Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #151
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Friday, September 19 1997    Volume 02 : Number 151

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 17:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Slumbering Question

I've got a question for my fellow Slumbering Giants. (I was
considering submitting a CFJ, but I realized that it requires a
familiarity with ancient game state to answer with any authority.)

Before the creation of the Undead rules, was a player who quit and
then rejoined treated as the same player or a new one?

Take Ackers himself, for example. The propchart page treats Bobalugah
Rajiboo, The Great Old One, and Ackers as being a single player, even
though he quit as Bobalugah Rajiboo back in March of 1996 and joined
as The Great Old One the following May. (The Undead rules were not
created until July.) How did this work?

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 20:29:49 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Slumbering Question

> Before the creation of the Undead rules, was a player who quit and
> then rejoined treated as the same player or a new one?

They were treated as the same person.  My quitting and coming
back on the same day Jul 96 to avoid the vacation thing prompted
some of the undead stuff, I believe, to clarify this.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 20:20:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Slumbering Question

breadbox asked:
> I've got a question for my fellow Slumbering Giants. (I was
> considering submitting a CFJ, but I realized that it requires a
> familiarity with ancient game state to answer with any authority.)

I never joined TMBSG because I failed to meet the slumbering requirement
(and probably still fail to do so now, in what is a period of relative
inactivity on my part compared to what had become common for me), but
I will still try to answer.

> Before the creation of the Undead rules, was a player who quit and
> then rejoined treated as the same player or a new one?

I think that he was treated as a new player.  Indeed, even under the
Undead rules (the way it was intended to work, anyway, not necessarily the
way it has always been), a player who joined the game was treated as the
same player (a returning player) only if he had an undead.  I seem to
remember that one player returned shortly after the destruction of the
ZZimsy undead (undead whose records had been lost by negligent undead
harfers) and became a new player, when he would have been a returning
player otherwise.

> Take Ackers himself, for example. The propchart page treats Bobalugah
> Rajiboo, The Great Old One, and Ackers as being a single player, even
> though he quit as Bobalugah Rajiboo back in March of 1996 and joined
> as The Great Old One the following May. (The Undead rules were not
> created until July.) How did this work?

In August the Blue Cross rule was completely rewritten (P1117) to
streamline the process of gaining eligibility for awards (though to
placate the traditionalists, the manual awarding process was retained).
In the original version, after a player received an award, only proposals
submitted after the award was given would count toward that player's next
award; not only did proposals already in the queue miss out, but also
if the senators, etc. were slow in giving the award, more proposals could
wrongfully miss being counted toward the award.

In the rewrite it was specifically ensured that players who quit and
returned in the pre-undead days had all their proposals count.  This
part of the rule is still present today.  (Also it made the eligibility
for stripes just count on total proposals accepted, not the timing of
the proposals and award, and replaced the bonus awarded to former
political officers with something of approximately equal weight, yet
intentionally of less weight for ex-officers who submitted very few
proposals -- I think the point was that the AWOL senators of that
summer who never returned (i.e., fon) deserved no award for their lack
of service to Acka.)

A very early version of the propchart page listed which proposal started
counting toward the next award for each player who had received one
or more awards already.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 22:53:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2304 accepted

On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Results of Proposal 2304
> 
> 12/18 votes: Quorum achieved
> 8/12 YES votes: Proposal accepted
> 
>     YES:
> Alfvaen            (Harf)
> Rex Mundi
> Archie Leach
> two-star
> Balsamic Dragon
> breadbox
> Oneiros
> mr cwm             (Munchkin Haven)
> 
>     NO:
> Malenkai           (Vulcan)
> ThinMan            (Vulcan)
> /dev/joe           (Vulcan)
> Vynd               (Vulcan)
> 

Well, I don't think it changes anything, but our party unity vote is
missing here.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 22:28:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2304 accepted

> >     NO:
> > Malenkai           (Vulcan)
> > ThinMan            (Vulcan)
> > /dev/joe           (Vulcan)
> > Vynd               (Vulcan)

Vynd wrote:
> Well, I don't think it changes anything, but our party unity vote is
> missing here.

We haven't had party unity NO votes since shortly after the underworld
scam, when they were deemed a part of the problem.

/dev/joe

BTW, nobody has sent in a solution for the acrostic puzzle yet.  This means
either that I made it hard enough this time, or everybody is ignoring it.
I won't know which until somebody solves it and lets me know how long they
spent on it.

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #151
***********************************