Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #185
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Saturday, November 29 1997    Volume 02 : Number 185

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:30:39 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2422

> Proposal 2422
> Do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe?

[...]

> 9. Whenever a transfer of more than entity is requested
> 
> {{Renumber this rule to 1017}}

[...]

Is this what was intended?

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 23:38:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Notes on the Flood

Now that I'm caught up (for the time being) on harfing the recent
flurry of proposals, I'd like to make some quick public comments on a
few of them.

Proposal 2397 "The Spelling Exchequer": I think I've responded to
all the issues that people have raised with this. If I've missed any,
or if there's something you don't like about this idea, please speak
up. I'm not married to the implementation, but I *do* want to see
something of this nature in the rules.

Proposal 2401 "And Justice For All": Please vote YES. I've been
meaning to do this myself for a while.

Proposal 2408 "Rule-Harfer": Y'know, it's been a while since I've been
in favor of a rule that will have no immediate substantive effect on
the workings of the game. Malenkai has nicely captured pretty much
exactly what I've been doing for several months - only I've been doing
it as an "assistant Web-Harfer", which understates the necessity of
this job. (I hope that doesn't sound like I'm patting myself on the
back - I am just as dependent on the Rule-Harfing I do as anyone.)
The only reservations I have with this proposal is that it removes the
specification of what rule changes are required to be noted. I prefer
to have that spelled out myself, so I may ask that that be added back
in later, unless there is a good reason for removing it.

Proposal 2412 "Testing the Waters": Malenkai has probably been waiting
for me to say something ... every time someone tries to repeal one of
the surviving rules that were created during the first week of
Ackanomic, I always make an impassioned plea to let them live. The
rule in question this time is "Keep 'Em In The Game". I think the
work/harf ratio in this rule is kind enough to let it be. Well, you
all know how I feel, so I'll skip the rhetoric. If you think it's
boring, then I guess you should vote to kill it. However, I do want to
clarify, just for the record, that this rule has in fact been used,
and more than once.

Proposal 2413 "The Circular Files": The stuff, on the other hand, I am
ready to see removed and make room for something else. I am one of the
few players who has actually fulfilled eir duty as a Krycek, and it
was fun, but I think the rule, as it stands, has already given us all
the harf it's likely to. (And no, I'm not just in favor of this
proposal because the title made me laugh out loud.)

I'll write more on some of the others later....

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 23:49:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2386 accepted

>> Create a New Rule, numbered 1230.30, in the Party Chess Rule Suite, titled
>> "Stabitooum", with DIP delimited text below:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> Create a New Rule, numbered 1230.40, in the Party Chess Rule Suite, titled
>> "Winning a Hand", with PLUGH delimited text below:
>> 
>> [...]

Just a note: Rule 303 does not permit proposals to specify the rule
number for a member of a Rule Suite - they are forced to take the
lowest number larger than all existing members. So you will find these
new rules as 1230.22 and 1230.23.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 02:53:33 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2408

On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > > Amend rule 407, "Web-Harfer", to remove the following text:
> 
> > > "
> > > b) To add whitespace and line breaks to the rules. The Web-Harfer should
> > > consider all player requests to do so. 
> 
> > > c) To seek and appoint Assistant Web-Harfers as needed to keep the Ackanomic
> > > WWW page up-to-date. [This is a duty
> > > because the Web-Harfer is obligated to get help when it is needed, rather than
> > > let the Ackanomic WWW page become
> > > out-of-date.] 
> > > "
> 
> > Ok, now this I don't get.  Yes, now that there is an official
> > Rules-harfer, there is less work for the Web-harfer to do.  But I don't
> > see any need to get rid of this, if the Web-harfer can find people to help
> > him out, more power to them.  Without this clause, he has no choice but to
> > maintain everything himself.  Hrm, I don't know if there are any Assistant
> > Web-harfers right now, other than breadbox, but if there are or if
> > breadbox is maintaining something other than the Ruleset, then if this
> > proposal passed I think Alfvaen would be failing in his duties.
> 
> I think the point here is that the Assistant Web-Harfer thing is listed
> as both a duty and a privilege in the Web-Harfer rule.  I guess this
> would make it just a privilege.
> 

Oh, ok.  I was going by memory on this, since the connection from here is
too slow for me to use a webrowser unless I really need to.  And, well, I
don't imagine I've looked at that particular rule in at least 3 or 4
months.  This makes perfect sense if what Alfvaen said is true, and he
should know...

                                     - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 03:05:25 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2419

On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2419
> Quincy, Medical Examiner
> Alfvaen (Aaron Humphrey)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> Repeal Rule 1123, "snowgod's Disease."
> 
> {{ Red Barn may, as a public action, declare emself cured of
> snowgod's Disease.  If he does not do so within one week of
> this Proposal's passage, this rule repeals itself. }}
> 
> 

This is certianly a rule we can do without.  The self-deleting text,
howqever, will delete itself as soon as it becomes part of a rule, won't
it?

                               - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 00:07:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2408

> Oh, ok.  I was going by memory on this, since the connection from
> here is too slow for me to use a webrowser unless I really need to.
> And, well, I don't imagine I've looked at that particular rule in at
> least 3 or 4 months.  This makes perfect sense if what Alfvaen said
> is true, and he should know...

Alfvaen is correct. I believe it originally began as being just a
privilege, since it is the sort of thing that is usually a privilege.
This became problematic, since an Acting Officer is not permitted to
exercise that Office's privileges, so it was made a duty as well.

But about not having convenient web access: do you know about the
service to have web documents emailed? Have you ever used it? Also, I
make the entire rules document available as a single flat-text file,
gzipped down to 180K. Would it help you if I made it available via
ftp as well?

As always, folks, I'm open to other suggestions regarding information
accessibility. I put a fair amount of effort into the system I use to
keep all the rules documents up-to-date and in sync (I'm especially
happy with the html-to-flat-text converter I made), so I want to make
sure that people can actually use them.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 08:14:42 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2408

On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> As always, folks, I'm open to other suggestions regarding information
> accessibility. I put a fair amount of effort into the system I use to
> keep all the rules documents up-to-date and in sync (I'm especially
> happy with the html-to-flat-text converter I made), so I want to make
> sure that people can actually use them.

I'm normally downloading the rules document every fortnight or so, in HTML
format.  Any rule changes within a fortnight I can usually keep in my head
(provided there isn't a flood of proposals).  Word 97 reads HTML, so I've
set up a macro to convert it to a compact but well-presented document.
The rules shrink down to 65 or so A4 pages in 9 point type, with rule
headings.
- --
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: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 00:35:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2425

I hereby predict that Slakko will retract proposal 2425.

Before he submits yet another revision of it, however, I want to make
another plug for not putting all the Suber-earning conditions into a
single rule. I agree that it makes it convenient to look up all the
possible ways to win, but at the expense of a potentially messy rule
that will have to be amended whenever one of the rules it references
is amended.

Besides, we have the rules-by-category page for looking up the
relevant rules on a given subject. And there's also grep (or whatever
you use for searching a document), especially when you have something
as clearly unique as "Subers" to search on.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 08:39:39 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2425

On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> I hereby predict that Slakko will retract proposal 2425.
> 
> Before he submits yet another revision of it, however, I want to make
> another plug for not putting all the Suber-earning conditions into a
> single rule. I agree that it makes it convenient to look up all the
> possible ways to win, but at the expense of a potentially messy rule
> that will have to be amended whenever one of the rules it references
> is amended.

It no longer requires that all Suber earning rules be kept in it.  I just
thought that collating them together to save a big old grep would be
handy.  It should make play simpler, but if people want to stick other
Suber earners in elsewhere, the revised version enables them to do so.

- --
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: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 08:40:37 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2425

On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> I hereby predict that Slakko will retract proposal 2425.
> 
> Before he submits yet another revision of it, however, I want to make
> another plug for not putting all the Suber-earning conditions into a
> single rule. I agree that it makes it convenient to look up all the
> possible ways to win, but at the expense of a potentially messy rule
> that will have to be amended whenever one of the rules it references
> is amended.

Besides, I have lost 10 points on retractions.  I'm damn well going to
submit it to a vote :-)

- --
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: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 04:03:24 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2421

On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2421
> What Kind of a Catchphrase is That?
> Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> 
> Repeal Rule 1140, "Unofficial Catchphrases".
> 
> [This rule doesn't add that much to the game, it has yet to be used
> despite being introduced almost three months ago, and therefore appears to
> be excess baggage.]
> 
> 

Actually, I have used it.  My unofficial catchphrase is "There is no Dana,
on Zuul."  I think it is anyway, I know I was planning on chaning it but I
don't think I ever actually did.  I even wrote a proposal with it in it,
but I can't remember if it passed.  I had a Silly proposal in the queue in
the same time that did pass, which was much more exciting for me. :)

In any event, if people want to see this rule junked in the interests of
reducing the size of the ruleset, I guess I'm OK with that.  I would like
to point out, however, that I deliberately tried to write a rule that
required no one to actually harf anything (perhaps overdoing it in that
I can't actually verify what my catchphrase is).  I might be wrong about
this though, I've always wondered just how far Malenkai takes the duty of
the Speaker to track everything about the game state that isn't assigned
to someone else.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 04:11:58 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2423

On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2423
> Old Frinking Buddies
> Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> 
> [The greatest contributors to Ackanomic are often those still playing.
> Let's recognise them, too.]
> 
> Create a new Rule, numbered 843.0, and entitled "Legends in eir Own
> Lunchtime", with text delimited by GREATS below:
> 
> GREATS
> If a player has played Acka continuously for a period of not less than 18
> months, and has won at least two cycles of Ackanomic, then e is eligible
> to be enshrined in the Hall of Elders.  A current player who satisfies the
> conditions of the previous sentence can only be enshrined in the Hall of
> Elders as the result of a Living Legend Hearing.  The legitimate responses
> to a Living Legend Hearing are "More Famous than Babe Ruth" and "Who the
> Hell is e?"  If the result of the Hearing is "More Famous than Babe Ruth",
> then e shall be enshrined in the Hall of Elders according to provisions 6
> and 7 of Rule 843, "Hall of Elders".  A Living Legend Hearing must state
> which player is to be enshrined, and may only be called once in any
> calendar month about a particular player.  A player may not call a Living
> Legend Hearing about emself.
> 
> A player who has been enshrined in this way is automatically entitled to
> use the title Elder, and shall have the powers and benefits explicitly
> specified by other rules for Elders.
> 
> 

Its a nice idea, but what happens if we call a hearing for someone, and he
loses?  I know I'd be bumming.  Not that anyone who meets the
qualifications for this would be likely to lose such a hearing (which
makes me think that simply automatically inducting anyone who's been in
Acka for 18 months might make more sense).

                                             - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:19:09 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2423

On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> Its a nice idea, but what happens if we call a hearing for someone, and he
> loses?  I know I'd be bumming.  Not that anyone who meets the
> qualifications for this would be likely to lose such a hearing (which
> makes me think that simply automatically inducting anyone who's been in
> Acka for 18 months might make more sense).

Simple.  If you lose, nothing happens and you have to wait until next
month to try again.  There's no penalty for failing, so you may as well
try (provided you can get someone to nominate you each month).

I personally don't think automatic induction should be the rule, because
of the possibility of lurkers who contribute little to the game being
inducted in future.  That's why I believe it shoul be put to a vote.

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: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 04:25:37 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2408

On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> But about not having convenient web access: do you know about the
> service to have web documents emailed? Have you ever used it? Also, I
> make the entire rules document available as a single flat-text file,
> gzipped down to 180K. Would it help you if I made it available via
> ftp as well?
> 
> As always, folks, I'm open to other suggestions regarding information
> accessibility. I put a fair amount of effort into the system I use to
> keep all the rules documents up-to-date and in sync (I'm especially
> happy with the html-to-flat-text converter I made), so I want to make
> sure that people can actually use them.
> 
> breadbox

Heh, thank you for your concern breadbox, but I am only home for
Thanksgiving.  Within 36 hours, I will be back at school, with an ethernet
connection for my PentiumII 233, and web access will not be a problem for
me (until Chirstmas).  Now that I think about it, actually, the web is
usually faster at school than the email server I use... :)

                          - Vynd (sorry, could help but brag)

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 04:33:16 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2423

On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> 
> > Its a nice idea, but what happens if we call a hearing for someone, and he
> > loses?  I know I'd be bumming.  Not that anyone who meets the
> > qualifications for this would be likely to lose such a hearing (which
> > makes me think that simply automatically inducting anyone who's been in
> > Acka for 18 months might make more sense).
> 
> Simple.  If you lose, nothing happens and you have to wait until next
> month to try again.  There's no penalty for failing, so you may as well
> try (provided you can get someone to nominate you each month).
> 
> I personally don't think automatic induction should be the rule, because
> of the possibility of lurkers who contribute little to the game being
> inducted in future.  That's why I believe it shoul be put to a vote.

Well, what I was trying to say, in a quaint sort of manner, was that if
someone called a vote for you and you didn't get inducted, you would feel
unpopular and bad and unappreciated.  You know, like losing any other
popularity contest.  The current rule avoids this of course, by waiting
until they're dead (if not buried).  I realized that lurkers could be
inducted with an automatic induction clause, but frankly I think lurking
for 18 months is worthy of some respect.  Besides, its pretty darn
unlikely, although Techno, err, Crackfoo, could probably manage it
(no offense intended).

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:46:18 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2423

On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> Well, what I was trying to say, in a quaint sort of manner, was that if
> someone called a vote for you and you didn't get inducted, you would feel
> unpopular and bad and unappreciated.  You know, like losing any other
> popularity contest.  The current rule avoids this of course, by waiting
> until they're dead (if not buried).  I realized that lurkers could be
> inducted with an automatic induction clause, but frankly I think lurking
> for 18 months is worthy of some respect.  Besides, its pretty darn
> unlikely, although Techno, err, Crackfoo, could probably manage it
> (no offense intended).

Well, this may be true, but I don't see why living legends should get
automatic induction while dead ones have to be put to a vote.  If you feel
that neither should have to suffer the indignities of a vote, then suggest
an amendment.  However, making it "easier" for current players than
ex-players doesn't somehow seem right.

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: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:10:40 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2426

> Proposal 2426
> Grand Dramatic Win Condition Rejig Re-Rejigged

I promised myself I wouldn't comment on this anymore, but there
is one flaw I think serious enough to comment on, so I might as
well comment on everything.  In some cases, it is prolly stuff I
missed the first time; it is a long proposal :-)

> {{All entities containing the word "Suber" or "Subers" in their name are
> destroyed.}}

Hopefully no player joins with that name :)
 
> Create a new Rule, numbered Rule 51.1,

I'm still not sure of the rationale of not putting this stuff
in the 600s.  It seems to create *two* secitons on winning,
and there is the before rule 102 thing that was mentioned.

> d) The instant after a player receives the title of "Sage o' Doe Gas", e
> shall receive 20 Subers, provided e did not receive the title as a result
> of a non-Modest Proposal being accepted.

I was planning on surfing this loophole if this proposal was
accepted, but I'll point it out instead.  It is a bit difficult to parse,
but it does appear a serious flaw.

> FIX
> k) The winner of the cycle loses all eir Subers, or 25 Subers, whichever
> is less.  All other players lose half eir Subers, rounded down.  The Magic
> Number of points is reset to the base Magic Number.
> FIX

This was not in the version I previously commented on, or I missed
it (prolly the latter ;-)), and I *strongly* object to it.  We eliminated
handicapping a while back because it was less fun.  Furthermore, it makes
winning less win-like if you do not reset everyone back to ground zero.

There is also a philosophical point to make here.  I think its better to
make seperate proposals than to include both a re-org *and* significant
change to the way the game is played in the same proposal.  Then people
have to agree with both, and an objectional change to the way the game is
played may deep six an otherwise good reorg.  I would recommend seperating
the two in this case, or better yet, from my point of view, eliminate
this provision altogether.

[amendment to the chartreuse goose]

> If at any time only 1 player possesses 20 or more Subers, but e also
> possesses the Chartreuse Goose, then the player will lose 25 Subers or all
> eir Subers, whichever is less, and the Chartreuse Goose shall then go
> Somewhere Else.

This is also a change to the way the game is played that I don't particularily
like, but I object to it less.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:31:30 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2422 - retracting due to typo

[Proposal 2422]

> I'm unambigously retracting this proposal because I found a rather serious
> typo in it. Meanwhile - RFC!

It was by far the best stab at entity transfer that I have seen.

I would fix the section 9 thing I pointed out though, and I would
wait for the spelling exchequer before resubmitting :-)

There are some very difficult issues with entity transfer that 
I'm not sure were addressed.  It is my opinion that some structure
must exist at the Internomic level for entity transfer to truly work.
These issues mainly concern error correction, e.g., what if a CFJ
determines that an entity was illegally exported after it is out
of our nomic, and that sort of thing.

Finally, I'm not sure about A$ and trinkets.  If 10000 A$s are exported,
do we still have a balance of A$75,000 in acka?  What if the A$10000 comes
back, and there is less than that in the treasury?  There appears some
interesting areas for interaction along these lines...

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:41:57 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Notes on the Flood

> Proposal 2412 "Testing the Waters": Malenkai has probably been waiting
> for me to say something ... every time someone tries to repeal one of
> the surviving rules that were created during the first week of
> Ackanomic, I always make an impassioned plea to let them live. The
> rule in question this time is "Keep 'Em In The Game". I think the
> work/harf ratio in this rule is kind enough to let it be. Well, you
> all know how I feel, so I'll skip the rhetoric. If you think it's
> boring, then I guess you should vote to kill it. However, I do want to
> clarify, just for the record, that this rule has in fact been used,
> and more than once.

As the Scorekeeper, I agree that it's not too much work to keep in here.
And it gives someone who's down at -57 points something to do, to try to
get to -60 exactly...:-)

> Proposal 2413 "The Circular Files": The stuff, on the other hand, I am
> ready to see removed and make room for something else. I am one of the
> few players who has actually fulfilled eir duty as a Krycek, and it
> was fun, but I think the rule, as it stands, has already given us all
> the harf it's likely to. (And no, I'm not just in favor of this
> proposal because the title made me laugh out loud.)

Yes, I declare this Proposal's title harfy.  Not that I have the authority
for such things, of course...

Hmmm.  I should try to work that up into a Proposal...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Todd Rudgren:Todd
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
Vacationing in the Islets of Langerhans

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:42:53 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2386 accepted

> Just a note: Rule 303 does not permit proposals to specify the rule
> number for a member of a Rule Suite - they are forced to take the
> lowest number larger than all existing members. So you will find these
> new rules as 1230.22 and 1230.23.

Interesting.  Is this a desired effect, or should we fix it?  Of course,
I don't think there's anything to specify that one can't _renumber_ a
Rule to a specific position in a Rule Suite, is there?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Todd Rudgren:Todd
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
When it winds down, it ticks faster, don't you agree?  --plord

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:44:19 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2419

> > Repeal Rule 1123, "snowgod's Disease."

> > {{ Red Barn may, as a public action, declare emself cured of
> > snowgod's Disease.  If he does not do so within one week of
> > this Proposal's passage, this rule repeals itself. }}

> This is certianly a rule we can do without.  The self-deleting text,
> howqever, will delete itself as soon as it becomes part of a rule, won't
> it?

I was never quite sure of this, I suppose, but I believe I've seen it
done before that self-deleting text will not necessarily delete itself
_right away_, but _the first time it is applied_.

If this doesn't work, then Red Barn is stuck with the disease, which I'm
sure e can live with.  A singular distinction, sort of like being the
only Weird player...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Todd Rudgren:Todd
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
Wait!  Don't turn the page...I'm not finished.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:49:30 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2421

> > Repeal Rule 1140, "Unofficial Catchphrases".

> Actually, I have used it.  My unofficial catchphrase is "There is no Dana,
> on Zuul."  I think it is anyway, I know I was planning on chaning it but I
> don't think I ever actually did.  I even wrote a proposal with it in it,
> but I can't remember if it passed.  I had a Silly proposal in the queue in
> the same time that did pass, which was much more exciting for me. :)

I hereby declare my official catchphrase to be "Be inconsistent, but don't
do it all the time."  Since my second term as President expires on Wednesday,
maybe I'll use it as my campaign slogan as well.

> In any event, if people want to see this rule junked in the interests of
> reducing the size of the ruleset, I guess I'm OK with that.  I would like
> to point out, however, that I deliberately tried to write a rule that
> required no one to actually harf anything (perhaps overdoing it in that
> I can't actually verify what my catchphrase is).  I might be wrong about
> this though, I've always wondered just how far Malenkai takes the duty of
> the Speaker to track everything about the game state that isn't assigned
> to someone else.

I should maybe put up a web page of Official Catchphrases, actually...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Todd Rudgren:Todd
Current Book--TesseractsQ
Will Major Douglas be expected to take this true-false quiz very soon?

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:51:33 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2423

> Its a nice idea, but what happens if we call a hearing for someone, and he
> loses?  I know I'd be bumming.  Not that anyone who meets the
> qualifications for this would be likely to lose such a hearing (which
> makes me think that simply automatically inducting anyone who's been in
> Acka for 18 months might make more sense).

Maybe there should be something more like the Winning by Popular Vote
thing I proposed.  Instead of nominating a particular player for the
HoE, there could just be a generic hearing where you could vote for
any player(who was not already an Elder), and if a player got more than
the half the votes then e would be inducted.  And maybe there could be
a separate Hall of Fame, and a Hall of Famer would automatically become
an Elder if e left the game.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Todd Rudgren:Todd
Current Book--TesseractsQ
In the beginning there was nothing...which exploded.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:53:30 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Notes on the Flood

> As the Scorekeeper, I agree that it's not too much work to keep in here.
> And it gives someone who's down at -57 points something to do, to try to
> get to -60 exactly...:-)

If the rules are words, that rule is a big glaring spelling error in 
the middle of the ruleset.  I don't believe it has come up in over a 
year, and that bit about the million points is especially unasthetic.

The rule was more fun when we had the voting gnome, because there was
some gamesmanship in keeping your score low but not just trashing your
score.  Now it is just total junk and should go :-)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 16:44:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2419

> I was never quite sure of this, I suppose, but I believe I've seen it
> done before that self-deleting text will not necessarily delete itself
> _right away_, but _the first time it is applied_.

Text inside {{ }} is applied once and then deleted, true, but it is
applied once as soon as the rule exists. If its application fails to
have its intended effect, that will not prevent it from being
deleted.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 17:35:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2430

My fault. I screwed up Slakko's recent submission.

I hereby declare that "due to a renumbering error", there is no such
Proposal as 2430, and anything you may have received from the Promoter
that looks like a proposal 2430 was merely a bad dream.

I think I'm allowed to do this.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 20:25:50 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2431

> Proposal 2431
> Simplification of Winning Conditions into Subers
> Slakko (Duncan Richer)

> {{All entities, which are not players, containing the word "Suber" or
> "Subers" in their name are destroyed.}}

What happens if the proposal is destroyed before its effects are finished
being executed? :-o

/dev/joe

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #185
***********************************