Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #241
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Friday, January 30 1998     Volume 02 : Number 241

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:34:12 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Agenda RFC

I had a thought regarding the Agenda thing, and how Slakko's claims are
being contested.  Would it be better if, say, the Illuminatus had the
final say on when Agenda Conditions were satisfied?  Or would this be
too much of a scam for a player with a 5/6 Magic Number winning condition?
Or should there be some limit on how long a CFJ may be submitted on the
satisfaction of an Agenda Condition?  It'd be nice if this could be
streamlined somehow.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Christine Lavin:Regretting What I Said...
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
Poison me with liquor then break out the party hats

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 17:41:00 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Agenda RFC

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> I had a thought regarding the Agenda thing, and how Slakko's claims are
> being contested.  Would it be better if, say, the Illuminatus had the
> final say on when Agenda Conditions were satisfied?  Or would this be
> too much of a scam for a player with a 5/6 Magic Number winning condition?
> Or should there be some limit on how long a CFJ may be submitted on the
> satisfaction of an Agenda Condition?  It'd be nice if this could be
> streamlined somehow.

I note that it is possible for a player who is both Illuminatus and
Justice to scam the game on Agenda Conditions anyway by indefinitely
delaying any judgement of an appeal of a win by Agenda Condition CFJ.

However, here are my 2 ackapennies:

You could make the Illuminatus responsible, if you make it a duty of the
illuminatus to announce the acquisition of the title of Agent of KAOS. 

That way it has to be done within 3 days.
Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Acka - RuneMaker, Chess-Umpire, Map-Harfer, Senator, Wearing Agenda Hat

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:17:13 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2628 rejected

> Thank you to everyone who put every single trinket in the game 
> of any significant value whatsoever pretty much out of reach as a quick
> supply of money to the owner.
> 
> What was wrong with this proposal?
> 
> > > Amend Rule 1240.7 by appending the text " from another entity" after
the
> > > word "received".
> > > 
> > > {{[This way trinket creation / destruction does not count.]}}

I didn't have a clue what it was trying to do and didn't have time to look
in the rules to work it out. You really ought to spell out exactly what
you're trying to do. Especially now the short proposal bonus is gone.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:51:48 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 525 (Thin Man)

> > Could you please tell me where in the rules it says this?  I cannot find it
> > under either the judgement rules or the rules for the office of Supreme
> > Court Justice.

> R417, Justices Rock.

I seem to recall having expressed some concern over the bad placement of
this provision before.  Since moving it to another Rule would be possible
for a CSR, perhaps it should be done that way...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Bob Dylan:Rainy Day Women #12 & #35
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
Error #56: Nut loose on keyboard.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:48:00 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Razor Boomerangs' Party Charter

> I submit the following \n-delimited text as the Party Charter of the
> Razor Boomerangs. If I need the approval of all members to do so, I hereby
> approve of this Charter and encourage the other members to do likewise.  

Actually, I think that since this is posted on acka-research, by the most
recent Postal Code amendments it doesn't count as an action.

Also, as far as I can tell, Party Charters are not binding.  When The
Gingham Wearer put a clause against his own removal in the Charter of
Klingon, it wouldn't have overridden the Rules at all, as far as I can
tell.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Rick Astley:Never Gonna Give You Up
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
They're stronger than old cheese, stronger than dirt

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:49:20 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Like a rolling Stone

> This has absolutely nothing to do with the current game state, it's just
> something I came up with while in an extremely silly mood (OK, slightly
> more silly than normal) and I wanted to see what you beings thought of it.

> I purposely excluded any description of how players become Stoned; I
> thought that could be done by other proposals.  Being Stoned is similar to
> being Hosed, I suppose, but I think it's different enough to warrant being
> added.  What do you think?

I like!  Maybe the Postmaster could declare someone either Stoned or Hosed
when someone has Gone Postal...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Bob Dylan:Rainy Day Women #12 & #35
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
Needless to say, all my thumbnails are clickable.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:04:07 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2628 rejected

> Thank you to everyone who put every single trinket in the game 
> of any significant value whatsoever pretty much out of reach as a quick
> supply of money to the owner.

> What was wrong with this proposal?

While some of the benefits of trinkets being used as a form of savings
have been eliminated by my "Total Wealth" proposals, I don't think that
they should be totally without risk.  If you want a quick supply of money,
why not keep a bunch of A$ in your possession?  If there are advantages to
keeping money in the form of trinkets, then there should be some drawbacks.
If there aren't, then they can go back to being more than just a cash
storage device, and more of an opportunity for creativity.

If you're too worried, as RuneMaker you can always try to constrict the
flow of Share Your Income cards...:-)

Besides, if you can use a Share My Expenses card to create them in the
first place, why can't you Share it when destroying it?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Chris De Burgh:Old-Fashioned People
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
I'll have one brain on drugs with bacon, toast and juice.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:26:47 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: CPPIA RFC

I'm contemplating adding a few conditions to the CPPIA thing.  How does
this sound:

A Trinket that is in the Museum is automatically considered to be
"hottest thing since the Hubert Feathers".  Any other Trinket which
is only worth A$1, or less than A$5 or something, is automatically
inane.

What I really want to do, actually, is wipe out ultra-cheap trinkets
entirely, because as Trinket-Harfer and Financier I just find them a
bit petty.  But I don't want to obliterate the Map of Jara or the
whatever it is we're auctioning today.

Anyone have any other ideas how this might be achieved?  Or am I just
one of the lunatic fringe here?  (I'll probably be resigning as Trinket-
Harfer as soon as somebody else is President, anyway...but by this point
I suppose I'll stay President until my term ends next week...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Chris De Burgh:Old-Fashioned People
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
They also wait who only stand and serve.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:43:25 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2628 rejected

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> Besides, if you can use a Share My Expenses card to create them in the
> first place, why can't you Share it when destroying it?

Can you still?  You don't pay money to create trinkets, the money is
transformed into a trinket.  I don't think that counts as a pay, so I
wanted to block the SYI use to balance things up.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Acka - RuneMaker, Chess-Umpire, Map-Harfer, Senator, Wearing Agenda Hat

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:07:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Razor Boomerangs' Party Charter

>> I submit the following \n-delimited text as the Party Charter of the
>> Razor Boomerangs. If I need the approval of all members to do so, I hereby
>> approve of this Charter and encourage the other members to do likewise.  
> 
> Actually, I think that since this is posted on acka-research, by the most
> recent Postal Code amendments it doesn't count as an action.
> 
> Also, as far as I can tell, Party Charters are not binding.  When The
> Gingham Wearer put a clause against his own removal in the Charter of
> Klingon, it wouldn't have overridden the Rules at all, as far as I can
> tell.

Party charters, though customary, are completely unrecognized and
unregulated by the rules. (So posting one on acka-research is actually
somewhat appropriate.)

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:20:31 -0600
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CPPIA RFC

I actually prefer cheap trinkets to exist.  In fact, I wouldn't mind
having zero-value trinkets.  I just like making trinkets the have cool
descriptions, and a read through the trinket list shows all sorts of
interesting Ackahistory in cheap trinkets.  However, I am neither the
Trinket-Harfer or the Financier... is it significantly more work?

Just my A$.02

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	[email-masked] [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Friday, January 30, 1998 12:27 PM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Acka: CPPIA RFC
>
>
>I'm contemplating adding a few conditions to the CPPIA thing.  How does
>this sound:
>
>A Trinket that is in the Museum is automatically considered to be
>"hottest thing since the Hubert Feathers".  Any other Trinket which
>is only worth A$1, or less than A$5 or something, is automatically
>inane.
>
>What I really want to do, actually, is wipe out ultra-cheap trinkets
>entirely, because as Trinket-Harfer and Financier I just find them a
>bit petty.  But I don't want to obliterate the Map of Jara or the
>whatever it is we're auctioning today.
>
>Anyone have any other ideas how this might be achieved?  Or am I just
>one of the lunatic fringe here?  (I'll probably be resigning as Trinket-
>Harfer as soon as somebody else is President, anyway...but by this point
>I suppose I'll stay President until my term ends next week...)
>
>
>--
>--Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
>Song In My Head--Chris De Burgh:Old-Fashioned People
>Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
>They also wait who only stand and serve.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:38:17 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2628 rejected

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> > Results of Proposal 2628
> > 
> > 18/22 votes: Quorum achieved
> > 9/16 YES votes: Proposal rejected
> >     NO:
> > The Gingham Wearer   (Klingon)
> > ThinMan              (Rule 1 is repealed. #1)
> > K 2                  (SPAM)
> > Alfvaen              (MetaMorph)
> > Vynd                 (Rule 1 is repealed. #1)
> > Slagothor            (Boomerangs)
> > Rex Mundi            (Klingon)
> 
> Thank you to everyone who put every single trinket in the game 
> of any significant value whatsoever pretty much out of reach as a quick
> supply of money to the owner.

You were not the first to suffer from such an attack Slakko, /dev/joe has
himself faced the wrath of the Share your income card in the past.  And
tell me why being able to stash your money in A$900 valued trinkets with
descriptions like, "It is lame" deserves to be protected.  At least those
of us who make use of Share your income cards are making our money the old
fashioned way...

> 
> What was wrong with this proposal?
> 
> -- 
> Duncan C. "" Richer aka
> Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/

                                       - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:46:41 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Agenda RFC

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> I had a thought regarding the Agenda thing, and how Slakko's claims are
> being contested.  Would it be better if, say, the Illuminatus had the
> final say on when Agenda Conditions were satisfied?  Or would this be
> too much of a scam for a player with a 5/6 Magic Number winning condition?
> Or should there be some limit on how long a CFJ may be submitted on the
> satisfaction of an Agenda Condition?  It'd be nice if this could be
> streamlined somehow.
> 

Almost all Cycle wins generate a few CFJs, and some of them generate a
lot.  I don't think there is anything about the events surrounding this
(possible) Cycle win that shows that Agendas shoudl be dealt with any
differently.  I certainly do not think that the Illuminatus should have
final say, there is no reason to think that he would know better than any
of the rest of us.  It would also do nothing to resolve any of the
problems in the Rules that might be discovered under these circumstances.
All it would mean is that we would definitely have a Cycle winner.  We
would still need all the CFJs, but their results wouldn't change whether
or not there was a Cycle win, even if they showed that the Illuminatus is
wrong.  So we would have just any many arguements and headaches, and not
even have the satisfaction of getting it right in the end.

With all that said.  People, try to be reasonable here.  Some of you seem
very worked up about whether or not the win occurred.  Remember, not only
is this all a game, but winning actually doesn't matter, either. :)  Oh,
and for the sake of our harfers, do try and keep the number of actions
reliant on the end of the cycle that may not have ended yet, to a minimum.

                                     - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:09:00 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2676

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2676
> Contested Claims
> Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> 
> Create a new Rule, numbered 606, entitled "We Meet Again, Mr Smart", with
> the following GINGHAM-delimited text:
> 
> 
> {{[This avoids us having to worry about CFJs over whether or not Agenda
> Conditions are fulfilled - either the Illuminatus announces it, or a
> player can have a Hearing declare the fact.]}}
> 
> 

I cannot argue against this strongly enough.  There is absolutely no
reason to give a potential agenda win special status.  Why not call for
hearings if someone thinks they won by points, or by paradox?  Because
in any of these cases you're leaving behind whether or not the
conditions have actually been fulfilled, and turning it into a matter
of whether or not people think that someone deserves to win.  I see no
reason why voting on which sides arguement is better would be a better
system than giving it to the judges.  At least the judges are nominally
required to return verdicts in accordance with the rules.  In a hearing
you can vote the complete opposite of the truth if thats what you want.
And giving the Illuminatus the power to declare winners?  You've got to be
kidding me.

These methods would do one thing, and one thing only, they would tell us
for sure if we had a winner by Agenda.  They wouldn't tell us if that
winner actually fulfilled his conditions.  In our current situation, we
would stil need CFJs to determine how to deal with ambiguous spellings.
And if we went ahead and declared Slakko the unconditional victor, and
then the CFJs came back and showed we were wrong, with this new system it
would be too late.  We'd have a cycle win for no reason other than the
fact that we were in a big hurry.  The current system is far superior to
this, in my opinion.  Yes, it takes some time, but unless we want to
completely redo the rules for CFjs, hearings, and the game state, it is
the only way to handle this that doesn't involve making declarations that
may prove to be completely false.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:28:51 -1000
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Razor Boomerangs' Party Charter

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> Actually, I think that since this is posted on acka-research, by the most
> recent Postal Code amendments it doesn't count as an action.

Oh, all *right*.  (grumble...) I just didn't want to overly spam the main
list with something that, as far as I can tell, no one cares about but the
Boomerangs themselves.

> Also, as far as I can tell, Party Charters are not binding.  When The
> Gingham Wearer put a clause against his own removal in the Charter of
> Klingon, it wouldn't have overridden the Rules at all, as far as I can
> tell.

I don't think it'll work either, but it was worth a try.  I do, however,
think that Party Charters *should* be at least as binding as Church
Policy/Dogma.  (that is, enough to dictate actions of members that don't
break the Rules)  What do the rest of you think?

- -rico

Where do you want to go, toady? 

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:43:47 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2628 rejected

> > Besides, if you can use a Share My Expenses card to create them in the
> > first place, why can't you Share it when destroying it?

> Can you still?  You don't pay money to create trinkets, the money is
> transformed into a trinket.  I don't think that counts as a pay, so I
> wanted to block the SYI use to balance things up.

Malenkai created the Loophole Surfboard partly by playing a Share
My Expenses card(on Ackers, I believe), so obviously trinket creation
qualifies for Share My Expenses as well.  I don't know if this was CFJ'd
or not, since this was(just) before my time.  So your proposal would
instead have made the situation asymmetrical...

Unless, of course the Rule has been changed since then.  It has been
eight months or so...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Weird Al Show Theme Song
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
Danger, dare to be grand.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:27:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2628 rejected

> Malenkai created the Loophole Surfboard partly by playing a Share
> My Expenses card(on Ackers, I believe)....

Actually, what Malenkai did was to announce an auction for one of his
possessions, and then bid A$1800 on it himself. So, at the end of the
auction he owed himself A$1800. He then used a Share My Expenses card
to steal A$600 from Ackers, and then sunk most or all of his assets
into the Loophole Surfboard.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:56:54 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chronology of a Non-Point Win

> Day 20: (Given recent performance) Supreme Court rules on CFJ.
> 
> Do we want to lose 3 weeks of Acka time harfing a thread split game every
> time someone claims a win other than through points and PWCFJ's?  Or would
> we rather fix up the system so as to get on with the game quickly once we
> think there is a winner?

Quite frankly, and no offense intended, the SC needs to speed up its
act, or the rules need to be changed to route all these appeals
to other appellate courts and judges.  I once offered to collaborate
with the SC on a CFJ (452 or 3) that was likely to be appealed,
solely to speed up healing a thread split, and my offer was never 
even responded to, unless the e-mail was lost or misunderstood.

I do not have the time to make that offer again, but I would recommend
other players who have the time, judicial expertese, and neutrality
towards the CFJs in question make the offer, and that the justices
accept it.  I also suggest that if it comes to spirit of the game,
that the court rule I never left, otherwise Internomic is pretty
hosed, as the other moderator has not lifted a finger, AFAIK.

Finally, for the A$2 thing, that was a petty nuisance.  It did not
speed things up.  I am against bring it back, personally.

Malenkai
preparing to propose drastic changes to the judicial system, and wondering
how long I'll be stuck here :)

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:36:11 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: new Player

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Rico wrote:

> If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat? 
> 
By this logic:

If we aren't supposed to eat people, why are they made of meat?

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:25:58 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chronology of a Non-Point Win

>preparing to propose drastic changes to the judicial system, and wondering
>how long I'll be stuck here :)

	I seem to remember you mentioning that you wanted to remain Speaker
for Internomic.  Would it be possible to adjust the rules so that you can
do that (if you still want) or otherwise set things up so that you have
functionally left Acka, if it turns out that you're stuck?  (For example
makeing an exception to subscription requirements, etc.)

- --
- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 17:53:52 -1000
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: new Player

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Rico wrote:
> 
> > If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat? 
> > 
> By this logic:
> 
> If we aren't supposed to eat people, why are they made of meat?

Who said we aren't?

And I love your posting of this to acka-research -- hilarious touch.

- -rico

I may be schizophrenic but at least I have each other. 

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 23:49:05 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: new Player

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Rico wrote:

> 
> Who said we aren't?

I was hoping....
> 
> And I love your posting of this to acka-research -- hilarious touch.
> 

Couldn't have anyone complaining about bandwidth wasting gizz, could we?

rufus
> -rico
> 
> I may be schizophrenic but at least I have each other. 
> 

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #241
***********************************