acka-research Digest Sunday, December 13 1998 Volume 03 : Issue 295 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3857 accepted From: alfvaen@connect.ab.ca (Aaron V. Humphrey) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 01:29:09 -0500 (EST) > Proposal 3857 > Umble. > IdiotBoy > Due: Sat Dec 12 22:23:48 1998 > Status: accepted Well, this should make things interesting. > Repeal Rule 309 ("Substantially Similar Proposals ") > Repeal Rule 330 ("Retractions") These are the only two repeals I don't understand the purpose of. The rest is harf and frippery, but the above two are immensely useful. > Repeal Rule 315 ("Tammany") > Repeal Rule 431 ("Illuminatus") > Repeal Rule 440 ("Thrallmaster") > Repeal Rule 507 ("Magicks") > Repeal Rule 607 ("Winning By Agenda") > Repeal Rule 615 ("Win By World Domination") > Repeal Rule 671 ("Nemesis Eggplants and Agenda Hats") > Repeal Rule 675 ("Mercury Poisoning") > Repeal Rule 750 ("Thrall: Definition") > Repeal Rule 753 ("Thrall-Related Etymology") > Repeal Rule 755 ("Entrallments") > Repeal Rule 760 ("Purchasing Thralls") > Repeal Rule 765 ("Circularity in Enthrallments") > Repeal Rule 850 ("Museum") > Repeal Rule 933 ("Purple Robe of Justice") So how does one make Puzzle Pieces now? -- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ ) Song In My Head--The Offspring:Come Out And Play Current Book--Michael P. Kube-McDowell:Emprise Holo Graham Crackers--FREE invisible ink pack! ------------------------------ From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3858 accepted Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 01:30:44 -0500 (EST) > Proposal 3858 > This is a modest proposal. > > Repeal Rule 760 (Purchasing Thralls) As a result of P3857 passing, this proposal was null. Also as a result of P3857, we don't have tammany bribes or retractions any more. /dev/joe ------------------------------ From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3904 Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 01:52:29 -0500 (EST) BOOOOO!!!! At 01:49 AM 12/13/98 -0500, you wrote: >Proposal 3904 >Eureka! >Vynd >Due: Sun Dec 20 01:49:27 1998 > > >This is a Modest proposal. > >Create a new Rule numbered 330, entitled Retractions, with the following >text: > >A player may retract his own proposal as a public action. This action will >fail if the results of that proposal have already been announced at the time >that the action is attempted. All votes cast on a retracted proposal shall >be ignored. A player who retracts his own proposal in this manner loses 2 >points. > >A player may retract his own CFJ as a public action. This action will fail >if a verdict other than Undecided has already been delivered on the CFJ. The >player retracting the CFJ does not lose any points unless the CFJ was a >paradox win CFJ or a cycle win CFJ in which case e loses 3 points. > >A player may retract his own Miscellaneous Submission as a public action. >This action will fail if a decision on the acceptance or rejection of the >submission is already publically knowable. The player retracting the >submission loses 1 point. This section takes precedence over any rule which >would prevent retraction of these entities. Instances of following, and >nothing else, are Miscellaneous Submissions: > >a) Impeachment Papers >b) Common Sense Reports >c) New Games and Contest submissions as described by Rule 1250.1 >d) Discoveries (retracted Discoveries are Debunked). > >Newbies shall not lose points as a result of this rule. > -- Trent Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Acting Thrallmaster, Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: Mueller Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3857 accepted Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 03:45:47 -0500 (EST) The Ackabot wrote: >Proposal 3857 > >Votes: 15/21 (9 YES votes): Quorum met >Yes votes: 9/14: proposal accepted > >Yes: > Niccolo Flychuck (MetaMorph) > Trent (Giant Objectionable Potato) > K 2 > /dev/joe (Vulcan) > Jenny (The Razor Boomerangs) > else...if > Robin Hood (Anti-Voting Preservationist Party) > rSiE > IdiotBoy (Anti-Voting Preservationist Party) > > Subject: Acka: Proposal 3857 > > Proposal 3857 > Umble. > IdiotBoy > Due: Sat Dec 12 22:23:48 1998 > Status: accepted > > > {{[Hi, I know this won't pass. I just like to see my name in the > queue.]}} > > Repeal Rule 309 ("Substantially Similar Proposals ") > Repeal Rule 315 ("Tammany") > Repeal Rule 330 ("Retractions") > Repeal Rule 431 ("Illuminatus") > Repeal Rule 440 ("Thrallmaster") > Repeal Rule 507 ("Magicks") > Repeal Rule 607 ("Winning By Agenda") > Repeal Rule 615 ("Win By World Domination") > Repeal Rule 671 ("Nemesis Eggplants and Agenda Hats") > Repeal Rule 675 ("Mercury Poisoning") > Repeal Rule 750 ("Thrall: Definition") > Repeal Rule 753 ("Thrall-Related Etymology") > Repeal Rule 755 ("Entrallments") > Repeal Rule 760 ("Purchasing Thralls") > Repeal Rule 765 ("Circularity in Enthrallments") > Repeal Rule 850 ("Museum") > Repeal Rule 933 ("Purple Robe of Justice") Out of curiosity... why?!?! Is this just rampant discordianism? A new simplification movement? An accidental Yes zyzygy? Studge (who wishes he had another head to exchange confused glances with) ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3857 accepted Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 04:13:40 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 13 Dec 1998 devjoe@wilma.che.utexas.edu wrote: >Proposal 3857 > >Votes: 15/21 (9 YES votes): Quorum met >Yes votes: 9/14: proposal accepted > >Yes: > Niccolo Flychuck (MetaMorph) > Trent (Giant Objectionable Potato) > K 2 > /dev/joe (Vulcan) > Jenny (The Razor Boomerangs) > else...if > Robin Hood (Anti-Voting Preservationist Party) > rSiE > IdiotBoy (Anti-Voting Preservationist Party) IdiotBoy's vote should have been cancelled when he left the game. The prop still passes however. > {{[Hi, I know this won't pass. I just like to see my name in the > queue.]}} Obviously he was wrong. > Repeal Rule 309 ("Substantially Similar Proposals ") This I could care less about as it really doesn't affect the game all that much (people really don't submit similar props usually) > Repeal Rule 330 ("Retractions") I'm glad to see this has already been resubmitted > Repeal Rule 431 ("Illuminatus") > Repeal Rule 607 ("Winning By Agenda") > Repeal Rule 671 ("Nemesis Eggplants and Agenda Hats") > Repeal Rule 675 ("Mercury Poisoning") Why?? Why vote to repeal something that was fun and harfy and wasn't stale? > Repeal Rule 440 ("Thrallmaster") > Repeal Rule 615 ("Win By World Domination") > Repeal Rule 750 ("Thrall: Definition") > Repeal Rule 753 ("Thrall-Related Etymology") > Repeal Rule 755 ("Entrallments") > Repeal Rule 760 ("Purchasing Thralls") > Repeal Rule 765 ("Circularity in Enthrallments") Ahh well. > Repeal Rule 850 ("Museum") > Repeal Rule 507 ("Magicks") I believe all items currently in the museum (or that were in the museum) either go to the treasury or somewhere else. Anyone know. I believe they went SomeWhere Else since they were owned by the Museum and then became Unowned when the Museum was repealed. > Repeal Rule 933 ("Purple Robe of Justice") Not really a big loss. --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 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3857 accepted Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 04:23:10 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 13 Dec 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote: >> Proposal 3857 >> Umble. >> IdiotBoy >> Due: Sat Dec 12 22:23:48 1998 >> Status: accepted > >Well, this should make things interesting. > >> Repeal Rule 309 ("Substantially Similar Proposals ") >> Repeal Rule 330 ("Retractions") > >These are the only two repeals I don't understand the purpose of. >The rest is harf and frippery, but the above two are immensely useful. You voted Baa on it.. maybe you should have voted No :/ >So how does one make Puzzle Pieces now? One doesn't. --JT, mildly irked cause he *liked* being Illuminatus :/ [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Acka: My take on the whole org thing Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 07:10:18 -0500 (EST) I strongly disagree. There is no reason to repeal orgs, the tiny scams that may be possible now are nothing compared to scams that were possible after the mohamedan org reforms, and we kept that for several months. I've seen RFCs that fix some of the worse problems. Repealing orgs has as much sense as repealing the entire ruleset. Niccolo Flychuck On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote: > There seems to have been a fair bit of modification of orgs recently and > they seem to be almost as broken at the moment than literature is. My > favoured solution to this would simply be repealing orgs outright since > they seem to me to be little more than scam bate. I only mention this > because if more than about two people agree with me now then it might be > worth me actually writing up a proposal to do just this at some point. > > Jenny. > > -- > Tom Walmsley t.walmsley@lineone.net > http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html > AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739 > Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ From: "Gavin Logan" Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3857 accepted Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 10:06:09 -0500 (EST) >The Ackabot wrote: >>Proposal 3857 >> >>Votes: 15/21 (9 YES votes): Quorum met >>Yes votes: 9/14: proposal accepted >> >>Yes: >> rSiE > >Out of curiosity... why?!?! > >Is this just rampant discordianism? A new simplification movement? An >accidental Yes zyzygy? > >Studge (who wishes he had another head to exchange confused glances with) > > I was anti-voting. rSiE (Someone shoot me before I make that joke again.) ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3871 rejected Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 18:06:52 -0500 (EST) >Proposal 3871 > >Votes: 14/20 (6 YES votes): Quorum met >Yes votes: 6/13: proposal rejected >No: > Niccolo Flychuck (MetaMorph) > Alfvaen (MetaMorph) > K 2 > smallpox blanket (Klingon) > Robin Hood (Anti-Voting Preservationist Party) > Vynd > ThinMan (Vulcan) > Proposal 3871 > The Next Big Thing Did people like this concept enough that if I clarified the issues ThinMan objected to they would vote for it? Were there other minor issues that people would like to see fixed, or did you object to the concept? -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: Uri Bruck Subject: acka: RFC Chess for All Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 20:58:42 -0500 (EST) {{[here is pretty preliminary RFC for something Trent and I discussed on IRC. The gist is that it allows more people to play Party Chess, without crowding the Party Board, by allowing the creation of more Party Boards, when enough players want to play, and someone is willign to Umpire for them. It also removes Free Swingership instance limit. Specifically, on-board Swigners are committed tothe board they play on, off-board Swingers are added to all play lists, so they may come in on any board. I might have missed some bits, which is why I am RFCing ]}} I. Ammend section V of R1040 to read in full: " A player who does not own a Swingership may create a new Free Swingership by paying 10 times the Standard Harfer Fee to the Treasury, and specifying a legal Ackanomic name which can be used to refer to the new Swingership. " II. Ammend section1 of R1230.1 to read in full: " Party Boards: A Party Board is a checkered board, divided into 20 by 20 squares, which resides in Party Hall. The Party Boards are unownable entitities used for the sole purpose of playing a game called Party Chess. Each column has a letter assigned to it, from a-t beginning with the leftmost column. Each row has an integer assigned to it, from 1-20. When viewed on a screen, the lowest row is 1, the highest is 20, and consecutive rows are marked with consecutive integers. Each square on a Party Board has coordinates made up of a letter, which corresponds to the column the square is part of, and an integer, which corresponds to the row the square is part of. The letter precedes the integer. Food or drink may not be placed on a Party Board. If only one Party Board exists, then it may simply be reffered to as "The Party Board", or "Party Board I". When ever a new Party Board is created, it is assigned the lowest roman numeral not already assigned to an existing Party Board, and from then on it is reffered to as "Party Board n" where n is the roman numeral assigned to that board. {{The Party Board is assigned the roman numeral I}} A new Party Board may only be created when all existing Party Boards have more than 6 on-Board Swingers each. When the above condition is met any off-board may publically state that e wished to Open a New Party Board. If within 7 days of this anouncement at least 2 additional Swingers publically support this anoucnement, and at least one player volunteers to be Chess-Umpire for the new Party Board, then a new Party Board is created. The first player who volunteered to be Umpire for that Board becomes the Chess-Umpire for that board. The Chess-Umpire for a board can be any player. Once a new Party Board is created, a game of Party Chess begins on that Party Board " III. Ammend section 1A of R1230.1 to read in full: " The optional functional office of Chess-Umpire exists. If, at any time, there is no player performing the duties of Chess-Umpire, the game of Party Chess is suspended (or not started), and all other players who would have duties with regard to Party Chess are absolved of those duties. This clause takes precedence over all rules dealing with Swingers and Party Chess. The number of Seats of the office Chess-Umpire is equal to the number of Party Boards in existence. A single player may occupy more than one Seat of this office. Whenever a new Party Board is created, a new Seat is created, and associated with the new Party Board. The Seat is assigned the same roman numeral which has been assigned to the Party Board it is associated with, and the player occupying that office is known as the Chess-Umpire for that specific Board. Whenever a Party Board is destroyed, the Chess-Umpire's Seat associated with that Party Board is also destroyed. " IV. In section 1C of R1230.2, replace the string "The Chess-Umpire has the following Duties: " with the string "A Chess-Umpire has the following Duties: (unless otherwise specified, any references to the Party Board in this section refer to the Party Board associated with the Seat held by a given Ches Umpire, and references to Swigner refer only to Swinger who have on-board pieces on that Party Board)" V. Ammend section 3A of R1230.2 to read in full : "Each Party Board has a Swinger Play List associated with it. The Play List is maintained by the Chess-Umpire for that Party Board. At the beginning of a game of Party Chess the Chess-Umpire randomly determines the order of Swigners on the play list. VI. Append the following text to section 3 of R1230.2 as section G: "Whenever a Swinger is off-board, eir name is added to the end off all Swinger Play Lists that eir name is not already on. Whenever a Swinger becomes on-board, eir name is removed from all Swigner Play List, except for the Play List for the Party Board on which e has a piece. Should ever a Swinger has pieces on two or more Boards simulatneously, all of eir pieces will immediately become off-board, with the exception of one randomly chosen Party Boards " ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Re: acka: RFC Chess for All Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 22:29:49 -0500 (EST) As someone interested in playing party chess, but totally incompetent at that sort of thing, I'd rather have one main board just for party swingers, and then let free swingers create less formal boards. Something like, when 3 players and an Umpire are all interested, a board is created. No costs to join, and perhaps a discount on pieces. No advantages transferable to Chess Board Prime. In case there aren't enough parties, a the Prime swingers could allow a free player to join as an Org action. -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ End of acka-research Digest V3 #295 ***********************************