Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #246
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Tuesday, February 3 1998     Volume 03 : Number 246

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:33:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Evil Midnight Bomber

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Rico wrote:
> 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

I don't remember seeing that one - but I really dislike it.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:48:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Evil Midnight Bomber

> On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Rico wrote:
> > 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
>
> I don't remember seeing that one - but I really dislike it.

Even if it didn't actually destroy pieces?  If it just made a pit (or two, or
three) on an unoccupied space?  I think that's pretty much what I had in mind.
Why don't you like it?

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 10:32:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Party Chess Piece Avatar

I don't like the amendments to PartyChess rules which are intended to
support just a single piece. 
Kings have a special purpose in PartyChess and this special role is
inherited from PartyChess, but making such exception for other pieces
unnecessarily pollutes the PartyChess rules.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Joshua Herreshoff wrote:

> [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 theavatar 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 untilsuch 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 partychess
> 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 "Ohmy 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 2Dfrom
> 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 maydefine 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 10:42:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

Off-hand, I can't say I'm crazy about it.
However, if proposed, I'd like to see the following changes:
1. An upper limit to the number of pits at any given time.
2. A well-defined range (could be dependent on game state, but should be
reasonable) for pit value
3. Only unoccupied squares would become pits.
4. Please do not delete the last sentence of section 1. We have kept the
Party Board well maintained up to now, with no food or drink. Swingers,
and spectators are free to wander around in Party-Hall and eat and drink
all they like but this is one restriction I'm not willing to let go off:
"Food or drink may not be placed on the Party Board. "

Niccolo Flychuck
PartyChess Expert

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Joshua Herreshoff wrote:

> [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 theneveryone 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 forthe 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 wayfor 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 upof 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
> partychess board]
> DECREMENT
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 10:50:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Justices

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer 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.

I think you are painting a very pettyu picture of acka. Why should players
deny someone a win?  There was one instance where I helped another
player get a win. 

Anyway, why is the opinion of two players necessarily better than the
opinion of a super-majority?

> > 
> > 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.

It's a month later. Lacking any other semi- democratic tool, Hearings are
a lot of work, simply because we now have more of them.
I think that with proper distribution of the harfing of Hearings this
would be workable.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 10:52:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 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."

The above changes are favorable.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 10:54:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 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 anAtomic Play.  Square it is occupying becomes a
Does that make it an Atomic Bomb?

Niccolo Flychuck

> 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 10:57:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Joshua Herreshoff wrote:
> 
> 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

Funny you should mention 3d. I recently considered that 3d additions could
be interesting. A central concept for me, however, is that the current
PartyBoard should remain untouched, and that mini-boards may be placed
above, or below it (and perhaps change position occasionally - Swingers
could vie for control over them) to allow some spatial movement. 
I don't quite see it integrating with pits.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 12:21:06 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2686

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2686
> Harf The Mail!
> Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain)
> 
> {{Renumber to 1136}}
> 
> {{[This is more than just a way of getting points, it does a number of
> things. First, it is a harfy game, and I can imagine a number of cunning
> traps a player might set up. Second, it encourages players to pay attention
> to the posts of others. Third, it assures those players whose scores are
> always high that their posts are likely to be read carefully, which one
> would presume is a good thing. Fourth, it will likely reveal some
> interesting linguistic traits of Ackanomic and its players]}}
> 
> The President will keep the List-of-Harf. When a President is elected, all
> players, excluding the President, may send a private message to the
> President with two things. The name of a player, who is neither themselves
> or the President, called their target, and a word with at least 7 letters,
> called the target word. This target and associated target word will be
> recorded under that player's entry in a new List-of-Harf by the President.
> 
> After having sent their entry to the President, if a player sees a message
> from their target that contains the associated target word, then they can
> send a public message claiming this to be the case. They must state the
> message's title and when that message was posted, and say "The Harf is back
> and I want a winter cap."
> 
> The President must then check that the player's claim is correct. There are
> 3 possible replies. If true and that target word was listed only once in the
> List-of-Harf, the President must say "Indeed the Harf is back, here is your
> cap!" Otherwise, if true but the target word appears on the List-of-Harf
> more than once, by saying: "It was Blue, take a straw hat!" And if it is
> false: "Orange devil, wear sandals!"
> 
> In all cases, the player's entry is then removed from the current
> List-of-Harf. If the President replied "Indeed the Harf is back, here is
> your cap!" then that player will gain half of the points (rounded down) of
> their target's score, when that target said the claimed target word.
> 
> Just before the President's term of office ends, the current List-of-Harf is
> destroyed.
> 
> {{[Harf! Harf! Harf!]}}
> 
> 

Heh.  I like it.  There should be a few restrictions on the target word,
however.  You shouldn't be able to use a player name, for example, or
ThinMan might have some difficulties.  In fact, it should probably be a
longer word than 7 letters.  There are plenty of common seven letter words
that almost everyone in acka uses, such as propose, decline, approve...
10 letters might be more appropriate, or at least 9.

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 12:24:21 -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. ]}}

> 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?

You mean, like if your Agenda Win was still under consideration and Malenkai's
Swingpoint win went through first?  So freakin' what?  Why does it matter
in which order wins come through?

I suppose that there could be some confusion if you achieved a controversial
point win, and by the time it was judged it was the next cycle and your score
had been reset...  But by separating Winning Conditions with wins, I think
that this will still work.  Two player can achieve Winning Conditions in the
same cycle, and yet win different cycles.

Also, I would _hope_ that the Supreme Court would not be so petty.  Unless
there was a good reason for it, like overthrowing an Evil Tyrannical Ruling
Elite or something.

> > 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.

Well, eight of those amendments are yours...:-)

> > 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 :-).

Yeah, I suppose.  Of course, at the very least section k) would need to
be reworded, since this would no longer involve "winning by points", but
would involve "achieving a Winning Condition by Rule 603".

In any event, what I'm looking for here are not so much objections to the
entire concept of Cycle Win CFJ's(those can be settled by the voting
process), but problems with this suggested implementation of them...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Loudon Wainwright III:Unhappy Anniversary
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
Standing on the shoulders of giants leaves me cold.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 12:27:47 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Cycle Win CFJ RFC

> 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.  

Well, then, I'll just resign as Web-Harfer, Scorekeeper, and Financier in
your favour, shall I, since you don't see why it should be any difficulty
at all when nobody knows when a particular cycle ended, or if it did at
all?

I want to eliminate that uncertainty.  No more someone crowing that they've
won, and I make my own spot decision on whether they did or not, and then
have to change it back and forth as CFJ rulings come in and are appealed.
This is about the least fun I've had during the game.

Anyone who _enjoys_ thread splits(and as someone who created a trinket in a
thread I believe is now deprecated, I supposed you would qualify)may find
this fun, and again I say: help harf it.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--REM:King of Birds
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
If you can't speak softly, just use the stick.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 12:43:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Joshua Herreshoff wrote:

> > 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.

You would be surprised how quickly you pick it up.  I'm still a newbie -
only been playing Acka for just over 3 months.

> 
> > 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.

Yes, but I'd rather be safe than sorry the way Ackans think.

> 
> > 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?

There should be a turn every three days or so regardless, so a de facto
upper limit will exist.

- -- 
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 12:49:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2686

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> Heh.  I like it.  There should be a few restrictions on the target word,
> however.  You shouldn't be able to use a player name, for example, or
> ThinMan might have some difficulties.  In fact, it should probably be a
> longer word than 7 letters.  There are plenty of common seven letter words
> that almost everyone in acka uses, such as propose, decline, approve...
> 10 letters might be more appropriate, or at least 9.

I see no problem.  If everyone uses a particular word, then more than 1
person will end up choosing that word as their List-of-Harf word, so any
attempt to use it will result in only a straw hat.  It adds an element of
risk to choosing a common word - you might not have any luck at all.

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 12:52:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Cycle Win CFJ RFC

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > 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?
> 
> You mean, like if your Agenda Win was still under consideration and Malenkai's
> Swingpoint win went through first?  So freakin' what?  Why does it matter
> in which order wins come through?

Actually you're right.  It doesn't matter.  What does matter is when three
people achieve the points qualification for a win during the time it takes
for the first person's CFJ to get dealt with.  I think that that is an
unintended consequence of this kind of fix 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: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 16:28:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

I think the idea about limiting the maximum duration of the Holes is a
good idea.  I think the board should tick, though, not every turn, but
every time a Swinger submits a play; this would allow it to tick during
free-for-alls also.  Apologies if this has already been mentioned and I
just missed it.

About your Bomb RFC, Slakko, the idea I had was for a Grenade which was
very similar, but 
 - had to be carried to its destination by another piece (made it more
difficult to get to the target than teleportation)
 - didn't capture the pieces it 'blew up,' just took them off-board,
unless one was a King, in which case it fizzled.
These two weaknesses, I felt, justified my giving it a material value of
about 5 or 6.  The Bomb, I feel, is way too powerful for only so much.
What if you teleport it next to a King?  Since the blow-up move is not
defined as a Capture, anyone who was allowed to make more than one
Atomic Play in one turn could put it down next to the king and then blow
it up.

I have an RFC for chess pieces that are carried by other pieces (the
Grenade would be one such, and another would (of course) be a Boomerang)
but I'll wait to submit it until the Avatar (which I also like) and the
Pit thing has been cleared up.

- -rico

The glass isn't half empty *or* half full. It's just twice as big as it 
should be. 

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 16:36:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 154 (TRUE)

In response to breadbox's response to my response to TGW's response to my
CFCJ verdict:

I do see where you're coming from.  Exploiting lexical equivalence can
easily be overdone.  It would be nice to add some sort of clause that
would allow it if it were in a new and/or clever way, but that would
probably be too difficult.  As it is, there are certain ways to prevent
it; characters not allowed in names (semicolons, braces, etc.) can be put
in clauses to prevent their being copied, for example.  But this would
be too much work if everyone submitting a proposal had to look out for it.
(Maybe the list of disallowed characters could be expanded to include
commas, periods, apostrophes, and possibly even hyphens.  I haven't, of
course, checked to see if this would invalidate any existing entities
(except Rule 1 is repealed. #1, but they're going to be Vulcan again soon
anyway.) but it's just an idea.)

In any case, I've been converted.  If I get another Annoying CFCJ, the
verdict will be stiff enough to make seven days in Gaol look like a walk
through the park.  (or a dance, naked, on the town hall steps)  

C'mon Rex, just try it again.

- -rico

The glass isn't half empty *or* half full. It's just twice as big as it 
should be. 

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 16:46:18 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Odd Request

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the game, but...would I be able
to ask a favour of any American players?  I need some American stamps,
for an SASE, and with International Reply Coupons being like a 200%
markup, it'd be cheaper if I could get someone from the States to do it.

Email me privately and we can make arrangements.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Fleetwood Mac:Eyes of The World
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
Plays well with scissors

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 16:59:30 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fly, And Be Free!

> The Gaolbirds are out.  

Woohoo!!

> I hope you've learned your lesson.

Yes guv.

Now, where were all those messages I meant to respond to...

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 17:04:20 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

> 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.

What the?!? You can't be serious! This is way too powerful. Even moving all
the pieces off board would be too powerful. I'd suggest something like all
pieces next to a bomb that goes off are forced back one square. I wouldn't
make it capable of teleportation either, just normal movement.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 17:10:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 519 Appeal

>Hmmm, is Groucho Marx on the Literature List?  :-)  Besides, who's to say
>that Bananas can't fly?  (For the record, though, it was several readings
>of the original joke before I realized the context had changed...I
>believe the technical term for that is "zeugma"...well, there goes another
>Fictionary word...:-)
	Nope.  Zeugma is when a word is used in two different ways in the
same sentence, for example "She met him with open arms and expectations."
This is similar, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't technically qualify.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 17:10:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Party Chess Piece Avatar

	There's no need to excessively mess with the other rules
>> D. To create an Avatar a Swinger must pay A$100 to the bank for avatar
>> construction costs and post a description of theavatar they are
>> creating.  Such descriptions are encouraged to be truly bizarre. [Any
>> other suggestions for creation fees or procedures  are welcome]
	The Avatar may not be created by any other means; this sentence
takes precedence over Rule 1230.2

>> 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
	When an Avatar is removed from the board and the office owning it
still exists, the Swinger controlling that Avatar loses 50 points

>> 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 maydefine 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
	Keep this, since this is general and flexible.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 17:10:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Cycle Win CFJ RFC

>proposal Waiting For The Moon
<assorted text deleted>
	I haven't really gone through it in detail, but I support the idea.
I like the idea of at all times knowing if someone has just won.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 17:12:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

> I think the idea about limiting the maximum duration of the Holes is a
> good idea.  I think the board should tick, though, not every turn, but
> every time a Swinger submits a play; this would allow it to tick during
> free-for-alls also.  Apologies if this has already been mentioned and I
> just missed it.

I thought of that, it was already included in the party chess pit rules,
everytime a play is received and the chess ump needs to update the pits
tick, unless I worded it wrong.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 17:41:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC

	Since the economy RFC met with a pretty poor response, I've taken a
few of my favorit parts to make this.

	The basic idea is to create a stock market.  I haven't written the
actual rules, but I've figured out the core structure.  The Ackan Reserve
(kept because the stocks need to regulated, and I like the name) controls
the market.  Players buy and sell stocks, whose starting value would
probably be A$40 (for reasons explained later.)  There is no direct fee for
trading, but all values are rounded to the players disadvantage.  The price
of a certificate is split into four pieces, each with an initial value of
10.
	Positivity: Every time a proposal passes, add a tenth of a point
for each player who voted in its favor, each time a proposal fails,
subtract one point for each player who voted against it.  Players have some
control over this, but not a huge amount.  Moderately predictable (some
proposals you can be pretty sure will fail, others you're sure will pass)
	Unity: Each party unity vote add 1/4 of a point, when all members
of a party vote NO, subtract 1/4 of a point.  Again, players can control
this very slightly.  A party could conspire, but not in a serious way.
	Activity: At the end of the day, calculate the total number of
proposals plus CFJ's announced in the day, dividided by the average number
of total proposals+CFJ's.  If it's greater than 1, subtract 1, round to the
nearest tenth, and add that.  If it's less than 1, take the recipricol,
subtract 1, round to the nearest tenth, and subtract it.  This is hard to
predict in the short run, but some periods predictably will have much less
traffic.  This will make christmas a good time to sell stocks.
	Purchases: If P is the price, and S is the number of certificates
which had already been sold before the purchase, then when a player buys
one share the price becomes P/S*(S+1).  When a player buys multiple shares,
the price increases between shares (because otherwise players will just say
"I buy a share.  I buy a share, etc.)  For selling, the process works in
reverse.

	Money is given and taken from the treasury.  Rounding is done at
the end of a purchase, so there is an incentive to make one large purchase
instead ov several small ones.
	The Ackan Reserve also owns a number of shares, called stabilizers,
to prevent the purchases portion from fluxuating too wildly.  Three people
form the Board of the Ackan Reserve.  The Board can buy and sell
stabilizing shares in it using money from the treasury, but shares bought
in this way will not cause the Purchases portion to go up or down.  This
allows the board to decide that a period has been too calm, and spice it up
by cutting the stabilizing shares.  They can also declare a trade halt to
prevent the market from collapsing.  One Board member is the Chair, and is
responsible for keeping track of certificates and the price of a
certificate.
	I'd also like some way for players to either bet against the
market, or sell shares short.  Short selling would be interesting, but I'm
not sure how to do it.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #246
***********************************