Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #14
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest    Sunday, March 16 1997    Volume 02 : Number 014

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

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 04:56:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1798

> >It would be a lot simpler, and have much the same effect, to simply
> >repeal Rule 1127. Once Harf was the name of an active player, no other
> >player could ever have it.
> >
> >breadbox
> 
> The difference is that if I did as you suggested, anyone could have Harf in
> their Acka name.

But not after Harf became a player. The name would then be forbidden
as long as e and/or eir undead existed.

b

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

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 11:26:03 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1798 

>> >It would be a lot simpler, and have much the same effect, to simply
>> >repeal Rule 1127. Once Harf was the name of an active player, no other
>> >player could ever have it.
>> >
>> >breadbox
>>
>> The difference is that if I did as you suggested, anyone could have Harf in
>> their Acka name.
>
>But not after Harf became a player. The name would then be forbidden
>as long as e and/or eir undead existed.
>
>b

BUt as it stands, the name harf is not just prohibited, all names that
contain harf are as well.  What Robert Sevin wants to do is still provide
some protection to harf by allowing players to have harf in their name iff
an adhoc commitee approves of it, but not otherwise.

Thus, we could have "harf" and if I feel I'mn harfy enough, and the
comittee does to I could become snowharf.  However, a playr with no harf
would not be entitled to use the harf i her name unless the commitee grants
support.

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 23:10:00 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1798

BTW- I haven't seen it on the queue yet, but I have submitted a proposal
that defines ad hoc comittees. 

Niccolo Flychuck

On Sat, 15 Mar 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> >> >It would be a lot simpler, and have much the same effect, to simply
> >> >repeal Rule 1127. Once Harf was the name of an active player, no other
> >> >player could ever have it.
> >> >
> >> >breadbox
> >>
> >> The difference is that if I did as you suggested, anyone could have Harf in
> >> their Acka name.
> >
> >But not after Harf became a player. The name would then be forbidden
> >as long as e and/or eir undead existed.
> >
> >b
> 
> BUt as it stands, the name harf is not just prohibited, all names that
> containharf are as well.  What Robert Sevin wants to do is still provide
> some protection to harf by allowing players to have harf in their name iff
> an adhoc commitee approves of it, but not otherwise.
> 
> Thus, we could have "harf" and if I feel I'mn harfy enough, and the
> comittee does to I could become snowharf.  However, a playr with no harf
> would not be entitled to use the harf i her name unless the commitee grants
> support.
> 
> snowgod
> 
> 

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

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 17:17:29 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Player states (was Acka: Proposal 1798) 

In a message dated 97-03-14 23:14:47 EST, you write:

> >6. Some Ackanomic players will stick around for a long time.  Other very
>  >committed players will, for one reason or another, leave the game (For
>  >example, Guy Fawke's semi-recent departure, or Ludwig's very recent
>  >departure)
>  
>  Many players leave, but that's not usually a function of the complexity of
>  the rule set -- it's usually outside influences from RL. I don't think we
>  can do much about that... Of course, players could always take the route I
>  did in the middle of last year, and just go on a 4 month vacation. :)
>  

Granted, that wasn't my point however.  My point was simply that for a
variety of reasons, old players do and will drop out and if they are not
replaced by new players at a similar rate, the game will fail.

This whole conversation got me thinking last night...

Ackanomia is obviously more than just a game -- It's a community of players.
 I doubt I'll get any argument on that point.

Ackanomic the game and Ackanomia the community share a common set of rules.
 The rules govern how the game is played, but they also govern our
interactions as a community.  For example, the game of Ackanomic is won (ok,
a cycle is won)  by the first player whos score hits the magic number.  The
game can be won by a player who cares little or not at all for $A, a player
who may have none, may spend none, etc.  On the other hand, a player who
manages to accumulate a high amount of A$ may still have a negative score.
 If there is a correlation between $A held and score, It is (IMHO) due to
another cause. 

Some players choose to spend most of their time concentrating on the game,
writing proposals, fixing loopholes, earning points, etc.  Other players
spend most of their time building the community, writing rule proposals that
deal with subgames and the economy, interacting with other players by
throwing parties at their houses, buying land, playing ghost on irc, etc....
 Most players, of course, fall somewhere in between -- doing some of both.

Having said all of that -- we have recently passed rules making it easier for
new players to come in and join in the community aspect of Ackanomia while
not participating in the game aspect.  They are still bound by the same laws,
rules and customs that the rest of us are, but they don't help to form those
rules.  And this is OK.  If anything, we ought to expand the "community" side
such that we will attract more players who just want to join the community,
to role play, to play the subgames, own a kaa of land, join an Acka church,
etc....
These players may decide after they move into Ackanomia and live here awhile
that they kind of like it and would like to participate more fully by
becoming voting players.  

I have some more specific ideas in mind, but I'm going to hold off proposing
them for a bit while I do some more background research.

Narf

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

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 20:21:09 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1798 

>> The difference is that if I did as you suggested, anyone could have Harf in
>> their Acka name.
>
>But not after Harf became a player. The name would then be forbidden
>as long as e and/or eir undead existed.

Yes, even after Harf became a player. The couldn't have Harf *as* their
name, but they could have Harf *in* their name. 

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 20:21:16 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1798 

>Thus, we could have "harf" and if I feel I'mn harfy enough, and the
>comittee does to I could become snowharf.  However, a playr with no harf
>would not be entitled to use the harf i her name unless the commitee grants
>support.
>
>snowgod

Precisely. Personally, I think you should go for "snowharf of Uestiox"...

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 20:21:28 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Player states (was Acka: Proposal 1798) 

>Some players choose to spend most of their time concentrating on the game,
>writing proposals, fixing loopholes, earning points, etc.  Other players
>spend most of their time building the community, writing rule proposals that
>deal with subgames and the economy, interacting with other players by
>throwing parties at their houses, buying land, playing ghost on irc, etc....
> Most players, of course, fall somewhere in between -- doing some of both.

I would say many players don't do either of the above -- they only play sub
games, perhaps critique where Acka is going or share their vision, but don't
actually enact many changes themselves. Recently I have taken that course,
and many others act similarly. I think that is the key to nonvoting players,
and it is partly the key to keeping Acka alive. It is difficult for me to
believe that we will ever run out of players that actually make proposals --
there may be very few, but I think we will always have some rule experts. If
you combine these experts with people who want to see Acka grow, and have
ideas to help it along, I think Acka can go far.

>These players may decide after they move into Ackanomia and live here awhile
>that they kind of like it and would like to participate more fully by
>becoming voting players.  
>
>I have some more specific ideas in mind, but I'm going to hold off proposing
>them for a bit while I do some more background research.

Narf, you and I agree here completely. I think many players will enjoy the
"fringe benefits" of Acka for a while, and some of these players will choose
to help contribute to Acka more directly. It is kind of an alternative to
being an observer...

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 22:29:04 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Player states (was Acka: Proposal 1798) 

In a message dated 97-03-15 21:22:03 EST, you write:

> >Some players choose to spend most of their time concentrating on the game,
>  >writing proposals, fixing loopholes, earning points, etc.  Other players
>  >spend most of their time building the community, writing rule proposals 
> that
>  >deal with subgames and the economy, interacting with other players by
>  >throwing parties at their houses, buying land, playing ghost on irc,
etc....
> 
>  > Most players, of course, fall somewhere in between -- doing some of
both.
>  
>  I would say many players don't do either of the above -- they only play
sub
>  games, perhaps critique where Acka is going or share their vision, but
don't
>  actually enact many changes themselves.

That's exactly what I mean by players that are more interested in the
community of Ackanomia.

> Recently I have taken that course,
>  and many others act similarly. I think that is the key to nonvoting
players,
>  and it is partly the key to keeping Acka alive. It is difficult for me to
>  believe that we will ever run out of players that actually make proposals
- --
>  there may be very few, but I think we will always have some rule experts.
If
>  you combine these experts with people who want to see Acka grow, and have
>  ideas to help it along, I think Acka can go far.

This is true... Ackanomia the community may become bigger than Ackanomic the
game.  And while there is nothing wrong with that, it is certainly not what I
understand a traditional nomic to be :)  

At first I was somewhat against the idea of non-voting players joining in the
sub games... but I have since reconsidered that opinion, and in fact have
some ideas now for expanding the role of NVP's....

Narf

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #14
***************************************