Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #54
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest   Tuesday, April 29 1997   Volume 02 : Number 054

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

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 12:42:23 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1974

Lately I had a discussion with /dev/joe if observers of Ackanomic are allowed as 
players of "Games and Contests".

If you read the rules of "Games and Contests" very good, you could 
get the impression that is safe to allow them into subgames. 
Based on the principe nothing what happens in to a subgame may have 
influence on the general game state.

In fact the subgames have limited influence on the general Ackanomic 
game. Because the winner can get A$ or an ackanomic items.

This creates two options 
1) Observers and other groups of non-ackanomic players are allowed to 
play in subgames, but if they win they can't collect the price. 
The items go to the museum and for the A$ something for the museum is 
bought as a memory of the victory of an outsider.

2) An observer is an observer and a player is a player. If you want 
to play in one of the games of "Games and Contests" you automaticly 
become a non-active player if you where not a player of acknomic 
before. 

Both these options would change mean a change in Rule 1250.1.

I think proposal 1974 is good, but at the present state of rules 
after accepting this proposal an observer could start in a subgame, 
but never replace an existing player. 

CarsesraC
 
> This is a Modest Proposal.
> 
> Insert the following text into Rule 1250.1 "Games and Contests" 
> immediately after section VI (b).
> 
> c) Unless the Rules for a game specify otherwise, players going on Vacation 
> may name another player (of Ackanomic) to be their Substitute Player (in 
> the subgame).  The Substitute Player may not have been a player of the 
> instance of the Game or Contest in which e is substituting at any time in the 
> past, and e must agree to be a Substitute.  All responsibilities and 
> priveleges of the departed player for the Game or Contest fall to the 
> Substitute Player [if the Substitute Player wins the subgame, the Trophy goes 
> to em].  When the original Player returns from Vacation, e resumes 
> playing for emself.  It is considered good form for em to give the 
> Substitute Player some recompense for eir services.  Participants in 
> Duels may not have Substitute Players for the Duel. 
> 
> 

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

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 12:42:23 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1970

> 
> The alternate solution would be to alter the rules such that you would not
> be required to monitor games played on IRC. Not everyone can access the web
> page, but we still use it rather extensively.
> 
Its asked before why I had problems with rules that are only 
accessable by web. Its the size of it. All the rules are one file.
If I want to read one rule I have to download all of them.
This means that I can only read the first one in every file, because 
of the size my connection is broke off in the middle.

I have a slow connection to internet. 

So please install a mailserver so the indivual rules could be send on 
command or put every rule on a different webpage. FTP-access would also not 
be wrong.  

CarsesraC 

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

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 12:42:24 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1970

> The game state cannot be changed on the web page, and all publically
> knowable changes to the GS *can* be tracked via e-mail-only access,
> (although a newbie currently needs web access to get the *initial* GS).

The initial GS could be mailed on request if there e has e-mail-only 
access. 

> That is the real issue here, do we want to allow the GS to be changed
> on fora not accessable to everyone?  

The question is the current number of player too big or is there 
still room of newbie's. Moving from an email Game to a IRC Game means 
that we lose players. The total time that goes in to Ackanomic will 
go up.

Moving to IRC also means that the players outside of USA are excluded 
from Ackanomic.

In the worse case 50 % of the active players would drop out. 

I vote No for every expansition towards IRC. 

CarsesraC
V   

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

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 11:39:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1970

On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> > The game state cannot be changed on the web page, and all publically
> > knowable changes to the GS *can* be tracked via e-mail-only access,
> > (although a newbie currently needs web access to get the *initial* GS).
> > That is the real issue here, do we want to allow the GS to be changed
> > on fora not accessable to everyone?  
> 
> The question is the current number of player too big or is there 
> still room of newbie's. Moving from an email Game to a IRC Game means 
> that we lose players. The total time that goes in to Ackanomic will 
> go up.
> 
> Moving to IRC also means that the players outside of USA are excluded 
> from Ackanomic.
> 
> In the worse case 50 % of the active players would drop out. 
> 
> CarsesraC

I agree with a lot of these points, and I think they touch on some other
serious problems with this proposal.  One problem is that the Acka as a
whole is becoming increasingly inaccesible.  Lets face it, most of us
wouldn't be here if we didn't have easy access to the website. I applaud
those who are getting by without such access.  I think that by moving
stuff onto IRC, we're going to make the game even more inaccessible.
Acka is already barely an e-mail game, now people will need to be able to
use IRC to be able to participate fully.

I think that this problem reflects a problem with Games and Contests as a
whole.  In amny ways, the games, Party Chess in particular, are coming to
have less and less to do with Ackanomic.  The Party Chess proposals
routinely get as many or more present votes as they do anything else, and
a lot of the other game proposals get similar, if not quite as drastic,
voting results.  Thus, it's pretty obvious that a lot of us are not
very involved in these games.  By moving into IRC, these games are only
going to become more exclusionary, isolated, and less a part of Ackanomic.
I'd like to at least keep the tenuous connections that currently exist.

Finally, I just don't see the need for this change.  What is it going to
accomplish besides making some of the games run faster?  If all we're
interested in is playing the games faster, well then hell, just don't play
them as part of Acka.  As Nicolo has pointed out already, people already
play informal games on IRC.  I see no reason why these games can't
continue to be informal.  No one is stopping you from playing Ghost or
chess or whatever on IRC, I doubt anyone would even mind if you used the
Ackanomic IRC.  As far as actualy getting points, or money, or whatnot,
for these games, well, I don't think that would be fair to the people who
can't use, or just don't want to use, IRC to play.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:18:17 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1968

> Proposal 1968
> Ad Hoc Towers
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> A proposal that has the following effects:

What effects does this proposal have? I can't quite see it.

Bascule

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #54
***************************************