on.  Maybe Suber
was on to something with that....  :-)

John "ThinMan" Bollinger
Shrubbery

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: JT?
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:49:55 -0400 (EDT)

How about a call for agenda submissions?

-- Ape Idiom Reporter B(Scam)
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Student (Scamology)
  Count Tabula * DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Herald * Treasure-Harfer

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: A New Light in Ackan Politics, Part II
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 15:02:07 -0400 (EDT)

I leave the Anti-Canada Kamikaze Alliance.

I announce my intent to form an institution that will have a spherical
rotor.  It will be called the Contra-Acka-Lite Institution For Novelty In
Ackanomic (CALIFORNIA).  

-- Ape Idiom Reporter B(Scam)
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Student (Scamology)
  Count Tabula * DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Herald * Treasure-Harfer

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

From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: More WUA (fwd)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 16:35:19 -0400 (EDT)

Nothing heard from Studge.  Scores:

Joe's Evil Twin: 7
Joe's Evil Twin: 11
Red Mao Gang's Evil Twin: 7
Studge: 2

It is Ape Idiom Reporter's turn to link from "vinegar."  I cringe.

-Clamshell Lawyer
still a bad Brainiac, bad Ref

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

From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 730 (TRUE)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:30:54 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Randy Hall wrote:

> Either the fixed text of the proposal is required, invoking "Conventions",
> or the fixed text is not required (which is what the quote above seems to
> be arguing), in which case it is clear to me that the text labelled 
> Proposal 4371 referred to my proposal, since, if the fixed text is not 

It seems we agree that "Conventions" is not applicable, but we definitely
disagree on what happens otherwise.  If we had, as ThinMan pointed out,
the Rule that said Proposals were enacted in the form they were
distributed and voted upon, it would be easy.  It seems the options are
three (and I apologize here, for I believe someone has already presented
these three options and I do not want to try and pass them off as my own):
either a) Proposal 4371 refers to the Proposal posted publicly, and is
enacted as if it had the post's text rather than the distributed text,
b) P4371 *is* Malenkai's Proposal, but is enacted as distributed despite
the discrepancy, or c) P4371 has nothing to do with that Proposal and is a
figment of the Promoter's imagination, or a misattributed Proposal by the
Promoter; either way, Malenkai's Proposal has yet to be distributed.

All have their problems.  a) "Pointers to Proposals" is an entirely new
and incredibly dangerous can of worms.  b) gives the Promoter the power to
change a Proposal's text and distribute it officially in any form e likes,
and c) is rather facile, reminiscent of wishful thinking.

Although I realize I was arguing for case c) earlier, and I believe it
still has its merits, something I realized made me think game custom
(as well as Occam's Razor and pragmatism) might support case b) despite
its obvious faults.

Let me offer as an example: with breadbox' old nomicbot, an e-mail
signature not cut off by a "-- " would be taken as part of a proposal by
the bot.  This happened once or twice: obviously, the submitter did not
intend to include the .sig, but nomicbot -- and, more importantly, Acka --
treated the .sig as part of the Proposal.

True, the addition was meaningless.  But the Proposal was voted upon and
enacted as if the .sig was part of it; i.e., as distributed.  I remember
speculation as to what kinds of quotes in .sigs might constitute game
actions.  It never came up in Proposal, but if it had the action would per
force have been carried out.  In other words, the Proposal became what was
officially distributed and voted upon, and not what was submitted.

This does give the Promoter an opening for an incredible abuse of
authority.  However, we'll have to trust em, as we trust the Speaker and
Financier and so many others, not to play fast and loose with eir power.

> In other words, its a more reasonable interpretation that P4371 was my 
> proposal rather than the other alternatives voiced, especially considering 
> the general looseness with which the rules have been interpreted 
> historically w.r.t. to errors of this nature (game custom/spirit of the

There's a fine line sometimes between a minor and/or aesthetic change
to the game state (overlooked by customary leniency) and a substantive
change (not) but a mass-repeal-and-restart doesn't really fall in the gray
area.  :-)  Besides, I contend above that errors of *this* particular
nature haven't been glossed over.  

> Anyway, a nomic doesn't seem all that interesting when it is loose
> on errors some of the time (e.g. the example I quoted in my previous 
> argument), and then picks nits on them other times,

Emerson!

> PS, I can understand the Judge's reasoning as submitted _before_ the 
> nature of the error was pointed out, and hope no offense was taken. 

None at all.  
I hope you take none from my attempts to preserve the Acka I love.

"There ain't no good guys,
There ain't no bad guys,
There's just you and me and we just disagree."

-Stevie

Q: What do you get when you cross an elephant with a lemon? 
A: Elephant lemon sin theta. 

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: JT?
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 19:51:24 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
> How about a call for agenda submissions?

I was holding off until the speaker actually announced the end of the last
Cycle/the beginning of the new one.  I had not actually seen such a
notification nor the fat lady singing, so it had slipped my mind.  I'll
probably not get to it until Saturday however as I've been busy as hell at
work, and I need to clean up the old J-series hats/eggplants that got
destroyed.

--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: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 730 (TRUE)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:38:11 -0400 (EDT)

> It seems we agree that "Conventions" is not applicable,

Only if you allow that the promoter is not bound to distribute
the proposal verbatim.  If e is required to do this, we do not
agree on this point.  As you pointed out, the rule appears 
unclear as to whether e is required to, and I am indeed leaning
toward an interpretation that e is not, or at least these players
have been interpreting rules loosly enough to allow for this 
possibility (see previous examples of mine in this discussion),
and of course if e is, "Conventions" applies.

> either a) Proposal 4371 refers to the Proposal posted publicly, and is
> enacted as if it had the post's text rather than the distributed text,
> b) P4371 *is* Malenkai's Proposal, but is enacted as distributed despite
> the discrepancy, or c) P4371 has nothing to do with that Proposal and is a
> figment of the Promoter's imagination, or a misattributed Proposal by the
> Promoter; either way, Malenkai's Proposal has yet to be distributed.

I see b) as utterly absurd, as I may have pointed out previously.
The game state may only be changed as described in the rules, and
the rules do not describe a way for b) to occur (in less than 14
days).  That leaves a) and c).

> c) is rather facile, reminiscent of wishful thinking.

Indeed.  Glad we agree on this.  That leaves a) :-)
 
> Although I realize I was arguing for case c) earlier, and I believe it
> still has its merits, something I realized made me think game custom
> (as well as Occam's Razor and pragmatism) might support case b) despite
> its obvious faults.

Well, I hope I have proven beyond doubt that b) is bogus and that its
"obvious faults", are, well, obvious.  An attempt by the promoter or
anything else to change my proposal to b) fails, by rule 1, leaving 
us with a).  As far as "pragmatism", I believe the pragmatism clause 
would have made b) the reality had it gone 14 days.
 
> [sig file example]

> True, the addition was meaningless.  But the Proposal was voted upon and
> enacted as if the .sig was part of it; i.e., as distributed. 

We have no proof that the proposals were enacted correctly.  The 
pragmatism clause makes sure they are retroactivly enacted as it
appears they had been in our view of the game state.

> There's a fine line sometimes between a minor and/or aesthetic change
> to the game state (overlooked by customary leniency) and a substantive
> change (not) but a mass-repeal-and-restart doesn't really fall in the gray
> area.  :-)  Besides, I contend above that errors of *this* particular
> nature haven't been glossed over.

I do not believe the _effect_ of the error should determine whether or
not it is glossed over.  Perhaps the _nature_ should, but you are concerned
about the _effect_ of this error, not the _nature_ of it.  The _nature_
of this error is less severe than that of my cited example of the rule-harfer
illegally changing the rules (e.g. an accidental screwup by the promoter vs
an intentional, flagrant breaking of the rules by the rule-harfer followed
by taunts of impeach me if you don't like it), but the _effect_ is more severe.
I just think its bogus to play nomic this way :-)  Also, its not like its
the sort of error that is causing the game to crash against the will of its
players -- its the sort of error that could undermine the outcome of the 
democratic process, not the sort of thing I would be comfortable enforcing
with the vigor with which it has been anyway. (In other words, when the
rules were traditionally twisted in Acka, they were done so in such a way
to make sure the "Right Thing" was the result, but this whole Also clause 
is mostly irrelevant).

Hypothetically, is the _nature_ and _effect_ of a promoter sitting on my
Kernel proposal for two weeks, whilst distributing other proposals, 
enough? :-)  This is the sort of error this nomic and its players 
are tolerating to allow that it is alive when arguing that my proposal has
not been distributed for two weeks, yet it won't tolerate an apparent
cut and paste error ;-) 

> I hope you take [no offense] from my attempts to preserve the Acka I love.

Of course not, but its either dead or preserved already, and our 
discussion will not change that, although I am enjoying the debate.  
It may be time to move it to acka-research, however, for the benefit
of those who have already made up their minds.

(PS, It would be nice if one or the other of these games could 
change the Acka: prefix, me being one of those dinasours who sorts 
incoming mail visually.  I would prefer it if this nomic did, but 
perhaps both will have to, or it will have to come down to a vote 
of all subscribers of the e-mail lists.)

Malenkai
Shrubbery (I never joined this game as described in its rules, therefore I
do not believe I am a player in it)

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

End of ackanomic Digest V4 #264
*******************************