acka-voting Digest Thursday, November 26 1998 Volume 03 : Issue 205 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: devjoe@wilma.che.utexas.edu Subject: Acka: Proposal 3808 Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 00:03:34 -0500 (EST) Proposal 3808 Head Games The Green Ripper Due: Thu Dec 3 00:03:33 1998 [ Gist: As the title implies, this Proposal plays around with heads. One can buy heads from the AIGR as usual, or can remove them from the bodies of opponents vanquished in Duels if one has a Highlander's Sword. (This provides a reason other than novelty to own an HS.) One can use a head one has won to win the Thrall of its original owner. Hats stick on Heads and change ownership when their Heads do. ] Amend section a) of Rule 594.28, "Blueprint: Highlander's Sword," to read "If the loser of the Duel owns any attached heads, the winner's Sword detaches one at random and transfers it to the possession of the winner. Otherwise, it transfers one of the loser's unattached heads, chosen at random, to the winner. In any case, if the loser owns a Highlander's Sword, that Sword destroys itself out of shame." [ Players with no Heads can no longer become involved in Duels and forfeit any they might be in. ] Delete section b) of Rule 594.28, "Blueprint: Highlander's Sword." [ The transferred sword is destroyed anyway, as THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE! uh, Highlander's Sword per player. ] Delete the text "If both duelists have a sword, the penalties from the loser's sword are applied first." from the same Rule. [ Since the penalties have changed from loss of points to loss of heads, I don't see why the penalties from the loser's Sword should be applied twice, causing eir Sword to cut off eir own head. ] Replace the final paragraph of Rule 594.28, "Blueprint: Highlander's Sword" [having to do with Sword owners losing points for not being in Duels] with the text "Each Saturday when the Raft and/or the Oars are distributed, each player owning a Highlander's Sword who is not involved in a Duel either as a principal or a Second loses 1 point." Create a rule numbered 857, entitled "Getting a Head" with the following BOLEYN-delimited text: BOLEYN The Head Shop is a cozy building near Vulcan Headquarters. It is owned by the Headmaster, who is a unique nontradeable entity and owns himself. The Headmaster's location is always the Head Shop unless specified otherwise by the Rules. Any player who is in the Head Shop and owns an unattached head and a neck without a head attached [ i.e., has more necks than attached heads ] may pay the Standard Harfer Fee to the Treasury, upon which the Headmaster will attach the specified head to a vacant neck of that player; the head then becomes attached to that neck and associated with the attaching player. BOLEYN Create a rule numbered 1372, entitled "Head Games", with the following LENNON-delimited text: LENNON Necks are nontradeable entities. Heads are nontradeable entities which exist only in two states: attached and unattached. Each head is associated with exactly one player, which may or may not be its owner. Heads may only change association or between the attached and unattached states as described in the Rules. No player may own more attached heads than e owns necks. The number of heads a player owns is referred to as eir Head Count. It is the responsibility of the Dungeonmaster to keep track of each player's Head Count, the state each Head is in (i.e. attached or unattached) and the players with which each head is associated. [ An attached head should always be associated with its owner. ] If a player has no attached heads, e cannot perform any action for which the Rules would require em to read (e.g. reading a Scroll of Crumble, Spell Book of Chorg, or the Ackanomicon) nor can e take any action other than submitting a public message for which e would be required to speak. If a player owns no Heads whatsoever, then in addition to the above e cannot become involved in any Duels and forfeits any Duels e may already be involved in. However, as having no Heads gives one a remarkably free and uncluttered perspective on life, the Wisdom characteristic of a player with no Heads is 3 greater than it would otherwise be, as long as e remains in that state. As a public action, a player may invoke Voodoo Mumbo-Jumbo on an unattached head in eir possession by unambiguously specifying the head in question and the player with whom that head is associated. In order for this action to be successful, the player must say "Memo to myself: do the dumb things I gotta do. Touch X's head." where X is replaced by the name of the player with whom the head in question is associated. It is also considered good form for the message to include some truly vile pun about heads. If the invocation of Voodoo Mumbo-Jumbo succeeds, the invoking player becomes the Overlord of the player with whom the head is associated (i.e., the latter's Thrall Attribute is set to the name of the invoking player) and the Head used in the invocation is transferred to the player with whom it is associated. LENNON In Rule 854, "Ackanomic Institute of Genetic Replication," replace the text "Extra head: Cost -- 50 A$." with the text "Extra Neck: Cost -- 50 A$. An extra neck is created in the purchaser's possession, and the AIGR will provide free of charge an extra head, created in the player's possession, associated with that player, and attached to their new neck." In Rule 931, "Garments, Especially Hats," replace "A player may wear at most one hat. This rule defers to any rule describing the the number and type of hats a player may wear." with "A Hat which is worn must always be worn on a single Head. At the time a Hat is donned, a player must specify a Head in eir possession which does not already contain a hat on which e wishes to don it. Thereafter, the Hat becomes so tightly attached to that Head that if the Head is transferred from Player A to Player B, the Hat changes ownership likewise. A player may doff a Hat from a Head e owns at any time, upon which that Hat becomes unworn. {{ Hubert loses 2 points; Pol Pot gains 2 points. }}" Create a number of Extra Neck mutations in the possession of each player equal to one greater than the number of Extra Head mutations which that player owns. All Extra Head mutations are destroyed. Each player gains a number of Heads equal to the number of Extra Neck mutations e owns; these Heads are created in eir possession, attached to a vacant Neck in eir possession, and become associated with em. ------------------------------ From: devjoe@wilma.che.utexas.edu Subject: Acka: Proposal 3809 Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 00:50:49 -0500 (EST) Proposal 3809 What's one more amendment? Vynd Due: Thu Dec 3 00:50:48 1998 {{[Is this the most amended rule? Anyway... I don't like our system of handling Justices decling judgement. Specifically, I don't like how the CFJ stays with the same Cortex, but one or even both of that Cortex's owners are temporarily replaced. It makes it difficult to keep track of who is judging what, and its well, messy, at least for me. Under the proposed system, one Justice declining means that the CFJ is reassigned entirely.]}} Amend Rule 217 by replacing the paragraph that follows VI. Declining Appeal Judgement with the following text: When a CFJ is assigned to the Supreme Cortex that a Justice or Acting Justice owns, that Justice or Acting Justice may, as a public action, decline judgement on that CFJ, provided that the Cortex has not already returned a verdict. When a Justice or Acting Justice declines judgement on a CFJ, that CFJ is reassigned using the normal procedures for assigning a CFJ to a Cortex, except that it may not be assigned to any Cortex which is owned by a Justice or Acting Justice who has declined judgement on that CFJ. If this results in there being no Cortexes eligible to judge the appeal, then the CFJ will be considered by the entire Supreme Court. ------------------------------ From: devjoe@wilma.che.utexas.edu Subject: Acka: Proposal 3810 Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 04:58:44 -0500 (EST) Proposal 3810 Teeth For Chewing Thomas Jute Due: Thu Dec 3 04:58:43 1998 {{[As the situation currently stands, 101 prevents both effects of CFJs from occuring. It stops the retroactive fixes CFJ have been thought to introduce, and it keeps them from doing anything to games custom. Thus, there only effects are those which are predefined by other rules (Win Conditions for example), if this is rejected I think my next prop will be to repeal 215 as unnecessary.]}} Amend Rule 215 (Judgement-Rule Interaction) by replacing the TOOTHLESS delimited text with the DENTURES delimited text. TOOTHLESS All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules in effect at the time judgement was invoked, and with respect to the game state at that time. When the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the statement in question, however, then the Judge shall consider currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game in reaching a decision. A statement verified (or nullified) by judgement applies retroactively to any past game situation it may concern. If a statement on which Judgement has been called is Judged to be true, and that Judgement is not overruled, it does not thereby become a rule, or any part of a rule. It merely becomes an explicit part of currently accepted game custom. TOOTHLESS DENTURES All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules in effect at the time judgement was invoked, and with respect to the game state at that time. When the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the statement in question, however, then the Judge shall consider currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game in reaching a decision. A statement verified (or nullified) by judgement applies retroactively to any past game situation it may concern. If a statement on which Judgement has been called is Judged to be true, and that Judgement is not overruled, it does not thereby become a rule, or any part of a rule. It merely becomes an explicit part of currently accepted game custom. This rule takes precedence over Rule 101, even if Rule 101 says otherwise. DENTURES ------------------------------ From: devjoe@wilma.che.utexas.edu Subject: Acka: Proposal 3811 Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 05:01:24 -0500 (EST) Proposal 3811 local vs. global precedence Pol Pot Due: Thu Dec 3 05:01:23 1998 Amend rule 102 by appending to it the following sentence If two or more rules claim precedence over each other, then rules which explicitly take precedence by name and/or number have stronger precedence than rules which do not. ------------------------------ End of acka-voting Digest V3 #205 *********************************