Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #61
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest     Sunday, May 18 1997     Volume 02 : Number 061

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

Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 04:18:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2007

On Fri, 16 May 1997, Aaron Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > [My reasoning is there are already plenty of awards in the game for
> > playing well.  Probably too many.  PCs aren't harfy and they are a
> > royal pain to track.  If acka is getting too bureaucratic it's because
> > someone has to track all this *stuff* and understandably, nobody wants
> > to.
> 
> I did wonder what the heck Processing Chips were for.  I forgot that they
> showed up in the Chalice rules, but then I confess that was one set of
> rules that made my eyes glaze over as I read them.  :-)
> 
> > The Chalice Win depends on PCs.  I changed it to trinkets for lack of
> > anything better.  I also considered bonds.. if anyone has a better
> > idea please don't hesitate to propose it.]
> 
> > The Bronze Key may only be given to a Player possessing one or more
> > Trinkets that were created by other Players.  After seven (7) days the
> > Key shall transfer one such Trinket from the Player possessing the
> > Bronze Key to the Player who created the Trinket.  If at any time the
> > Player possessing the Bronze Key should have no Trinkets that were
> > created by other Players, the Key shall be immediately transferred
> > back to the Chartreuse Goose.  The owner of the Goose must then
> > distribute the Key as an initial distribution in accordance with
> > distribution Rules.
> 
> Are we keeping track of who created Trinkets?  I don't believe that
> it's being kept track of on Malenkai's(?) web page, at least.  It might
> result in trinkets being taken out of circulation of they end up back
> in the position of their now-undead creators.  (If anyone's worried
> about that, anyway...)

Hrm.  I like the idea of using Trinkets in the place of the Processing
Chips.  They do seem to be rather pointless little things.  I am wondering
if we could possibly have problems arise by having Undead start haunting
some trinket of another, although the only trinkets of any significance I
know of are the Golden Frog and (now) Beldin's Parka.  I think it's a
relatively small risk to take, however.  If worst comes to sorst, we can
just pass a proposal getting the trinket back, or turning it into a "real"
entity even.

> The other alternative, of course, is to actually come up with another
> purpose for Processing Chips, like making them our Liaison to Internomic or
> something.  :-)  (Can we trade them to Pumpkin Patch?)  What kinds of
> things require "processing"?  The Machine That Goes *ping*?  (And whose
> house is that in now that CarsesraC has declared he's too busy proving the
> Earth is flat?)  Blueprints?  Maybe PCs are consumed in the making of
> Blueprints or Gadgets?  They can be exchanged for Otzma Cards in sufficient
> quantities?  Let me know if any of these sound at all worthwhile, and I'll
> draft up a proposal.  (Or you can go ahead and do it yourself.  As has been

I've seen a few attempts at things like this.  They never pass, and I
think it's because, when you get right down to it, they make Processing
Chips even more pointless than they already are.  I mean, it's more or
lessturning Processing Chips into substitute Otzma Cards, or whatever.
The use of Processing Chips in the contruction of Gadgets is something I
distinctly recall a proposal for earlier, by CnH I think, as part of a
whole components add on to the Gadget rules.  I voted against it because I
didn't see any point in making the Gadget rules even more complicated.
Certainly it isn't worth it just for the sake of giving Processing Chips a
purpose for existing.

> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
> Current Album--Holly Cole Trio:Girl Talk
> Current Book--Liavek:Festival Week
> I had my brain digitized.  The digit was 0.
> 

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 12:39:06 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2006

> Proposal 2006
> CV1701 Makes Good
> CV1701
> 
> If a Proposal is said to be Modest by the author it must contain one of the
> following words: "Up" "Down" "On your head" or the current 3 word phrase set
> forth by R207.1

We are talking about modest proposes not funny or silly proposes. ;) 

> However if, with in the past 27 days the person has been deemed silly they
> are exempt from this rule if the month contains a blue moon or if the
> temperature has droped to -3degreesF ar above 100 degreese F.
> 
The clause about the temperature is pointless, because the 
temperature can drop easily under -3 degrees F or rise above 100 
degrees F. This can be prove very easy so I leave that to the rest of 
the clever ackanomics scientist. 

This propose is silly and has a lot of holes in it. This propose will 
create a lot of confusion and not the fun it promise to give.

BTW maybe I will become a voting member just to vote against this 
one.

CarsesraC

 
- --
Good news: I got a job !!!
My future company is Gentronics network services.

Jeroen M.W. van Dijk

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

Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 13:53:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2007

> Are we keeping track of who created Trinkets?  I don't believe that
> it's being kept track of on Malenkai's(?) web page, at least.
	Good question.  I remember thinking in the hazy past that it
might be worth tracking but I don't think so anymore.
	I will retract the proposal and go think of something else.  :oP

- -- 
Mohammed
A team of well-mannered dogs fell asleep while kings gave long lectures.

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #61
***************************************