acka-research Digest Tuesday, December 15 1998 Volume 03 : Issue 297 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger) Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3914 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:46:29 -0500 (EST) >Proposal 3914 >A simple fixup >JT >Due: Sun Dec 20 17:30:10 1998 > >{{[ > My Quests prop was submitted before the museum got blown up via IB's > repeal. Since it no longer makes much sense, I'm going to repeal it. > I will also note (and thus hopefully make it bad form for anyone else > to attempt it) that Benefactor Value is no longer controlled by the > rules. Thus the most observant 60% of the player who wanted to could > gain exactly one winning condition. (at least I think it might work, > regardless, I'm not doing so, and I hereby hope noone else will) >]}} I had considered the Benefactor Value bit, but I don't think it works. Even though BV is no longer defined by the rules, it is my opinion that it is still part of the game state, and thus is protected by rule 101. ThinMan ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3914 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:41:46 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, John Bollinger wrote: >>{{[ >> My Quests prop was submitted before the museum got blown up via IB's >> repeal. Since it no longer makes much sense, I'm going to repeal it. >> I will also note (and thus hopefully make it bad form for anyone else >> to attempt it) that Benefactor Value is no longer controlled by the >> rules. Thus the most observant 60% of the player who wanted to could >> gain exactly one winning condition. (at least I think it might work, >> regardless, I'm not doing so, and I hereby hope noone else will) >>]}} > >I had considered the Benefactor Value bit, but I don't think it works. >Even though BV is no longer defined by the rules, it is my opinion that >it is still part of the game state, and thus is protected by rule 101. Perhaps, but the rule is still useless without the museum, so it deserves to be repealed anyway. Not I said only that it occured to me that it might work, but I wasn't sure. Why would it still be part of the game state. It certainly wasn't an entity, or any object which could be considered such. Perhaps it was an 'attribute' of some entities, but I'm not wholly convinced of that. --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: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3885 accepted Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:29:36 -0500 (EST) I would call this null... how about everyone else? > > {{All rules without H numbers are given H numbers with 99 as parent, such > that the highest H number in the 99s is the lowest possible}} > -- Trent Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Butthead, Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger) Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3917 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 21:33:58 -0500 (EST) Wow. 3917 is a major proposal. I am intrigued by some of the details, and I like the new concepts of operability and intelligence. On the Org side, it looks mainly like Organizations become Institutions and Membership Organizations become Organizations -- in that respect, no real change except the names [all assuming that P3902 will pass]. I agree, however, that 3917 will clean up some things in the Org setup that 3902 may leave a little rough around the edges. It has my endorsement. [Now all you Ackans who rely upon my opinion can go vote for it. :-) ] ThinMan ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3917 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:04:24 -0500 (EST) >Wow. 3917 is a major proposal. I am intrigued by some of the details, and >I like the new concepts of operability and intelligence. On the Org side, >it looks mainly like Organizations become Institutions and Membership >Organizations become Organizations -- in that respect, no real change >except the names [all assuming that P3902 will pass]. I agree, however, >that 3917 will clean up some things in the Org setup that 3902 may leave >a little rough around the edges. It has my endorsement. [Now all you >Ackans who rely upon my opinion can go vote for it. :-) ] I should note that the only functional change for Orgs is that Trust Funds become a separate type of Institution (not a type of Corporation), and require two co-founders. I'm glad that we two have finally reached an agreement on how Orgs/Corps, now Insts should work. I just hope the other 13 players agree with us:) [You even use brackets as comments in discussion?] -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: Jonathan David Amery Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3917 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:21:57 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, John Bollinger wrote: > Wow. 3917 is a major proposal. I am intrigued by some of the details, and > I like the new concepts of operability and intelligence. On the Org side, > it looks mainly like Organizations become Institutions and Membership > Organizations become Organizations -- in that respect, no real change > except the names [all assuming that P3902 will pass]. I agree, however, > that 3917 will clean up some things in the Org setup that 3902 may leave > a little rough around the edges. It has my endorsement. [Now all you > Ackans who rely upon my opinion can go vote for it. :-) ] Well, since you seem to like it, can someone post a precis of it - it's rather long... :-) -- Jonathan D. Amery, http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html ##### Wild Card of Acka, member of SPAM, wearing Silly Agenda Hats. o__####### Holding the Silver Key to the Vault. \'####### Standing between the light and the dark, the candle and the flame. ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3917 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:28:32 -0500 (EST) > Well, since you seem to like it, can someone post a precis of it - it's >rather long... :-) In addition to the old classes of Entities, there are Trading Entities, Intelligent, and Operable entities. Trading Entities are what they sound like. Operable entities are anything which do something, at the moment just things like Shares, and also A$ and Trinkets (as an operation, a player converts a number of A$ into trinkets). Intelligent Entities can operate Operable Entities. Most of the proposal rewrites various rules in terms of the new system. Also, Institutions are Intelligent Trading Entities which define a method of creation and some information about being destroyed. Organizations, Corporations, and Trust Funds are types of Institutions, but will act exactly the same. In fact I don't think this makes any major functional changes (there are a number of little things, like any Intelligent Entity can create Trinkets.) On the whole this brings the rules in line with what was intended by the proposal which created Corps, and also clarifies a number of rules. -- -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 #297 ***********************************