Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #245
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Tuesday, February 3 1998     Volume 03 : Number 245

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 01:57:52 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Cycle Win CFJ RFC

> proposal Waiting For The Moon

> {{[ This is my attempt to implement the "no win until CFJ ruling"
> changes.  I realize that in the case of point wins this may be
> annoying, but if someone scams their score to the magic number
> instead of just anti-voting their way there, the mechanism will
> still be there, and otherwise someone may just get an easy CFJ. ]}}

Do I also need to amend Rule 101?  Currently it says:
   
   The game consists of a sequence of "Cycles". Cycles end when specified
   by the Rules. At most one Cycle is in progress at any one time. A
   voting player may only win a Cycle by achieving a winning condition
   that is defined by the Rules. Non-voting players may not win Cycles of
   Ackanomic. A player may not win the Game of Ackanomic. A player always
   has the option to leave the Game of Ackanomic.

Can I change "by achieving a winning condition..." to "as described by
the Rules"?  Do I need to?  Should I?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Herb Alpert:Spanish Flea
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
The true voice of the people seems to be out in the backyard whining.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 02:50:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 154 (TRUE)

Well, I did it; I judged my first CFCJ and managed to offend some players
(including the mighty Caped Crusader and Lunchbox Humorist) while still
technically within my newbie period.  I'd like to provide a bit of the
reasoning behind why I felt the way I did.  I admit that I am
unquestionably new to Acka and have perhaps not the perspective (or
prospective, for that matter :-)) that the rest of you do.  Perhaps the
amount of Annoyingness was far more before I joined; perhaps I will feel
differently if it ever impacts on me.  But, in my opinion, the
exploiting-lexical-equivalence part of being Annoying requires a player to
be rather clever, both in finding a good phrase to exploit and/or in
trying to phrase rules or conditions in order to avoid it.  Of course,
there's no requirement anywhere in the Rules that says clever deeds must
go unpunished, but to me, because it requires more forethought to be
Annoying than to protest it, an act of Annoyance is less Annoying than a
glut of CFCJ's on the subject.  Maybe my beef is that Crime should be
reserved for more serious matters, and I haven't had enough experience
with people exploiting lexical equivalence to consider it a serious
matter.

I suppose that what I am saying is that I don't believe it's in the best
interests of the game to stamp out Annoyingness completely.  Perhaps we
should discourage it more (I'm likely to form a firmer opinion on this as
my membership grows older) in which case my penalty was in error, but,
IMHO, it certainly makes things more interesting.  I'm not in any way
claiming to be right, or saying that the Rules support my position or
anything, just stating my opinion and why I let Rex M. off as easy as I
did.

- -rico, wondering if his random-.sig generator is mocking him

At least one of my personalities is sane. 

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 03:00:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC

consolation win:

If ever it has been the case that no player, with the possible exception
of all players who have previously used the name "Malenkai", has won a
cycle in the last 366 days, then all players other than those who have
previously used the name "Malenkai" shall each win a cycle.  The cycle
wins will proceed distinctly in alphabetical order, separated by a period
of one minute between adjacent wins.

:-)

Yours,
Slakko
still want my damn win

- -- 
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: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 03:22:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Evil Midnight Bomber

On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Thank you Slakko (note in-reference), for fixing the Subject line on
> this....

Oops.  I'm sorry.  Am I Hosed?
(In any case, I'm sure big-nosed.)

> > The Aliens Abduction Rule could have done the same thing, but it was
> > allowed.
> 
> And it was also repealed. I think after abducting Rule 104, players
> felt that it had already seen the maximum of its fun potential. (That's
> just a guess; I don't pretend to speak for everyone who voted for its
> repeal.)

Again, I tried to keep it relatively easy to get the Rule back in this
case.  I'm going to insert something else in the place of the Hoffa Bomb;
the only idea I had to protect Rules was a Hearing, and I think there are
far too many types of those around already.  The reversal idea is a good
one if it could be worded correctly; I'll take a look at it.  That one
could probably mess up the game even more than a Hoffa Bomb, though...

Most of my other ideas had to do with things other than rules, like the
building-detacher or the one that puts a hole in the Party Chess board.
(what did the Swingers think of that, out of curiosity?)  The Fog bomb is
also a good idea.  If I have more than four bombs, I'll have to figure out
how to choose between them, other than randomly.  (I agree with breadbox
that there is perhaps too much random determination around already.)
Perhaps it would be based on the day of the week -- there's an idea, he
could have seven bombs that way.

Again, I know you beings are extremely creative out there.  Let's hear
some more ideas, please.  And comments as well, if you would.  I don't
want him to be shot down just because people don't like one of his bombs.

> My two Ackapennies: I'm not too big on rules that involve random
> determination. We already have several of these. I find much more
> interesting the interplay of rules that act deterministically - the
> difference between Conway's Life and a roulette wheel, so to speak.
> (Random determination also means more work for the OiCoRT.)

I agree on both counts, but see few ways around it in some cases.  

Suggestions are always welcome and will be duly credited.

Accept no substitutions, exchanges, or refunds.

- -rico

At least one of my personalities is sane. 

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 03:34:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Evil Midnight Bomber

> Most of my other ideas had to do with things other than rules, like the
> building-detacher or the one that puts a hole in the Party Chess board.
> (what did the Swingers think of that, out of curiosity?)  The Fog bomb is

AHEM!!!!!  It's not like I come up with so many ideas that I can afford notto
get credit for them Slagothor ; )  If we weren't already going to duel, we'd
have a reason now.  By the way, I don't suppose anyone is interested in being
my second?

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 03:37:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Cycle Win CFJ RFC

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> proposal Waiting For The Moon
> 
> {{[ This is my attempt to implement the "no win until CFJ ruling"
> changes.  I realize that in the case of point wins this may be
> annoying, but if someone scams their score to the magic number
> instead of just anti-voting their way there, the mechanism will
> still be there, and otherwise someone may just get an easy CFJ. ]}}

There's the risk of strategic CFJ delaying on this - what if the Supreme
Court decides to wait, and wait, on a particular win, and then someone
else comes up and wins the cycle in the meantime, and their CFJ is not
appealed?  It doesn't even need to be the Supreme Court, either, a first
round judge could take 7 days, another winner could claim the win 2 days
later, and their judge could have the win TRUEd lickety split.  What
happens to the other player, the one who deserved the win by getting there
first?

> Amend Rule 666, "End of Cycle" {{[ Isn't this the most-amended Rule
> in the Ruleset? ]}} as follows:

It isn't the most amended rule in the Ruleset - look at 1230.2.

> Delete section k), and reletter all following sections appropriately.
> {{[ With Agenda Hats, this could lead to a spiraling descent until the
> Magic Number is 3...:-)  ]}}

I see no reason why this Magic Number fix up is necessary at this point.
It would only risk causing additional hostility against the proposal, so
I think it would be best left to its own proposal.

Besides, section (k) can't bring the Magic Number down below 29 in any
case :-).

> 
> {{[ I'm tempted to delete the section whereby the Chartreuse Goose is
> transferred to the winner if e would immediately win again, since I
> think this will make it less likely to occur, but I'll leave it in
> for safety's sake. ]}}
- -- 
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: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 04:03:37 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Cycle Win CFJ RFC

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
> 
> > proposal Waiting For The Moon
> > 
> > {{[ This is my attempt to implement the "no win until CFJ ruling"
> > changes.  I realize that in the case of point wins this may be
> > annoying, but if someone scams their score to the magic number
> > instead of just anti-voting their way there, the mechanism will
> > still be there, and otherwise someone may just get an easy CFJ. ]}}
> 
> There's the risk of strategic CFJ delaying on this - what if the Supreme
> Court decides to wait, and wait, on a particular win, and then someone
> else comes up and wins the cycle in the meantime, and their CFJ is not
> appealed?  It doesn't even need to be the Supreme Court, either, a first
> round judge could take 7 days, another winner could claim the win 2 days
> later, and their judge could have the win TRUEd lickety split.  What
> happens to the other player, the one who deserved the win by getting there
> first?

Two words:  Thread split.  The win should happen when it becomes publicly
knowable that you have achieved a Winning Condition, not when it is no
longer possible to appeal.   This, of course, fails to make the end of
cycle any easier to harf, which is -- I think -- the point.  I personally
don't have any problem with the way things are.  

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 04:46:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2679

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > P.S.  Alfvaen, are you going to call an expedition any time soon?
> 
> No, actually.  I voted against the proposal, and as Archaeologist I'm
> not going to initiate it.  (Although I do plan on doing Scientist
> stuff.  Anyone have any nifty Gadget ideas?)

So the Archaeologist is going to deliberately ignore one of eir main
privileges.
I should have made it a duty.

Yours,
Slakko
still want that damn win
- -- 
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: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 05:32:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 154 (TRUE)

> Perhaps the amount of Annoyingness was far more before I joined;
> perhaps I will feel differently if it ever impacts on me.  But, in
> my opinion, the exploiting-lexical-equivalence part of being
> Annoying requires a player to be rather clever, both in finding a
> good phrase to exploit and/or in trying to phrase rules or
> conditions in order to avoid it.

I think part of the problem is that it's been done enough times
beforehand that it's no longer considered clever to find another
application of it. We have plenty of past examples to work from.

For example, looking at the current proposal queue ...

... I could create an Organization called "the active players eligible
to judge CFJs". Then if Proposal 2673 passes, I can claim that only
members of my Organization can be selected to judge CFJs.

... I could create an Organization called "Ackanomic for fewer than
three weeks". Then if Proposal 2675 passes, I can claim that members
of my organization shall never again be penalized for retracting
something.

... I could create a trinket called "rule numbers and rule number
references in the rules". Then if Proposal 2684 passes, I can claim
that the Rule-Harfer can only issue CSRs that would affect my trinket.

None of these maneuvers are likely to succeed; thankfully, we now have
a substantial body of CFJs on the subject that can be used to show
precedent. But dealing with the above while the CFJ is being decided
could very likely be, well, annoying. And I don't think players would
find any of the above acts to be particularly creative of me, because
we've seen all this before.

I found it annoying when Malenkai used his loophole to create a Pulse
Laser for himself. Admittedly, he had intentionally written the
Blueprint for a Pulse Laser so that it wasn't too unbalancing to the
game, and the proposal he exploited was, it must be said, wide open.
But still. And that's the other annoying thing about Malenkai's
Loophole, at least for me: it tends to produce the most obnoxious
CFJs. Their judgements are *always* appealed, because it's so hard to
produce an argument (for either verdict) that looks solid. When mr cwm
and I were struggling with CFJ 415, and we finally got to the point
where we agreed on the verdict, I tried to put down a reasoning that
didn't sound to me like handwaving. I like to think that we eventually
succeeded in doing so, but it took hours, and at one point I thought,
"I can't believe I'm wasting *so* much time on such a *pointless*
issue!" Of course the larger issue wasn't pointless, but the actual
rule in question was just a bit of harfy fluff that was never meant to
be taken seriously.

I also found it annoying when Vynd created a one-player Organization
called "The Supreme Court", but that was only a mild irritation, as
Vynd did not attempt to push the matter. He created it for a laugh and
left it at that. (Although I admit that I did jump on his case when he
signed one of his messages "Justice Vynd".)

Now, if Vynd had then started demanding that appealed CFJs be assigned
to his Organization, I would have given anything to have been able to
slap a CFCJ on his head.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 05:32:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Party Chess Piece Avatar

[Okay, after way too long getting back into the swing of school (my last
year, yay) I'm finally able to devote some time to acka, so here's my
first idea for comment, try not to be too harsh.  I'd really like to see
it turn into a rule, and I'd be willing to modify it a great deal if
it's too powerful/too weak/too confusing now if it means that it won't
get voted down later.  I know that most of the rules in the
PartyChessPieceDef for the avatar won't work yet, I think I've made all
the necessary fixes down below the rule itself]

Create a new Rule 1230.25 entitled Party Chess Piece Avatar with the
following DEUSEXMACHINA delimited text

DEUSEXMACHINA
A. An avatar is a piece with a material value of 12

B. It is represented by the ASCII character A

C. An avatar can move 10 squares horizontally, vertically, or diagonally
skipping over any intervening friendly units.

D. To create an Avatar a Swinger must pay A$100 to the bank for avatar
construction costs and post a description of the avatar they are
creating.  Such descriptions are encouraged to be truly bizarre. [Any
other suggestions for creation fees or procedures  are welcome]

E. When an Avatar is placed on the board the Swinger who placed him is
said to be Distracted until such point as the Avatar is no longer on the
board.  A Distracted player may not post any message not related to
party chess greater than 15 lines long.  A Distracted player is urged to
include the sentence "CAN'T YOU SEE I'M BUSY???" in all non party chess
related posts.  A player who is found to have posted a message more than
15 lines long while Distracted becomes Stoned [Sure it doesn't make any
sense, but I love the Stoned rule]

F. When an Avatar is removed from the board, the Swinger controlling
that Avatar loses 50 points [This is really up for debate, I'm not sure
what an adequate penalty for losing your Avatar should be, all
suggestions welcomed] and is said to be Backlashed.  A player who is
Backlashed must include the sentence "Oh my aching head" in all posts
until either noon of the following day, or the Surgeon General publicly
posts a message containing a cure for the character.

G. All friendly pieces defending the avatar gain the ability to move 1
extra square horizontally or vertically after their normal move.  They
may capture using this extra space of movement as long as they have not
previously captured that turn. [everyone works harder when their deity
is looking over their shoulder"
DEUSEXMACHINA

[the following are miscellaneous rules changes to the party chess suite
that are required to bring avatars into existence, I think I got them
all, but if I missed any I'd appreciate the feedback]

Change the following OLD Delimited text in Rule 1230.1 Section 2D from
OLD
D. A player or Organization may create a new Party Chess Piece of any
existing type for a Swinger.
OLD
to the following NEW Delimited text
NEW
D. A player or Organization may create a new Party Chess Piece of any
existing type (except Avatar) for a Swinger.
NEW

Add the following MISC delimited text after  Rule 1230.1 Section 3G
MISC
H. A PartyChessPieceDef rule may define an event that happens upon the
capture or removal of a piece of that type.

I. A PartyChessPieceDef rule may define an event that occurs upon the
placement of a piece of that type.

J. A PartyChessPieceDef rule may contain additional fees that must be
paid, or procedures that must be undertaken before a Swinger may
purchase a piece of that type.
MISC

Change the following DUSTY Delimited text in Rule 1230.2 Section 2B from

DUSTY
B. Each Swinger may choose any five pieces which are defined by a
PartyChessPieceDef rule, as long as their total material value does not
exceed 30.
DUSTY
to the following NOUVEAUX delimited text
NOUVEAUX
Each Swinger may choose any five pieces which are defined by a
PartyChessPieceDef rule (except Avatars), as long as their total
material value does not exceed 30
NOUVEAUX

Change the following ANCIENT Delimited text in Rule 1230.2 Section 2D
from
ANCIENT
D. Whenever an Office of Swinger is destroyed, all Party Chess Pieces
owned by that office are destroyed.
ANCIENT
to the following BRANDNEW Delimited text
BRANDNEW
D. Whenever an Office of Swinger is destroyed, all Party Chess Pieces
owned by that office are destroyed, avatars destroyed in this way do not
trigger the usual penalties for losing an Avatar.
BRANDNEW

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 05:42:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2679

>> No, actually.  I voted against the proposal, and as Archaeologist I'm
>> not going to initiate it.  (Although I do plan on doing Scientist
>> stuff.  Anyone have any nifty Gadget ideas?)
> 
> So the Archaeologist is going to deliberately ignore one of eir main
> privileges.
> I should have made it a duty.

For the record - I did the exact same thing as Archaeologist, though I
never got around to telling you this. (Sorry.)

I realize that some may consider it a dereliction of duty to sit on an
Office and not make use of its privileges when the voters have spoken,
but I for one simply could not in good conscience go and dig up those
old treasures just because they're there.

Lost Treasure should stay lost. That's the whole *point*.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 05:44:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Party Chess Piece Avatar

Sorry, I'm a complete idiot.  I forgot that the archer was A (40 hours of
sleep deprivation talking here) This should be B.  It is represented by the
ASCII character V.

> B. It is represented by the ASCII character A

Okay, hopefully that was the only really glaring mistake.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 06:05:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Justices

Of the three options I like the third one best. I think one month is too
long, though. I'd still prefer my previous idea of starting a Hearing at
the same time as the appeal, and if a certian high majority votes for one
verdict, that verdict is adopted, regardless of the Court's decision.

We can always tack one one fo the options below (prefereably 3) if
 neither the Hearing nor the court reached a verdict.

Niccolo Flychuck

 On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> I was trying to think of some minor justice modifications, so that
> situations such as that currently involving CFJ 484 do not happen too
> often (how long has that CFJ been under discussion by the Supreme Court?)
> 
> So I've come up with the following possibilities:
> 
> 1) After 1 month, if the Supreme Court have not reached a decision on an
> appeal, the first round judge's effort is upheld automatically.
> Pros: Simple to harf.
> Cons: One judge who agrees with the first round judge can sit it out and
> get their way automatically.
> 
> 2) After 1 month, yadda yadda, the OiCoRT determines with equal
> probability a verdict of TRUE or FALSE.
> Reasoning: If the judges can't make up their mind in a month, it must be a
> line ball call anyway.
> Problems: Out-argued Justice can hold out for the random probability -
> they have a 50% chance of getting the result they want.
> 
> 3) After 1 month, a Hearing is held.
> Reasoning: If the Justices can't determine it, we should be free to decide
> which way we want the game to proceed.
> 
> In addition, any of 1,2 or 3 can have the time modified if people want it,
> or penalties could be imposed on the Justices (ranging from 1 point up to
> impeachment, depending on what people feel).
> 
> Comments, Questions?
> 
> - -- 
> 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: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 06:23:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

[Okay, this is a concept Slagothor have been playing with for a while,
and I've finally gotten around to writing it up.  At the moment nothing
really causes this rule to go into effect, but it seems like the best
rules start out as pure effect and then everyone rushes in to fill in
their own cause.  Slagothor's stoned RFC is an excellent example.
Basically what this proposal would do is give people the ability to
create pits on the party chess board which would stay for a certain
number of plays and then disappear.  The length of time that a pit stays
can be set at the time of it's creation.  This is a good way to give the
party chess board some sort of terrain without a great deal of added
complexity (of course I'm not the chess umpire, but it doesn't seem this
would be too hard to implement).  I have some ideas about how to create
pits at the moment, and I'm sure the rest of you will come up with many
more.  As usual, all comments greatly appreciated.]

Change rule 1230.1 section 1 to read the following AIEEEEEE!!!!
delimited text

AIEEEEEE!!!!
1. The Party Board

There exists a checkered board, divided into 20 by 20 squares, which
resides in Party Hall. It is called the Party Board. The Party Board is
an unownable entity used for the sole purpose of playing a game called
Party Chess. Each column has a letter assigned to it, from a-t beginning
with the leftmost column. Each row has an integer assigned to it, from
1-20. When viewed on a screen, the lowest row is 1, the highest is 20,
and consecutive rows are marked with consecutive integers.  Every square
on the Party Board has an integer value (hereafter reffered to as
pitvalue).  Unless otherwise noted every square has a pitvalue of 0.  If
for any reason a square has a pitvalue unequal to 0 that square is a
pit.  Pieces whose proposed movement crosses a pit are removed from the
board into the controlling swingers off-board units unless that piece
can skip over the pit.  Pieces capable of skipping other pieces may skip
over pits as if they were enemy pieces [ie an avatar cant float over a
pit because he can only skip over friendly units].  Any piece occupying
a square when it becomes a pit are removed into the controlling swingers
off-board units [I really want a way for units to be able to scramble
out of the way of a pit that suddenly came into existence, but I
couldn't think of an easy way that would avoid timing hassles, and I
didn't want to invoke the officer in charge of random things, as e has
enough to deal with as is, all ideas welcome to resolve this].  All pits
should be noted by their current pitvalue in the current gamestate [or
some other easy way to tell what the pitvalue is at the moment]

Each square on the Party Board has coordinates made up of a letter,
which corresponds to the column the square is part of, and an integer,
which corresponds to the row the square is part of. The letter precedes
the integer.
AIEEEEEE!!!!

Append the following MOREWORK delimited text to the end of rule 1230.2
Section 1C.
MOREWORK
(ix) Updating the pitvalues of all pits currently in existence [this
falls under the domain of duty (i) I suppose, but it doesn't hurt to
state it explicitly]
MOREWORK

Add the following DECREMENT delimited section at the end of Rule 1230.2
DECREMENT
10. After every play that the chess umpire receives, e decrements the
pitvalue of every square who's current value is nonzero by one [so pits
eventually repair themselves thanks to the nano-technology self-healing
party chess board]
DECREMENT

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 08:21:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2679

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> >> No, actually.  I voted against the proposal, and as Archaeologist I'm
> >> not going to initiate it.  (Although I do plan on doing Scientist
> >> stuff.  Anyone have any nifty Gadget ideas?)
> > 
> > So the Archaeologist is going to deliberately ignore one of eir main
> > privileges.
> > I should have made it a duty.
> 
> For the record - I did the exact same thing as Archaeologist, though I
> never got around to telling you this. (Sorry.)
> 
> I realize that some may consider it a dereliction of duty to sit on an
> Office and not make use of its privileges when the voters have spoken,
> but I for one simply could not in good conscience go and dig up those
> old treasures just because they're there.
> 
> Lost Treasure should stay lost. That's the whole *point*.

Apparently 60% of the populace don't think so.

Besides, what if somehow eventually $80000 ended up as Lost Treasure? 

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: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 08:26:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Joshua Herreshoff wrote:

> Change rule 1230.1 section 1 to read the following AIEEEEEE!!!!
> delimited text
> 
> AIEEEEEE!!!!
> 1. The Party Board
> 
> There exists a checkered board, divided into 20 by 20 squares, which
> resides in Party Hall. It is called the Party Board. The Party Board is
> an unownable entity used for the sole purpose of playing a game called
> Party Chess. Each column has a letter assigned to it, from a-t beginning
> with the leftmost column. Each row has an integer assigned to it, from
> 1-20. When viewed on a screen, the lowest row is 1, the highest is 20,
> and consecutive rows are marked with consecutive integers.  Every square
> on the Party Board has an integer value (hereafter reffered to as
> pitvalue).  Unless otherwise noted every square has a pitvalue of 0.  If
> for any reason a square has a pitvalue unequal to 0 that square is a
> pit.  Pieces whose proposed movement crosses a pit are removed from the
> board into the controlling swingers off-board units unless that piece
> can skip over the pit.  Pieces capable of skipping other pieces may skip
> over pits as if they were enemy pieces [ie an avatar cant float over a
> pit because he can only skip over friendly units].  Any piece occupying
> a square when it becomes a pit are removed into the controlling swingers
> off-board units [I really want a way for units to be able to scramble
> out of the way of a pit that suddenly came into existence, but I
> couldn't think of an easy way that would avoid timing hassles, and I
> didn't want to invoke the officer in charge of random things, as e has
> enough to deal with as is, all ideas welcome to resolve this].  All pits
> should be noted by their current pitvalue in the current gamestate [or
> some other easy way to tell what the pitvalue is at the moment]

This doesn't stop people from moving onto a pit.  That move doesn't cross
the pit, and so they aren't removed.

Before I would consider approving this I would need to know what the
likely values for pitvalue are.

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: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 08:31:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Justices

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the three options I like the third one best. I think one month is too
> long, though. I'd still prefer my previous idea of starting a Hearing at
> the same time as the appeal, and if a certian high majority votes for one
> verdict, that verdict is adopted, regardless of the Court's decision.

On consideration, allowing even 80% of the populace to override some
previous decision which would otherwise be clearly legally allowable does
not seem right to me.  It would enable all wins to be prevented - just
appeal the CFJ result and get everyone to deny the win in the Hearing.

That's why there should be some wait involved - so we know that the issue
is sufficiently difficult to unravel that even the Justices can't
determine the result quickly. 
> 
> We can always tack one one fo the options below (prefereably 3) if
>  neither the Hearing nor the court reached a verdict.

so we have a Hearing if the Hearing doesn't work?  Furrfu.

ObRFC: "Furrfu" is the anti-harf.  Any rule, other than this one, which
contains both the word "furrfu" and the word "harf" is automatically
repealed as soon as this is pointed out.

Yours,
Slakko
still still want that damn win
- -- 
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: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 08:45:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

> > pit.  Pieces whose proposed movement crosses a pit are removed from the
> > board into the controlling swingers off-board units unless that piece
> > can skip over the pit.  Pieces capable of skipping other pieces may skip
> > over pits as if they were enemy pieces [ie an avatar cant float over a
> > pit because he can only skip over friendly units].

> This doesn't stop people from moving onto a pit.  That move doesn't cross
> the pit, and so they aren't removed.

Good point, well just change it to crosses or ends on a pit and it should work

> Before I would consider approving this I would need to know what the
> likely values for pitvalue are.

I don't know, I left it open on purpose.  The way I had originally worded the
proposal they lasted for 5 plays and then disappeared, then I decided it would
be more interesting if different effects generated different duration pits.
Why would you be opposed to certain values of pitvalue out of curiousity?
Would you prefer high or low ones?

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 08:54:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Joshua Herreshoff wrote:

> > This doesn't stop people from moving onto a pit.  That move doesn't cross
> > the pit, and so they aren't removed.
> 
> Good point, well just change it to crosses or ends on a pit and it should work

Actually, I would rather see it prevented.  Otherwise you create a
pseudo-Tactical Retreat which even a King can use.
(Gee, I think I'll just make a pit right next to my King ... oops! He fell
in.  Shame about being checked, wasn't it?)

"No legal move or capture may result in a piece moving into a pit.  No
legal move or capture may result in a piece incapable of jumping over
unfriendly pieces moving directly across a pit."

And to fix Archers: 
"Pits have no effect on line of sight for Archers."

> 
> > Before I would consider approving this I would need to know what the
> > likely values for pitvalue are.
> 
> I don't know, I left it open on purpose.  The way I had originally worded the
> proposal they lasted for 5 plays and then disappeared, then I decided it would
> be more interesting if different effects generated different duration pits.
> Why would you be opposed to certain values of pitvalue out of curiousity?
> Would you prefer high or low ones?
> 
Well, ideally I think a limit of NoS would be a very good idea on the
pitvalue.  Within that, generate them as you like.

> 

- -- 
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: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:04:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

Extension:

Create Party Chess Piece Bomb

Material Value: mumble (suggestions?  I think 6)

Move: Teleports to any unoccupied square on the board.

Captures: Cannot capture

Special: Can blow up as an Atomic Play.  Square it is occupying becomes a
pit with pitvalue NoS, and all pieces with distance <= 1 from the Bomb are
captured by the Bomb's owner.  The Bomb is destroyed when it blows up.

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: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:17:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

> On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Joshua Herreshoff wrote:
>
> > > This doesn't stop people from moving onto a pit.  That move doesn't cross
> > > the pit, and so they aren't removed.
> >
> > Good point, well just change it to crosses or ends on a pit and it should work
>
> Actually, I would rather see it prevented.  Otherwise you create a
> pseudo-Tactical Retreat which even a King can use.
> (Gee, I think I'll just make a pit right next to my King ... oops! He fell
> in.  Shame about being checked, wasn't it?)

ACKKK, that's what I get when I start with a grand concept and start narrowing it
down to try to make the rule less complex.  Originally pieces fell through onto
another chessboard, so we could have 3 dimensional party chess, but somehow I didn't
think that people would be up for such a huge leap in complexity quite yet (and
besides, I don't have it worded the way I like yet), so I just took that part out at
the last minute, and spaced on the retreat aspects of it, thanks.  Yeah, I'd say
that pieces shouldn't be able to fall into pits on purpose under the current
implementation.

> "No legal move or capture may result in a piece moving into a pit.  No
> legal move or capture may result in a piece incapable of jumping over
> unfriendly pieces moving directly across a pit."

Ok, this wording sounds great.  I still don't have the flair for legalese all you
veterans do.

> And to fix Archers:
> "Pits have no effect on line of sight for Archers."

Is this necessary?  I don't see why it shouldn't be put in, redundancy rarely hurts,
but the way it's worded archers LOS is only blocked by occupied spaces and pits
don't occupy a board space, they are the board space.

> Well, ideally I think a limit of NoS would be a very good idea on the
> pitvalue.  Within that, generate them as you like.

That sounds good to me.  Do you think it would be advisable to set a cap on the
number of pits that can be on the board at one time, or will the fact that they heal
over time be enough to self-police this rule?

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:23:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

Oh fine, now you're using telepathy to steal one of slagothor's ideas.  Lucky
for you we're not playing paranoia. ; )  Slagothor and I were discussing the
merits of blast radius, and I'm of the opinion that anything that can take
more than one piece at a time should have a pretty high material value, right
now the only thing that can do that is the tornado and that's got more MV than
anything else in the game (unless my avatar clears inspection).  I'd say up
the value a bit, especially if it can teleport anywhere.  The kamikaze has a
value of 7 and it can only potentially nab one of someone else's pieces.  Of
course the bomb does have to stop for a round before detonating, but still...
I think I'd say value of 7 or 8 myself.  But that's probably just because I've
only seen our current fairly cluttered chess state, where the bomb can reak
havoc.  I don't know what the norm is.

> Create Party Chess Piece Bomb
>
> Material Value: mumble (suggestions?  I think 6)
>
> Move: Teleports to any unoccupied square on the board.
>
> Captures: Cannot capture
>
> Special: Can blow up as an Atomic Play.  Square it is occupying becomes a
> pit with pitvalue NoS, and all pieces with distance <= 1 from the Bomb are
> captured by the Bomb's owner.  The Bomb is destroyed when it blows up.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #245
***********************************