Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #93
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest   Saturday, June 21 1997   Volume 02 : Number 093

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:01:56 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2130 

>The title "Nine for Mortal Men Doomed To Die" is really bugging me,
>though. It sounds vaguely familiar, but not as a TMBG reference.
>(Unless it's the Morse code in "Pencil Rain".)

Prvoing once again that I know way too much about TMBG (And morse code)...
The morse code in Pencil rain says "Canta no Llores" (Sing don't cry).

Mr. Lunatic Fringe

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 01:35:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2125

> > 	I don't like this.  :o) Should be lexicographic order... that
> > is, word by word rather than letter by letter; and numbers come before
> > letters and are sorted in numeric order.
> 
> I'm not quite sure how this is different from ASCII collation order.  How
> would you like, say, "Atilla the Pun" and "Atillamatic" to be sorted
> relative to each other, and would the two orders do it differently?
	"Atilla the Pun" should come first; yes they would.

> Oh, you mean like "Inky Bloater Decoy #5" and "Inky Bloater Decoy #23"?
> They are distinct names, but clause 1) is insufficient to separate them.
	Sorrie, I had primitive form on the brain.

> But here's a question:  How would you sort "1A2B3", "AB123", and "123AB"
> relative to each other?  I'd probably go "123AB", "1A2B3", and "AB123".
	I hadn't thought of it.  Currently the bot sorts this the same
way you sorted it, and this is probably how I'd do it too.  However, I
would like "Inky Bloater Decoy #5" to come before "Inky Bloater Decoy
#23".
	Actually I would prefer that we ban Trinket "arrays"
completely and make it a horrible crime.  :o)  It was cute exactly
twice (when Malenkai did it the first time, with the Coins, and then
with the Quite Garish Ties.)

> I started working on one, but bogged down.  It might have been too
> ambitious.  However, I might be able to throw something else together, or
> just send you what I've got...what's the deadline again?  :-/
	I don't know.  I resolve to reply to at most 1 of the next 100
messages I read.

- -- 
Mohammed
A American pried open the steel canister with a crowbar.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:55:09 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2125

Jason Orendorff wrote:

>         Actually I would prefer that we ban Trinket "arrays"
> completely and make it a horrible crime.  :o)  It was cute exactly
> twice (when Malenkai did it the first time, with the Coins, and then
> with the Quite Garish Ties.)

In my defence, I did it not to be cute, but to protect the Inky Bloater, 
without subjecting it to the indignity of being buried. I would do it 
again, even if I had to name and describe each one separately. (Well 
maybe only 100.)

**two-star

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:04:39 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2122

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > Proposal 2122
> > two-star[/dev/joe's insightful condensation of Proposal 2122 snipped]

> The problem I see here is that this is a Hubert.  All players are trying
> for the same goal -- having the highest-valued klepton own a quark at the
> moment the 5th berryon is created.  Until there are 4 berryons and at
> least one mason, and either the highest-valued klepton owns a quark, or
> a quark is in a mason, so that the new trinket which forms the 5th berryon
> can own a quark and be the highest valued klepton, nobody can win win
> this way(*).  When the state above is reached, any player (except those
> ineligible due to firing trinkets too recently) can fire the trinket needed
> to win, and we'll have a Hubert trying to figure out who was first.

I do not see a Hubert as being a likely circumstance; it will be quite 
unusual for any player to be able to legally take the quark, much less 
two different players. When the 5th berryon is formed, there must be at 
least 15 Kleptons, so therefore only (on average) 2/15th of 
Alphabet-space will be available for a Quark taker. Since the exact 
point is determined by the previous trinket to own the quark, no place 
in the alphabet should be favored.
Furthermore, the trinket value restriction will likely require a trinket 
to be rather expensive in order to steal a quark, while *any* trinket 
capable of fitting in the same sub-nuclear particle as a Quark can act 
as a Quark hunter-hoser (in fact, trinkets that fit in any Berryon can 
keep the number of Berryons from reaching the CBN, by 2a decay.). 
Furthermore, the one week trinket "summoning sickness," to borrow a term 
from Magic, allows players to respond to a perceived threat before it is 
capable of stealing the Quark. As it stands, I think the SDSC game is 
unbalanced against Quark seekers, but I think it is best to start this 
way. As for it not being a worthwhile winning condition, I guess I can 
agree, on the basis of this stuff not being organic enough to the rest 
of the game.
Anyway, this is just a start, and I think it will be quite possible to 
enrich this if it is passed.

**two-star

just one last retraction and resubmission, and I promise I wont touch it 
again.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:02:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2130 

At 10:01 PM 6/19/97 -0900, you wrote:
>>The title "Nine for Mortal Men Doomed To Die" is really bugging me,
>>though. It sounds vaguely familiar, but not as a TMBG reference.
>>(Unless it's the Morse code in "Pencil Rain".)
>
>Prvoing once again that I know way too much about TMBG (And morse code)...
>The morse code in Pencil rain says "Canta no Llores" (Sing don't cry).
>
>Mr. Lunatic Fringe

Ah, I think it in fact says something Like "Ay Ay Canta no Llores"... There
is something preceding the phrase "Canta no Llores"..

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2130

>>> The title "Nine for Mortal Men Doomed To Die" is really bugging me,
>>> though. It sounds vaguely familiar, but not as a TMBG reference.
>>> (Unless it's the Morse code in "Pencil Rain".)
>> 
>> Prvoing once again that I know way too much about TMBG (And morse code)...
>> The morse code in Pencil rain says "Canta no Llores" (Sing don't cry).
>> 
>> Mr. Lunatic Fringe
> 
> Ah, I think it in fact says something Like "Ay Ay Canta no Llores"... There
> is something preceding the phrase "Canta no Llores"..

Well, if we're going to be picky ...

The phrase is "ay, ay, ay, ay, canta no llores". The "ay"s thus give a
first impression that the Morse code is just a strange rhythmic motive.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:29:24 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2125

> > > 	I don't like this.  :o) Should be lexicographic order... that
> > > is, word by word rather than letter by letter; and numbers come before
> > > letters and are sorted in numeric order.
> > 
> > I'm not quite sure how this is different from ASCII collation order.  How
> > would you like, say, "Atilla the Pun" and "Atillamatic" to be sorted
> > relative to each other, and would the two orders do it differently?
> 	"Atilla the Pun" should come first; yes they would.

Well, "Atilla " comes before "Atillam", as far as I can tell...  I dunno.
As I said, I'd rather get an alphabetization rule on the books first, which
can order any two names deterministically, and let others worry about
expressing better algorithms.  I'm fairly sure there's no rule loopholes in
mine, at least...:-)

> > Oh, you mean like "Inky Bloater Decoy #5" and "Inky Bloater Decoy #23"?
> > They are distinct names, but clause 1) is insufficient to separate them.
> 	Sorrie, I had primitive form on the brain.
> 
> > But here's a question:  How would you sort "1A2B3", "AB123", and "123AB"
> > relative to each other?  I'd probably go "123AB", "1A2B3", and "AB123".
> 	I hadn't thought of it.  Currently the bot sorts this the same
> way you sorted it, and this is probably how I'd do it too.  However, I
> would like "Inky Bloater Decoy #5" to come before "Inky Bloater Decoy
> #23".

Oh, I see...that's one thing ASCII collation order would screw up.  Hmmm.
Oops.  Oh, well.

> 	Actually I would prefer that we ban Trinket "arrays"
> completely and make it a horrible crime.  :o)  It was cute exactly
> twice (when Malenkai did it the first time, with the Coins, and then
> with the Quite Garish Ties.)

Well, I'm sure that I, at least, would be able to come up with something
more creative.  We'll see if the Trinket-Harfer would be pleased with
having to add 100 uniquely named and described trinkets instead of an
array...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--Tears For Fears:Elemental
Current Book--Jo Clayton:The Snares of Ibex
Reluctant to find he's stuck in the 90's again...  [Moxy Fruvous]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:31:18 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2144

> Proposal 2144
> One Million Dollars? That's Right!
> Robert Sevin
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> Renumber Rule 1399 to 1000000.

Excuse me, I believe you misspelled "Repeal Rule 1131".  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--Tears For Fears:Elemental
Current Book--Jo Clayton:The Snares of Ibex
Bacteria: Rear entrance to a cafeteria.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:49:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2080 rejected (Secret Masters of The Universe II)

> Proposal 2080
> Secret Masters of The Universe II
> Alfvaen
> 
> Votes cast by active players:  19 / 20 = 95.000000%
> Yes:  8    No:  10     Present:  1   ...Proposal rejected.

The librarian failed, so it looks like I'm going to be in charge of checking
literature for a while.

I have links to on-line Shakespeare, Bible, They Might Be Giants, Confucious,
the US Constitution, Homer, Twain, and Poe, but it's likely that the full
text/lyrics of the Beatles, Tolkein, Vonnegut, and (apparently) Lovecraft
are not available online anywhere due to copyrights.  (The Lovecraft link
does not have text.)  Some of the links are probably not the complete works.

If anybody knows of better links than the ones I have in rule 210, let me
know.  If it happens that we don't find a "complete works of X" link I
may make my own page with links to the various works, as I did with Twain
(where I found the most complete collection as part of an internet library
where the books were not sorted by author on their page; the link to this
library is at the bottom of the Twain page).

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 18:48:01 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2125

> Well, "Atilla " comes before "Atillam", as far as I can tell...  I dunno.
> As I said, I'd rather get an alphabetization rule on the books first, which
> can order any two names deterministically, and let others worry about
> expressing better algorithms. 

I'll admit I have not been following this thread closely.  However, I
was bored at work today, and spent 4 hours this afternoon reading the
acka rules from start to stop (and didn't get all the way through ;)).

One thing I did notice is that several rules already claim, on an
individual basis, how the entities are to be alphabetized that they are
referring to.  I seem to remember 3 such rules at least, and there was
no common or standard amongst them.

I'm so out of this thread that I do not even know if this proposal was
retracted, but this is my suggestion, FWIW.  Retract this proposal.
Agree on *how* you want to do this, and then, most importantly, make
the necessary amendments to the existing rules that regulate sorting,
so that it is not cluttered with inconsistency, precedence issues,
confusion, etc.  It will make for a cleaner ruleset.

To find the existing rules, search for "ASCII", "order", "alpha", "sort"
and like stuff.  I do not know the rule numbers OtToMH, but try "Speaker"
and try "Blueprints", I seem to remember those.

Malenkai
who hopes his boss is not a player under a different name

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 18:50:49 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2080 rejected (Secret Masters of The Universe II)

> The librarian failed, so it looks like I'm going to be in charge of 
> checking literature for a while.

I think Librarian should be re-proposed without the loopholes I 
pointed out.  I agree that someone other than /dev/joe should be 
responsible for the work, but will not vote for a proposal with 
loopholes the size of Jupiter in it, unless it is my owm ;-)

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:41:20 -0400
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2132 

> Better yet is if 1230 is taken.  Then all the rules in that suite cease
> to be PartyChessPieceDef rules, and all the pieces are moved off the board.
> (At least it doesn't destroy them all...)

  RULES!  I shall *destroy* them ALL!
  :-)

____________________________________________________________________________
|The Mauve Baron|  Beep  [email-masked] * http://www.bergen.org/~dankna|
|---------------|  Blip  |-------------------------------------------------|
|   Dan Knapp   |  Bonk  |     This notice copyright (C)1997 Dan Knapp     |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:07:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2080 rejected (Secret Masters of The Universe II)

On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > Proposal 2080
> > Secret Masters of The Universe II
> > Alfvaen
> > 
> > Votes cast by active players:  19 / 20 = 95.000000%
> > Yes:  8    No:  10     Present:  1   ...Proposal rejected.
> 
> The librarian failed, so it looks like I'm going to be in charge of checking
> literature for a while.
> 
> I have links to on-line Shakespeare, Bible, They Might Be Giants, Confucious,
> the US Constitution, Homer, Twain, and Poe, but it's likely that the full
> text/lyrics of the Beatles, Tolkein, Vonnegut, and (apparently) Lovecraft
> are not available online anywhere due to copyrights.  (The Lovecraft link
> does not have text.)  Some of the links are probably not the complete works.
> 
> If anybody knows of better links than the ones I have in rule 210, let me
> know.  If it happens that we don't find a "complete works of X" link I
> may make my own page with links to the various works, as I did with Twain
> (where I found the most complete collection as part of an internet library
> where the books were not sorted by author on their page; the link to this
> library is at the bottom of the Twain page).
> 
> /dev/joe
> 

I decided against any kind of special verification procedures for the
Literature in this rule because they seemed to me to take most of the fun
out of it.  Unless I have seriously misunderstood my own writting (a
distinct possibility) no one is actually required to verify a quote as
being actual literature.  I don't think there is really enough to be
gained out of faking quotes for anyone to bother, the point gains are
really rather modest.  If anyone does get caught cheating, a CFJ would be
the suitable method for verifying whether or not some quote is really
literature.

On the matter of links, when I originaly started thinking about this
proposal, I tried to find a few sites that had lots of online "classics"
and just use them as the Literature list.  I soon realized that this
wasn't going to work.  There weren't enough sites, and many of the ones
that I did find had lots of stuff that I doubt we'll ever bother putting
onto our list, worthy though they may be.  I will mention that a site I
found called the Bartelby (sp?) Library was pretty good.  In any case,
this also encouraged me not to make any linking requirements.  I pretty
much figured /dev/joe woud do it anyway though, he's that kinda guy. =)

                        - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:18:18 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2125

> > Well, "Atilla " comes before "Atillam", as far as I can tell...  I dunno.
> > As I said, I'd rather get an alphabetization rule on the books first, which
> > can order any two names deterministically, and let others worry about
> > expressing better algorithms. 
> 
> I'll admit I have not been following this thread closely.  However, I
> was bored at work today, and spent 4 hours this afternoon reading the
> acka rules from start to stop (and didn't get all the way through ;)).

It took me longer than that the first time I tried, which was over a month
and a half ago now.  I try to reread something every day, especially if I'm
doing a Proposal on it, but I suppose I rarely read all the Rules to see
what other Rules might be affected by a given Propposal.  (Going through an
old mail log, I came across a comment, I think by Malenkai, that a Modest
proposal was anything that took less than half an hour.  I don't think any
of my Proposals have taken me that long yet.  Well, maybe the Amber Banana
one.  Unless you count retractions and resubmissions...)

Of course, it's also a pain to load the entire ruleset so you can
search it all at once, and a pain to search it a century at a time.  At
home I have a (month and a half old)copy of the entire rules which I can
grep.  When I am Web-Harfer, I will definitely try to implement keyword
searches in my copious free time.

> One thing I did notice is that several rules already claim, on an
> individual basis, how the entities are to be alphabetized that they are
> referring to.  I seem to remember 3 such rules at least, and there was
> no common or standard amongst them.

Foo.  I vaguely remembered one of these, and that it didn't specify a
particular means of alphabetizing, so I thought I was safe.

> I'm so out of this thread that I do not even know if this proposal was
> retracted, but this is my suggestion, FWIW.  Retract this proposal.

Again?  <sigh>  Is there a version of the Crown of Ultimate Failure for the
player with the most retracted Proposals?  The Wand of Wishy-Washiness?

> Agree on *how* you want to do this, and then, most importantly, make
> the necessary amendments to the existing rules that regulate sorting,
> so that it is not cluttered with inconsistency, precedence issues,
> confusion, etc.  It will make for a cleaner ruleset.

Okay.  Mohammed, if you have some time, which I know you probably don't,
try to give me an idea of how your sorting scheme will work, if you like it
better(I just liked mine because it was simpler...), and I'll write it up
all legalese-like.  Also, I retract P2125, and will submit it to the bot if
you haven't done so in a couple of days.  (I've gotten to the point where
I think I'll write a little bitty shell script to automate the process.)

> To find the existing rules, search for "ASCII", "order", "alpha", "sort"
> and like stuff.  I do not know the rule numbers OtToMH, but try "Speaker"
> and try "Blueprints", I seem to remember those.

"Blueprints" for sure.  Also "Ad Hoc Committees", unless that's been
amended, which I'm checking right now.  And I think this came up because
there was something in the queue, so I should perhaps look at that too.
(It's probably two-star's grandiose Proposal--if so, I'll just put in an
"IF" clause in my Prop, rather than make my Evil Twin retract it yet again.
Though the prospect is tempting.  :-)

> Malenkai
> who hopes his boss is not a player under a different name

Yes.  You're fired.  <holds up a card saying "Joke">

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--The Welfare $tarlets:Wreaking Havoc
Current Book--Jo Clayton:The Snares of Ibex
Without perl, our heads would explode.  --ranjit

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #93
***************************************