acka-research Digest Monday, December 21 1998 Volume 03 : Issue 303 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3939 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:25:34 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 jtraub@dragoncat.net wrote: >A random player is selected to publicly describe the masterpiece; when >she does so, the Automatic Painting sets its description to that >description. If she does not do so within 3 days of being selected the >Automatic Sculpture sets its description to "It is X." where X is one of ^^^^^^^^^ What's a Sculpture? >When the description of an active Automatic Sculpture is set, it >transforms itself into a trinket worth A$123, with the same description >the Sculpture had, and the name "Painting X" where X is replaced by the >least prime number that would result in a unique name. Same question. I will also note that I don't like this in general and will be voting against it. --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: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger) Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3939 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:31:57 -0500 (EST) I would vote for P3939, except that near the end it contains a reference to "Automatic Sculpture" that should be a reference to "Automatic Painting." ThinMan ------------------------------ From: Eric Plumb Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3945 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:32:46 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 jtraub@dragoncat.net wrote: > Proposal 3945 > It's we who want to play > K 2 > > Insert the following paragraph after the first paragraph in Rule 101 : > " > It is acknowledged that the rules of Ackanomic may contain rules which > fail to achieve their intent. It is considered Good Form for players to > exploit such loopholes. > " and > Proposal 3944 > It's how we want to play > K 2 > > Insert the following paragraph after the first paragraph in Rule 101 : > " > It is acknowledged that the rules of Ackanomic may contain rules which > fail to achieve their intent. While it is permissible for players to > exploit such loopholes, it is considered Bad From. Players are instead > encouraged to fix such flaws. I *so* want to see both of these pass. -Hubert Sex on television can't hurt you unless you fall off. ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3939 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:41:03 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, John Bollinger wrote: >I would vote for P3939, except that near the end it contains a reference >to "Automatic Sculpture" that should be a reference to "Automatic Painting." Even without that, it introduces 'state' into the concept of Otzma cards. I really don't like that. I would have preferred to see an entity like the automatic sculpture returned. This really doesn't make a lot of sense to me as an Otzma Card. --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: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3939 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:56:45 -0500 (EST) JT wrote: > On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, John Bollinger wrote: > >I would vote for P3939, except that near the end it contains a reference > >to "Automatic Sculpture" that should be a reference to "Automatic Painting." > > Even without that, it introduces 'state' into the concept of Otzma cards. > I really don't like that. I would have preferred to see an entity like > the automatic sculpture returned. This really doesn't make a lot of sense > to me as an Otzma Card. Gadgets have been repealed. Otzma cards are the next closest thing that exists in the rules with out adding gadgets back in. Otzma cards have been described as one use gadgets in the same way mutations were described as non-tradeable gadgets so I don't see the problem..... Furthurmore I don't think the "state" of an otzma card will become an issue (found card play card get trinket) - and anyway it can't be any harder to track that the number of pages in SBoC were or the broken/ non-broken status of gadgets or the amount of A$ a player has at any given instant. K 2 > > > --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 3939 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:02:35 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, K 2 wrote: >> Even without that, it introduces 'state' into the concept of Otzma cards. >> I really don't like that. I would have preferred to see an entity like >> the automatic sculpture returned. This really doesn't make a lot of sense >> to me as an Otzma Card. >Gadgets have been repealed. Otzma cards are the next closest thing that >exists in the rules with out adding gadgets back in. Otzma cards have Yes, Gadgets have been repealed. Yes, OC's could be one-use gadgets. However, there is a limit to the number of OCs, so I don't want to see a lot of them end up as buried 'Automatic Paintings'. >been described as one use gadgets in the same way mutations were >described as non-tradeable gadgets so I don't see the problem..... >Furthurmore I don't think the "state" of an otzma card will become an >issue (found card play card get trinket) - and anyway it can't be any This assumes that someone plays it right after they find it. What if they cannot because of the limit to how fast OCs can be played and then they forget? I don't like the idea, and will vote against it. --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: Matt Miller Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3953 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:22:00 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 jtraub@dragoncat.net wrote: > Proposal 3953 > Re: Acka: Proposal 3939 > K 2 > Due: Mon Dec 28 15:20:31 1998 > > This is a Modest proposal. > > {{[There's a glut at the moment thanks to the scam and general under > use]}} > > {{All Otzma Cards are destroyed}} > Does this have the [I assume] intended effect of destoying all extant OCs while leaving their definitions in the rules. IB won't be fooled again ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3953 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:27:33 -0500 (EST) Matt Miller wrote: > > {{All Otzma Cards are destroyed}} > > > > Does this have the [I assume] intended effect of destoying all extant OCs > while leaving their definitions in the rules. > > IB > won't be fooled again Yes. K 2 Three lines are better than one ------------------------------ From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3956 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:47:09 -0500 (EST) At 04:39 PM 12/21/98 -0500, you wrote: >Proposal 3956 >Me... Lear... Speak Swahili? >MTM >Due: Mon Dec 28 16:39:58 1998 > > >{{ All players who own a The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too >Much, Really become Zzimsy players. All The Really Big Blue Thing That >Doesn't Do Too Much, Reallys are destroyed. }} > >{{ Renumber this Rule to 999. >Change its authorship credit to "snowgod (Phil Ackley)". >The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really is transferred >to the possession of a random active Zzimsy player. >All Zzimsy players lose that attribute. }} > Let me point out that prop 3915 contained the text: >{{all gadgets are destroyed}} and thus this Zzimsy thing is just asking for patent infringement. -- Trent Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Butthead, Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, DeeJay, Dungeon Master, Grey Councillor, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3956 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:48:33 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 jtraub@dragoncat.net wrote: >{{ All players who own a The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too >Much, Really become Zzimsy players. All The Really Big Blue Thing That >Doesn't Do Too Much, Reallys are destroyed. }} This is an interesting question. The gadgets rule used to say that when a gadget rule was repealed, all gadgets of that type were destroyed. And Trent in fact destroyed all gadgets right before doing his repeal, so this will have no effect and noone will become a Zzimsy player. >{{ Renumber this Rule to 999. >Change its authorship credit to "snowgod (Phil Ackley)". >The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really is transferred >to the possession of a random active Zzimsy player. >All Zzimsy players lose that attribute. }} No player will gain RBBT's because there are no Zzimsy players. (see above). --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: John Frederic Mc Coy Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3951 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:00:28 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 jtraub@dragoncat.net wrote: > Proposal 3951 > Its a Crime Jim, But Who's Going To Do It? > K 2 > Due: Mon Dec 28 14:20:12 1998 > > This is a Modest Proposal. > > Repeal Rule 1205 (Game Misconduct) > > I created this rule because some subgames had essentially been ruined by players (presumably accidentally) revealing secret information (such as the definition of the Ing word). While I know no one has been prosecuted under it, I do ask you all to consider if having it as encouragement to be careful is worth keeping it in place. That and, of course, being able to punish people if they foul things up (I know that *I* was certainly annoyed last time this happened). I explicitly do *not* claim that the presence of this rule is why this Crime has not occured. ;) Vynd jmccoy@umich.edu ------------------------------ End of acka-research Digest V3 #303 ***********************************