Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #183
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Thursday, November 27 1997    Volume 02 : Number 183

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 07:28:28 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > A scholar can select a non-vacationing player to become their Graduate
> > Student.  They must pay the Graduate Student A$10 to do so, and the
> > Graduate Student must accept the appointment. 
> 
> I am personally against things that *force* a person to do something,
> or a circumsrtance from which a player cannot abdicate.

Misinterp.  I meant to imply that they must accept the appointment before
it can be considered to have been made.  Not that they have no choice.

Yours,
Slakko

- --
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
"Begone, fools, and give me the bird."
"We'd love to, but the Fox censors won't allow it."

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:26:15 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2408

On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2408
> Rule-Harfer
> Malenkai (Randy Hall)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> Repeal rule 305, "For Personal Glory..."
> Repeal rule 307, "Revision Numbers"

I'm flabbergasted.  Do you want future Ackanomians to grow up with NO
sense of tradition?

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
"Begone, fools, and give me the bird."
"We'd love to, but the Fox censors won't allow it."

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:42:19 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2384 accepted

On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Results of Proposal 2384
> 
> 7/9 YES votes: Proposal accepted
> 
>     NO:
> Malenkai            (Vulcan)

Surely this must have been an anti-vote just for the points?  After 
all, with /dev/joe's enormous lead, you're guaranteed a Swingpoint
every fortnight for a while yet - and that means 2 points for free.

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
"Begone, fools, and give me the bird."
"We'd love to, but the Fox censors won't allow it."

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 09:04:33 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2405

On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Slakko wrote:
> 
> > I'm not particularly hesitant - if people are that worried about me moving
> > things out of the 600s then I can rejig it then and there if necessary.  I
> > just thought that a number reorg would indicate some priorities in the
> > "feeling" of the game.  If you don't want to do that, then just let me
> > know.
> 
> Some of my comments about the winning reorg.  The following may seem a
> bit critical, but my objections are more with implementation than the
> concept, which I like in principle.  Also, sorry for the length :)
> 
> I am personally against moving that stuff out of the 600s.  I don't
> buy the argument that winning is more important than the rules
> between number 160 and 599; on the contrary, most of that infrastructure
> is *more* important than winning, at least to me -- especially the
> judgement rules.  Admittedly, some of the gizz in the 300s can be toasted,
> (and I intend to do so once you folks stop playing with the rule numbering
> rule :-)).  Also, why do the rules have to be ordered by "importance", in
> the first place, and what precedence problem does this reorg solve?

It wasn't designed to solve a precedence problem.  I thought as follows:
(1) there are "holes" in the ruleset numbering as a result of previous
situations, why not fill them?
(2) New players might be daunted - traditional games have simple win
conditions which don't require them to search down to Rule 600 and
something - putting them up higher might encourage more people to join.

But it's not an issue without which the Proposal dies - I'm happy just to
renumber within 600.
 > 
> Secondly, how is having all the winning stuff in one rule better than
> having it in one section, assuming the same amount of content is
> involved?  

This divorces the "value" of an action, in terms of winning the game, from
how it happens.  This means that people are less likely to be passionate
about changing the "value" of an action, as the proposal which defines
that action would not be affected, and there would be less chance for
scamming in that way.

> Admittedly, the Museum and End of World wins are *not* there
> now, but both those rules are platypusses (or is that platypi?); perhaps
> they should be moved to the 600s if having the wins in one place is more
> important than Museum in Locations and EoW in Harf or Physics or whereever
> it is.

That's the other problem - by stripping out the Suber accumulation we
avoid the difficulty of trying to fit a rule into two categories
simultaneously - the suber bit goes in subers, the rest remains where it
is.

 > > I am also against the following in your proposal:
> 
> 1) taking away the slam dunk win for paradox CFJs.  Winning on the spot with
> a PWCFJ is one of the most beautiful things in nomic, IMHO.
Well, then, I'll make it 20, and if enough people are worried later it can
always be reduced.

> 
> 2) Making the Sage o'Doe Gas worth 15 Subers.  I wrote into that rule the
> ability to get the title of Sage o'Doe Gas *without* winning at all, if
> the proposal is modest.  I'd like to keep that; no one is ever going to
> vote for a palindromic proposal that will give a win, IMO, but they may do
> so for just a quirky title, and I think going for that title is cool, 
> without the pressure of winning.  I would keep it 0 or 20 Subers, as it is
> now (I admit that I did not *carefully* read your proposal, and it is 
> possible that you did this, and I missed it).

Okay - I'll make it that if the proposal was non-modest only.

> 
> 3) Making GAD 2 Subers.  For something that is sheer luck :) Since the
> Subers are worth *so* much more than the points for winning, it also may
> affect the dynamics of the game, but I haven't thought about it too much.
> One Suber seems appropriate.

Fine.  1 Suber it is.
> 
> I think the subgame thing is a good idea in general, but you *must* collar
> it to allow only X Subers per month to be created via this method.  Your
> subgame provision is total scam bait in implementation :-)

But you need 6 players before you get a Suber.  How easy is it to organise
a 6-player Scam?

> 
> 4) Awarding Subers for party chess.  Party chess *already* provides too
> much of an award in terms of swingpoints, but at least they are tradeable.
> Party chess was designed for organizational (team) interaction  -- to award
> an *individual*, non-tradeable thing for *individual* skill an activity
> that is not open to everyone to participate in is poor game design, IMO.
> Again, I have not analyized the mathematics of this in detail, how does 15% 
> of a win relate to the current payoff structure?  The fact that this is 
> *in addition*, individual, and non-tradeable, is enough for me though. 
> Winning is an individual thing, PC is an organizational thing.

Do you realise how hard it is to Win a game of Party Chess?  Currently it
is impossible!  Even if my amendment gets up, we need to have at least 6
Kings captured or surrender before the requisite number of Stabber's
Knives are present.  Given that there have been no surrenders in the
history of the game, which has gone through 90 moves, I doubt that the
event is all that likely.  That's why I thought it was worth more than 1
Suber.

Perhaps the following compromise:

(1) If a Party Swinger wins, 2 Subers to them, 1 each to the rest of that
party.
(2) If a Capital Swinger wins, 3 Subers to them
(3) If the NAP Swinger wins, 2 Subers to them, and 1 each to all players
not members of any political party.

That makes it more organizational.

> 
> Some general thoughts:
> 
> a) Add some whitespace between each item in the rule, it makes it easier to
> sift through.
> 
> b) Remove all that precedence language, unless it is absolutely necessary.
> Alot of precedence language indicates poor understanding of how the rule
> interacts with the rest of the ruleset.  A past elder (Mohammed) spent alot
> of time removing alot of the unnecessary precedence language in the rules,
> and I think they are better for it (yes, if you can believe it, the rules
> are now simpler than before :)).
> 
> c) I am against more scorekeeping tokens in general.  First we had points.
> Then, at the period when most nomics shed points, we *added* another type
> called A$s.  Then we added swingpoints, followed some time later by 
> processing chips.  Fortunately processing chips have recently been purged.
> My ideal nomic would have 0 scorekeeping tokens, but I think most people
> like points, so mabye we can get it down to 1.  The Suber seems just another
> scorekeeping token in the hopper, going against the trend.  While this
> objection alone would not cause me to vote against the proposal, I thought
> I'd share that with you anyway.

My previous note on this discussion (see my response to Vynd) explains why
I think another scorekeeping token might actually improve the flexibility
of the game, rather than act to its detriment.

Vive l'harf!

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
"Begone, fools, and give me the bird."
"We'd love to, but the Fox censors won't allow it."

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 07:29:12 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2413

> Proposal 2413
> The Circular Files
> Malenkai (Randy Hall)

> This is a Modest proposal.

> Repeal rule 1118, "Dealing with the Paranormal"

> {{[more must describe harf that is never used.  The
> last two Krykec's have failed to post, and I'm not sure
> this is being enforced w.r.t Rex Mundi, if appropriate.
> Isn't Phoebe enough?  Its time to follow and harf these
> rules, or to dump them.]}}

Oh, well done.  I've been meaning to do this myself.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Rolling Stones:Get Off of My Cloud
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
I'm the king and you have to do what I command or else I can't be king anymore!

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:24:59 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2408

> > Repeal rule 305, "For Personal Glory..."
> > Repeal rule 307, "Revision Numbers"
> 
> I'm flabbergasted.  Do you want future Ackanomians to grow up with NO
> sense of tradition?

Well, the same argument could be made about re-orging the
winning rules :)  I would like current Ackanomians to grow up
with a ruleset that is 40% smaller.  Repealing old, stale rules
is very difficult in this game, but it is worth a try.  Both
revision numbers and authorship credit are maintained in the
new rule, but it is a little more flexible.

We will end up keeping many, many, many traditional rules.  Can't 
we trim a wee bit of the fat? :-)

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:39:24 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2405

> It wasn't designed to solve a precedence problem.  I thought as follows:
> (1) there are "holes" in the ruleset numbering as a result of previous
> situations, why not fill them?

But what are these holes?

> (2) New players might be daunted - traditional games have simple win
> conditions which don't require them to search down to Rule 600 and
> something - putting them up higher might encourage more people to join.

Well, I think repealing lots of useless rules, such as 305 and 307 :-)
is just as viable a solution to the same goal. 

> That's the other problem - by stripping out the Suber accumulation we
> avoid the difficulty of trying to fit a rule into two categories
> simultaneously - the suber bit goes in subers, the rest remains where it
> is.

Agreed.

> But you need 6 players before you get a Suber.  How easy is it to organise
> a 6-player Scam?

I still think collars are a good idea.  I will not vote against it if 
collars are not present, because I like watching scams most of the time.
Either way, I am happy.  To answer your question, though, a 5 player
scam has been organized in Acka (the Underworld crisis), and part of
the premise of your reorg is to make the game attractive to new players,
so if a few more join, perhaps a 6 player scam is not too unreasonable.
 
> Do you realise how hard it is to Win a game of Party Chess?  Currently it
> is impossible!  Even if my amendment gets up, we need to have at least 6
> Kings captured or surrender before the requisite number of Stabber's
> Knives are present. 

I object more in principle in my comments about party chess.

> Perhaps the following compromise:
> 
> (1) If a Party Swinger wins, 2 Subers to them, 1 each to the rest of that
> party.
> (2) If a Capital Swinger wins, 3 Subers to them
> (3) If the NAP Swinger wins, 2 Subers to them, and 1 each to all players
> not members of any political party.
> 
> That makes it more organizational.

Perhaps, but this is another good area for collars.  This could be scam
bait too.

> My previous note on this discussion (see my response to Vynd) explains why
> I think another scorekeeping token might actually improve the flexibility
> of the game, rather than act to its detriment.

Aren't Subers and points the same?  Why not award 500 points for a paradox
win, 400 for Sage O'Doe Gas. etc?

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 02:20:30 -1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC "The Red Tape Proposals"

- --------------8A36AA3C92BC62459D6E08D6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Having submitted a couple of short foolish grandiose proposals (these
don't appear to be mutually exclusive!), I thought it time to submit
some more substantial proposals.

I intend (pending comment) to submit the following proposals (delimited
by these bar thingies)

pls let me know how useless and stupid :) , or otherwise, they r

The land of Ackranomia [sounds like a disease :) ], is desperately short
of Red Tape and Bureaucrats [plenty of lawyers though : ) ], the
following rules are intended to rectify this desperate situation.

K2

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Proposal #1: Red Tape Application Form Proposal

Create a rule titled "Red Tape Application Form Proposal", that reads as
follows :

"Red Tape Application Form Proposals" [RTAFPs] are unownable named
entities.

     1    Each RTAFP [singular of RTAFPs] outlines a unique type of "Red
     Tape Application Form" [RTAF].

     2    In order to be considered a valid a RTAFP must conform to the
     following:
        o be a list of Questions and an optional list of Special
          Submission Requirements [SSR] [e.g.: must be submitted while
          bending over backwards and holding a right-handed grapefruit
          in the left hand].
        o actions required by the SSR list must be performed in the
          public arena.
        o the Questions must require at least 20 different pieces of
          information.
        o the required information should be of highly obscure personal
          nature [with regards to the Ackranomic entity filling out the
          form. For example: grandmother's second cousin's inside leg
          measurement or the colour of the second to last prosthetic
          forehead worn during the last twenty full moons.]
        o Ambiguity in the questions is encouraged.

     3    If at any time a RTAFP requires actions which are impossible
     to perform [e.g. a player is required to hold a right handed grape
     fruit, but no such entity exists] then the RTAFP is given a gold
     star [if such an entity exists] and is sent Else Where.

     4    A RTAFP may  be authored under the following conditions:
        o If the office of MB exists and is occupied then :
             + Only the Mad Bureaucrat may author RTAFPs as a privilege
               of that office, otherwise,
        o If the office of MB exists but is unoccupied then :
             + Any player who has nominated themselves for the office of
               Mad Bureaucrat may author RTAFPs.

     5    It is a crime to unlawfully [i.e. contra to the rules] author
     an RTAFP.

     6    RTAFPs are created in the following manner, or the creation
     attempt fails :
        o by posting their name and text and labelling them as such.
        o At least 3/4 of the questions defined for the proposed RTAF
          must require different information,
        o The RTAFP, as it is posted, must be valid [See section 2].
        o A unique and legal name must be specified.

     7    The RTAFP is said to be authored by the player that posted its
     text.

     8    RTAFPs are authorized 7 working days [if such an entity
     exists], otherwise 7 days, after their creation, assuming they are
     valid.

     9    When a RTAFP becomes authorized:
        o a new rule is created, as a member of this suite, with the
          title "RTAFO: <name>" where:
        o RTAFO stands for "Red Tape Application Form Outline" and
          <name> is the name the RTAFP.
        o The RTAFP is then destroyed.

     10    If at any time a RTAFO requires actions which are impossible
     to perform [e.g. a player is required to hold a right handed grape
     fruit, but no such entity exists] then the RTAFO is given a gold
     star [if such an entity exists] and repealed.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Proposal #2: Red Tape Application Forms

Create a rule titled "Red Tape Application Forms", that reads as follows
:

     1    "Red Tape Application Forms" [RTAFs] are unownable entities.

     2    Any player may create an RTAF [singular of RTAFs] provided
     that:
        o The office of "Mad Bureaucrat" [MB] exists and is occupied.
        o There is an existing "Red Tape Application Form Outline"
          [RTAFO] that outlines the RTAF.
        o They post the name of the RTAFO and information required by
          the RTAF to the MB.

     3    The act of creating a RTAF is termed 'filling in'.

     4    Once a RTAF has been filled in [i.e. created] and has been
     determined to be valid and been accepted [as defined by its RTAFO]
     by the MB [the MB is said to have 'processed' the RTAF]:
        o     a piece of RT is created and given to the player who
          filled in the RTAF.
        o     At the moment of RT creation the RTAF is filed and goes
          Somewhere Else.
     5    Two RTAF are different if they were created from different
     RTAFO.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Proposal #3: Red Tape

Create a Rule, titled "Red Tape", that reads as follows:

     1    There exists a group of  nontradeable, ownable, mimsy entities
     collectively known as "Red Tape" [RT] possessing the following
     qualities :
        o All RT is totally useless, except as outlined in this rule.
        o RT may only be obtained from the "Mad Bureaucrat" [MB]
          according to the rules.
        o Two pieces of RT are of different type provided that the "Red
          Tape Application Forms" [RTAFs] used to create them were
          different.
        o No player may own more than one piece of each type of RT. the
          duplicate piece of RT, already in the player's possession is
          destroyed, just prior to the receipt of the new piece of RT.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Proposal #4: Mad Bureaucrat

Create a rule "Mad Bureaucrat", that reads as follows :

     1    There exists an optional political office called the "Mad
     Bureaucrat" [MB] for which there exists one seat.

     2    The following steps must be followed in order to become the
     MB:
        o If the office of MB is not currently filled :
             + A player may nominate themselves by posting a public
               notice stating intent to be considered for the office of
               MB.
             + The three days after posting of the first nomination
               [since the seat of the MB last became vacant] is known as
               the campaign time.
             + "Red Tape Application Form Proposals" [RTAFPs] submitted
               during the current campaign time by nominees are refereed
               to as Campaign RTAFPs [CRTAFPs].
             + At least one CRTAFP should be submitted by each nominee,
               according to the rules.
             + Any nominee failing to submit at least one CRTAFP is
               automatically disqualified from the selection process.
             + If only one nominee remains, that player assumes the
               office of MB.
             + If more than one nominee remains, the nominee who has
               submitted the most CRTAFPs shall assume the office of MB.
             + In the event of a tie [for number of submitted CRTAFPs],
               a vote shall be held to determine which of the CRTAFPs
               submitted by the tied nominees, details the most useless,
               vague and cumbersome RTAF, requiring the most obscure
               knowledge.
             + The author of the CRTAFP which gains the most votes, upon
               the results of the vote being made publicly known,
               assumes the office of MB.

        o If the office of MB is currently filled:
             + and the current MB has held office for more than one
               month
             + a player, in possession of at least as much RT as the
               current MB and more than 0 piece, may initiate a
               "Political Back Stab" [PBS].
             + a Political Back Stab is initiated by publicly posting an
               action to that effect. The MB is then removed from
               office. The former MB is permitted to make gurgling,
               thrashing sounds in response to the PBS.
             + Within 24 hr of completing a Political Back Stab, the
               player, who initiated it MUST nominate themselves for the
               office of MB and submit a CRTAFP, the nomination and
               selection procedure then proceed as for a vacant MB seat.
             + Failure to do so is an 'Unfair Dismissal'.
                  + An Unfair Dismissal is a Crime.
                  + The former MB should initiate a CFCJ in the event of
                    an Unfair Dismissal, upon a verdict of TRUE the
                    former MB is paid A$20 damages from the Treasury and
                    may resume the office.
             + The former MB is eligible for nomination.

     3    The Duties of the MB are as follows :
        o Maintain a list of what types of RT each player is in
          possession of and make it available upon request.
        o Receive completed [filled in] "Red Tape Application Forms"
          [RTAF] submissions and resubmissions for a fee of up to A$5.
        o Determining the validity of an RTAF submitted by a player as
          defined by the corresponding "Red Tape Application Form
          Outline" [RTAFO].
        o Return invalid RTAFs, stamped with "Incorrect. Resubmit.". No
          reason or refund need be given.
        o Each otherwise valid RTAF submitted may be returned to the
          player who filled it in once, for some silly minor technical
          error.

     4    The Privileges of the MB are as follows:
        o Author "Red Tape Application From Proposals" RTAFPs.
        o Receive a processing fee of up to A$5 from the player for each
          RTAF submission or resubmission. The MB does not receive any
          other form of payment for fulfilling the Duties of the office.
        o To be affectionately referred to as either a "Desk Jockey" or
          a "Paper Pusher".

- --------------8A36AA3C92BC62459D6E08D6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>
Having submitted a couple of short foolish grandiose proposals (these don't
appear to be mutually exclusive!), I thought it time to submit some more
substantial proposals.

<P>I intend (pending comment) to submit the following proposals (delimited
by these bar thingies)

<P>pls let me know how useless and stupid :) , or otherwise, they r

<P>The land of Ackranomia [sounds like a disease :) ], is desperately short
of Red Tape and Bureaucrats [plenty of lawyers though : ) ], the following
rules are intended to rectify this desperate situation.

<P>K2

<P>
<HR WIDTH="100%">
<CENTER>Proposal #1: Red Tape Application Form Proposal</CENTER>

<P>Create a rule titled "Red Tape Application Form Proposal", that reads
as follows :

<P>"Red Tape Application Form Proposals" [RTAFPs] are unownable named entities.
<UL>1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Each RTAFP [singular of RTAFPs] outlines a unique
type of "Red Tape Application Form" [RTAF].

<P>2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In order to be considered a valid a RTAFP must conform
to the following:
<UL>
<LI>
be a list of Questions and an optional list of Special Submission Requirements
[SSR] [e.g.: must be submitted while bending over backwards and holding
a right-handed grapefruit in the left hand].</LI>

<LI>
actions required by the SSR list must be performed in the public arena.</LI>

<LI>
the Questions must require at least 20 different pieces of information.</LI>

<LI>
the required information should be of highly obscure personal nature [with
regards to the Ackranomic entity filling out the form. For example: grandmother's
second cousin's inside leg measurement or the colour of the second to last
prosthetic forehead worn during the last twenty full moons.]</LI>

<LI>
Ambiguity in the questions is encouraged.</LI>
</UL>
</UL>

<UL>3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If at any time a RTAFP requires actions which are
impossible to perform [e.g. a player is required to hold a right handed
grape fruit, but no such entity exists] then the RTAFP is given a gold
star [if such an entity exists] and is sent Else Where.

<P>4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A RTAFP may&nbsp; be authored under the following
conditions:
<UL>
<LI>
If the office of MB exists and is occupied then :</LI>

<UL>
<LI>
Only the Mad Bureaucrat may author RTAFPs as a privilege of that office,
otherwise,</LI>
</UL>

<LI>
If the office of MB exists but is unoccupied then :</LI>

<UL>
<LI>
Any player who has nominated themselves for the office of Mad Bureaucrat
may author RTAFPs.</LI>
</UL>
&nbsp;</UL>
5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It is a crime to unlawfully [i.e. contra to the rules]
author an RTAFP.

<P>6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; RTAFPs are created in the following manner, or the
creation attempt fails :
<UL>
<LI>
by posting their name and text and labelling them as such.</LI>

<LI>
At least 3/4 of the questions defined for the proposed RTAF must require
different information,</LI>

<LI>
The RTAFP, as it is posted, must be valid [See section 2].</LI>

<LI>
A unique and legal name must be specified.</LI>
</UL>
</UL>

<UL>7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The RTAFP is said to be authored by the player
that posted its text.

<P>8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; RTAFPs are authorized 7 working days [if such an
entity exists], otherwise 7 days, after their creation, assuming they are
valid.

<P>9&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; When a RTAFP becomes authorized:
<UL>
<LI>
a new rule is created, as a member of this suite, with the title "RTAFO:
&lt;name>" where:</LI>

<LI>
RTAFO stands for "Red Tape Application Form Outline" and &lt;name> is the
name the RTAFP.</LI>

<LI>
The RTAFP is then destroyed.</LI>
</UL>
&nbsp;
<BR>10&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If at any time a RTAFO requires actions which
are impossible to perform [e.g. a player is required to hold a right handed
grape fruit, but no such entity exists] then the RTAFO is given a gold
star [if such an entity exists] and repealed.</UL>

<HR WIDTH="100%">
<CENTER>Proposal #2: Red Tape Application Forms</CENTER>

<P>Create a rule titled "Red Tape Application Forms", that reads as follows
:
<UL>1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "Red Tape Application Forms" [RTAFs] are unownable
entities.

<P>2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any player may create an RTAF [singular of RTAFs]
provided that:
<UL>
<LI>
The office of "Mad Bureaucrat" [MB] exists and is occupied.</LI>

<LI>
There is an existing "Red Tape Application Form Outline" [RTAFO] that outlines
the RTAF.</LI>

<LI>
They post the name of the RTAFO and information required by the RTAF to
the MB.</LI>
</UL>
</UL>

<UL>3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The act of creating a RTAF is termed 'filling in'.

<P>4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Once a RTAF has been filled in [i.e. created] and
has been determined to be valid and been accepted [as defined by its RTAFO]
by the MB [the MB is said to have 'processed' the RTAF]:
<UL>
<LI>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a piece of RT is created and given to the player who
filled in the RTAF.</LI>

<LI>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; At the moment of RT creation the RTAF is filed and goes
Somewhere Else.</LI>
</UL>
5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Two RTAF are different if they were created from different
RTAFO.</UL>

<HR WIDTH="100%">
<CENTER>Proposal #3: Red Tape</CENTER>

<P>Create a Rule, titled "Red Tape", that reads as follows:
<BR>&nbsp;
<UL>1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There exists a group of&nbsp; nontradeable, ownable,
mimsy entities collectively known as "Red Tape" [RT] possessing the following
qualities :
<UL>
<LI>
All RT is totally useless, except as outlined in this rule.</LI>

<LI>
RT may only be obtained from the "Mad Bureaucrat" [MB] according to the
rules.</LI>

<LI>
Two pieces of RT are of different type provided that the "Red Tape Application
Forms" [RTAFs] used to create them were different.</LI>

<LI>
No player may own more than one piece of each type of RT. the duplicate
piece of RT, already in the player's possession is destroyed, just prior
to the receipt of the new piece of RT.</LI>
</UL>
</UL>

<HR WIDTH="100%">
<CENTER>&nbsp;Proposal #4: Mad Bureaucrat</CENTER>

<P>Create a rule "Mad Bureaucrat", that reads as follows :
<BR>&nbsp;
<UL>1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There exists an optional political office called
the "Mad Bureaucrat" [MB] for which there exists one seat.

<P>2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The following steps must be followed in order to
become the MB:
<UL>
<LI>
If the office of MB is not currently filled :</LI>

<UL>
<LI>
A player may nominate themselves by posting a public notice stating intent
to be considered for the office of MB.</LI>

<LI>
The three days after posting of the first nomination [since the seat of
the MB last became vacant] is known as the campaign time.</LI>

<LI>
"Red Tape Application Form Proposals" [RTAFPs] submitted during the current
campaign time by nominees are refereed to as Campaign RTAFPs [CRTAFPs].</LI>

<LI>
At least one CRTAFP should be submitted by each nominee, according to the
rules.</LI>

<LI>
Any nominee failing to submit at least one CRTAFP is automatically disqualified
from the selection process.</LI>

<LI>
If only one nominee remains, that player assumes the office of MB.</LI>

<LI>
If more than one nominee remains, the nominee who has submitted the most
CRTAFPs shall assume the office of MB.</LI>

<LI>
In the event of a tie [for number of submitted CRTAFPs], a vote shall be
held to determine which of the CRTAFPs submitted by the tied nominees,
details the most useless, vague and cumbersome RTAF, requiring the most
obscure knowledge.</LI>

<LI>
The author of the CRTAFP which gains the most votes, upon the results of
the vote being made publicly known, assumes the office of MB.</LI>
</UL>
</UL>
</UL>

<UL>
<UL>
<LI>
If the office of MB is currently filled:</LI>

<UL>
<LI>
and the current MB has held office for more than one month</LI>

<LI>
a player, in possession of at least as much RT as the current MB and more
than 0 piece, may initiate a "Political Back Stab" [PBS].</LI>

<LI>
a Political Back Stab is initiated by publicly posting an action to that
effect. The MB is then removed from office. The former MB is permitted
to make gurgling, thrashing sounds in response to the PBS.</LI>

<LI>
Within 24 hr of completing a Political Back Stab, the player, who initiated
it MUST nominate themselves for the office of MB and submit a CRTAFP, the
nomination and selection procedure then proceed as for a vacant MB seat.</LI>

<LI>
Failure to do so is an 'Unfair Dismissal'.</LI>

<UL>
<LI>
An Unfair Dismissal is a Crime.</LI>

<LI>
The former MB should initiate a CFCJ in the event of an Unfair Dismissal,
upon a verdict of TRUE the former MB is paid A$20 damages from the Treasury
and may resume the office.</LI>
</UL>

<LI>
The former MB is eligible for nomination.</LI>
</UL>
</UL>
</UL>

<UL>3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Duties of the MB are as follows :
<UL>
<LI>
Maintain a list of what types of RT each player is in possession of and
make it available upon request.</LI>

<LI>
Receive completed [filled in] "Red Tape Application Forms" [RTAF] submissions
and resubmissions for a fee of up to A$5.</LI>

<LI>
Determining the validity of an RTAF submitted by a player as defined by
the corresponding "Red Tape Application Form Outline" [RTAFO].</LI>

<LI>
Return invalid RTAFs, stamped with "Incorrect. Resubmit.". No reason or
refund need be given.</LI>

<LI>
Each otherwise valid RTAF submitted may be returned to the player who filled
it in once, for some silly minor technical error.</LI>
</UL>
</UL>

<UL>4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Privileges of the MB are as follows:
<UL>
<LI>
Author "Red Tape Application From Proposals" RTAFPs.</LI>

<LI>
Receive a processing fee of up to A$5 from the player for each RTAF submission
or resubmission. The MB does not receive any other form of payment for
fulfilling the Duties of the office.</LI>

<LI>
To be affectionately referred to as either a "Desk Jockey" or a "Paper
Pusher".</LI>

<BR>&nbsp;</UL>
</UL>
&nbsp;</HTML>

- --------------8A36AA3C92BC62459D6E08D6--

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:32:11 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2405

On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > It wasn't designed to solve a precedence problem.  I thought as follows:
> > (1) there are "holes" in the ruleset numbering as a result of previous
> > situations, why not fill them?
> 
> But what are these holes?

This was just a simple numbering gap argument.  It's dead now that I'm
willing to organise it in the 600s.  I just meant that we have the 100s,
the 200s, the 250s, the 300s, the 350s, but no 50s or 150s.
> 
> > (2) New players might be daunted - traditional games have simple win
> > conditions which don't require them to search down to Rule 600 and
> > something - putting them up higher might encourage more people to join.
> 
> Well, I think repealing lots of useless rules, such as 305 and 307 :-)
> is just as viable a solution to the same goal. 

Fair enuff.
> 
> > But you need 6 players before you get a Suber.  How easy is it to organise
> > a 6-player Scam?
> 
> I still think collars are a good idea.  I will not vote against it if 
> collars are not present, because I like watching scams most of the time.
> Either way, I am happy.  To answer your question, though, a 5 player
> scam has been organized in Acka (the Underworld crisis), and part of
> the premise of your reorg is to make the game attractive to new players,
> so if a few more join, perhaps a 6 player scam is not too unreasonable.

Should we make it percentage of active plus vacationing players then?  Say
50%?

> I object more in principle in my comments about party chess.
Also note, now it isn't just the Swingers who get Swingpoints - party
members pick them up as well.
> > Perhaps the following compromise:
> > (1) If a Party Swinger wins, 2 Subers to them, 1 each to the rest of that
> > party.
> > (2) If a Capital Swinger wins, 3 Subers to them
> > (3) If the NAP Swinger wins, 2 Subers to them, and 1 each to all players
> > not members of any political party.
> > 
> > That makes it more organizational.
> 
> Perhaps, but this is another good area for collars.  This could be scam
> bait too.

How about a simple collar - if the game lasted at least three weeks, then
the Subers would be awarded.
> 
> > My previous note on this discussion (see my response to Vynd) explains why
> > I think another scorekeeping token might actually improve the flexibility
> > of the game, rather than act to its detriment.
> 
> Aren't Subers and points the same?  Why not award 500 points for a paradox
> win, 400 for Sage O'Doe Gas. etc?

That's a good question.  Why haven't we?  :-)
Currently they're not subsumed into points because of the point impact on
money.  Subers have no link to Ackadollars, but points do.  I think there
might be an outcry if the end of cycle point conversion to A$ was
abolished, and giving that many extra A$ for a win, when special wins get
special rewards as well, might seem a little much.

My idea's basic tenet was "let's enable winning conditions to be changed
more easily".  I guess the implied second tenet was "keep winning by
points as a separate event from other types of wins, as this seems to be
Ackanomic custom and not necessarily a Bad Thing."

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
"Begone, fools, and give me the bird."
"We'd love to, but the Fox censors won't allow it."

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 11:03:36 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2405

[subgames and Subers]

> Should we make it percentage of active plus vacationing players then?  Say
> 50%?

I would like winning a subgame of 3 or more players to count.  By awarding
points and A$s now, it does of course, but in the framework of Subers, the
number of Subers awarded could be a function of the number of players.  
How about N/5; N > 2.  Of course, 20 would go to 100, and they look more
like points every day...

My idea of collars was not on number of players, but number of Subers awarded
via the G&C route per month.  Ie, no more than 5 Subers are created per
calendar
month from Games and Contests.

> How about a simple collar - if the game lasted at least three weeks, then
> the Subers would be awarded.

Right, or no more than once per calendar month.  I find per calendar period
easier to deal with than every X period.

> That's a good question.  Why haven't we?  :-)
> Currently they're not subsumed into points because of the point impact on
> money.  Subers have no link to Ackadollars, but points do.  I think there
> might be an outcry if the end of cycle point conversion to A$ was
> abolished, and giving that many extra A$ for a win, when special wins get
> special rewards as well, might seem a little much.

I would love to see one or the other go.  But not likely, I'm afraid.
I want a single currency called mana, earned via game actions, and used
to effect changes in the game state.  Saying I use X mana to change the
game state to include "Malenkai wins" is just a use of that mana.  Players
who do not care about winning can use their mana to effect changes in the
game state they care about.  That's my thoughts on scorekeeping tokens/
currency, anyway.

> My idea's basic tenet was "let's enable winning conditions to be changed
> more easily".  I guess the implied second tenet was "keep winning by
> points as a separate event from other types of wins, as this seems to be
> Ackanomic custom and not necessarily a Bad Thing."

I agree with the structure in principle, but I think some of the 
implementation is a bit iffy.  I cannot assure you that I will vote
for it, but I am but one vote.

Malenkai

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #183
***********************************