Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #247
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Wednesday, February 4 1998    Volume 03 : Number 247

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:46:01 -0500 (EST)
From: aaron shapiro <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka: 5 line apology

Methinks perhaps apology lengths should be specified in words in the future.
		Bill

- ----------
From:  Gavin M. Doig
Sent:  Monday, February 02, 1998 12:14 PM
To:  ackanomic
Subject:  acka: 5 line apology

I
am
very
very
sorry. ;-)

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 01:15:33 -0500 (EST)
From: aaron shapiro <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

Hmmm pits and bombs.....this seems to be turning into a certain board game
Some of us have played.  I think at least 2 others know what I mean.
		bill
- ----------
From:  Joshua Herreshoff
Sent:  Tuesday, February 03, 1998 6:24 AM
To:  [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.

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 01:42:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

> Hmmm pits and bombs.....this seems to be turning into a certain board game
> Some of us have played.  I think at least 2 others know what I mean.

Damn, now my conveyor belt idea won't come as a surprise ; )  Actually I wasn't
even thinking of Robo Rally when I made the rule.  Just seemed like a good idea.

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 01:45:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Party Chess Piece Avatar

Do people think I should maybe submit these as a separate proposal?  Even if the
avatar gets shot down it seems to me like these would be usefull rules to have
around.

Towsner wrote:

> >> 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.

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 01:50:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

Uri Bruck wrote:

> Off-hand, I can't say I'm crazy about it.

Why, just general aesthetics?

> However, if proposed, I'd like to see the following changes:
> 1. An upper limit to the number of pits at any given time.

This seems reasonable to me, I was thinking about 20 absolute tops, but seeing
as how pits heal fairly quickly it would be unlikely there would be this many
on board unless someone made a nuclear bomb piece or somesuch.

> 2. A well-defined range (could be dependent on game state, but should be
> reasonable) for pit value

What do you think about Slakko's idea for keeping it at the number of swingers
in the game?  Or do you want a maximum cap on it, no matter how many
swingers?  If so, how about an absolute maximum of 10?

> 3. Only unoccupied squares would become pits.

I think that's what the plan is right now.

> 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. "

Oops, sorry, must have forgotten that in my cut and paste spree.  Sorry ;)

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 01:59:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[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.

Okay, I can understand your point about muddying the rules unnecessarily.
Would you prefer it if I put all those rules in the ChessPieceDef rule for the
avatar with notes that they overrule specific rules?  Or do you just not like
the avatar at all?  Also, are you okay with the following rules?  It seems to
me that they don't really muddy any waters, and they provide some
opportunities to make more interesting chess pieces in the future.

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 03:48:23 -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. ]}}

I hate to say this, but I think I've spotted another problem.
This is what happens:

1. Player A thinks e has achieved winning condition.
2. Player A submits CFJ.
3. Player B spots that A may have achieved a winning condition.
4. Player B Foul Fowls, or otherwise Gooses player A.
5. Player C (CotC) distributes player A's CFJ, which is now False because
player A had the goose at the time the CFJ was distributed.

So the time it takes the CotC to distribute a CFJ could easily determine
whether a player has won a cycle or not.  At least that is my take on the
rules, but I would be happy to hear refutations / other arguments on this
matter.

Oh, BTW, I've now noticed that the Magic Number cannot fall below 59.

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: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 04:19:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Cycle Win CFJ RFC

> So the time it takes the CotC to distribute a CFJ could easily determine
> whether a player has won a cycle or not.  At least that is my take on the
> rules, but I would be happy to hear refutations / other arguments on this
> matter.

We actually discussed this sort of issue several months ago. The truth
is that CFJ statements, by default, refer to the game state at the
time that they are submitted, not distributed. Malenkai therefore
started publishing this information along with his CFJs, and Balsamic
Dragon has recently started doing likewise.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 04:48:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 154 (TRUE)

> 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.

Well, it is already always allowed (unless you commit Patent
Infringement). I think the current rules are capable of doing what you
describe, since no one is *required* to call a CFCJ when someone
commits a Crime. Really, one of the purposes of CFCJs is to attempt to
penalize acts that violate the "social contract", or the spirit of the
game, or whatever you want to call the metarules that we try to play
by even though they can't be written down.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 05:28:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2660 accepted

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Results of Proposal 2660
> 
> 17/23 votes: Quorum achieved
> 10/13 YES votes: Proposal accepted
> 
>     YES:
> Slakko               (SPAM)
> 
>     NO:
> rufus                (SPAM)
>
>     PRESENT:
> Fortunato            (SPAM)
> 
>     ABSTAINED:
> Balsamic Dragon      (SPAM)

I think we need a proposal which gives bonus points for Party Disarray.
After all, we hit the jackpot!  4 distinct responses to the one proposal.
:-)

RFC:
If, on the same proposal, members of a Political Party vote YES,NO,
PRESENT and ABSTAINED, then each member of that party shall receive 2
points. (The anti-unity vote).

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: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 06:20:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2691

One question with this proposal.

What happens to the Mad Hatters?
They are an Organization which owns a More than Human, A$99, and nothing
else.  They will be destroyed according to the actions in this rule, and
then recreated, with no money, by the Mercury Poisoning rule.  So you will
turn them into a pointless Organization.  You may also end up with some
problems - Rule 675 says that The Mad Hatters exists (so as soon as you
destroy it it is recreated).  It also states that it possesses a More Than
Human (regardless of whether that has any meaning).  Rule 675 also makes
Beep, Blip and Bonk members whenever they are not members.  So I suggest
that else...if should have a quick think to see what, if anything, needs
to be done to get the Mad Hatters working again should 2691 pass.

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: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 08:37:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

Would that be Roborally?

Balsamic Dragon

- ----------
> From: aaron shapiro <[email-masked]>
> To: 'research' <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board
> Date: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 1:15 AM
> 
> Hmmm pits and bombs.....this seems to be turning into a certain board
game
> Some of us have played.  I think at least 2 others know what I mean.
> 		bill
> ----------

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:25:30 -0500 (EST)
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Cycle Win CFJ RFC

> 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?

I think such behaviour would be very much against "the spirit of  the game".It
is also "un-sporting"
Remember, the harder it is for someone else to win, the harder it is for
you....

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:25:42 -0500 (EST)
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Odd Request

Funny that you should ask....

I happen to have
2x60c
8x32c
american stamps from when i was over there in '96. I was wodering what I
should do with them....
do want them?
(if I send them now you'll prolly get them in 2 weeks...:)

K2

Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 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: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:26:04 -0500 (EST)
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

> "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."

Wouldn't this stop pits from having an effect, other than just filling in a spot on
the board ?

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:40:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, K 2 wrote:

> > "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."
> 
> Wouldn't this stop pits from having an effect, other than just filling in a spot on
> the board ?

That can be crucial - a pit could stop your King from being checked, if
it would otherwise be under attack from a Rook, for example.

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: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 12:30:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Newspapers

Currently there is no real need for newspapers - people can always publish
things that "need" to be published as samizdat if they want.  How about
some kind of a reward system for papers which do a "good job"?  I had in
mind something like the following:

Each player may have at most one preferred Newspaper.  A player may change
which Newspaper is their preferred Newspaper as a public action, and may
also cease to have any paper as their preferred Newspaper as a public
action, and choose a paper as their preferred Newspaper as a public
action.  No player may have a paper they own as a preferred Newspaper -
should such a situation ever happen, the player will be deemed to have no
preferred Newspaper (i.e. eir Newspaper status will change).

If a Newspaper goes bust, then all players who had that newspaper as eir
preferred Newspaper no longer have a preferred Newspaper.

Whenever Officer Salaries are paid, each Newspaper Owner received A$2 per
person who prefers one of eir papers, plus A$1 for each person who does
not prefer any paper.

{{[The last encourages people to find a preference when there are more
than 2 newspapers in existence.]}}

Comments and suggestions?

Now IMHO this isn't a lot of harfing - people aren't likely to change
their newspaper preferences a lot (except at the start) - but if people
think it is work they'd rather not do, I could always create a new office
(or perhaps add it to the runemaker's - RuneMaking and RuneReading :-) )

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: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 12:42:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Votes on proposals...

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Andrew Stefanski wrote:

> On Proposal 2664, I vote PRESENT.
> 
> On Proposal 2665, I vote YES.
> 
> On Proposal 2667, I vote YES.
> 
> On Proposal 2668, I vote YES.
> 
> On Proposal 2670, I vote YES.
> 
Two points.  
Firstly, votes go to the tabulator by email at nomicbot.

So email
[email-masked]
similarly to the following:

#vote 2664 P Y Y Y Y
or
#vote 2664 P
#vote 2665 Y
etc.

Secondly, all messages sent to the acka mailing lists should have
a subject line which includes the text "Acka:".  Most people playing have
filtered their email so that they get Ackan messages in a separate folder
according to the subject line.  It's a good idea, and it also stops you
going postal.

Hope this helps, and welcome to Acka, Illusion!

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: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 12:53:33 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Andrew Stefanski)
Subject: Acka: Re: Votes on proposals...

> Two points.  
> Firstly, votes go to the tabulator by email at nomicbot.

DOH!  That's what I get for making assumptions, and not reading things very 
carefully.  I feel sheepish...

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 13:21:31 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Games and contests submission

This is an idea I've been toying with for a bit and thought I'd see what
you lot think. Suggestions are welcome. I'd especially appreciate any way
of turning it into a game for more than two people, if you can think of a
practical way of doing it.

Word un-asociation

Equipment needed - gamepoints as necessary.
Players - Exactly two players .
Gameplay:

The referee picks a word from the official dictionary [it is encouraged to
be fairly common, but not too simple (i.e. not "the" or "at", etc.)] and
randomly selects one of the players to start. This player then publicly
posts a word. This word must have a common "link word" with the original
word, but must not be itself linked to the original word [i.e. blue -->
wine is allowed (via bottle), as is school --> eye (via pupil) but school
- --> teacher is not (even though pupil would be a valid link word it is not
allowed since school and teacher are themselves connected].

The second player must then try to find a word to link the original word
and the announced word. If e manages it then e gains a game point, if e
fails to do so then the other player gains a game point, provided e can
announce a word to link the two words e was thinking of. This word does not
have to be the same as the one the original player was thinking of. If ever
there is a disagreement about whether two words are linked then the
referee's decision is final. Play then continues with the second player
publicly announcing a word which shares a common link word with the word
announced by the first player (the first of these, not the link phrase).
Play continues in this way until one player has ten gamepoints, at which
point e wins.

Referees - 1 exactly.
No trophy is awarded for winning.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 13:21:35 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2663 rejected

> Results of Proposal 2663
> 
> 18/23 votes: Quorum achieved
> 11/19 YES votes: Proposal rejected

>     NO:
> Red Barn
> Alfvaen              (MetaMorph)
> Vynd                 (Vulcan)
> Slagothor            (Boomerangs)
> /dev/joe             (Vulcan)
> breadbox
> Fortunato            (SPAM)
> ThinMan              (Vulcan)

Of those that voted no on this, were all of you doing so because you don't
like the idea in general, or was it just the way it was worded, or
something like that? Or did any of you anti-vote? And did any of the
abstainers mean to vote yes and just forget? The thing is, I really like
this idea, and it only failed by the narrowest of narrow margins. Is it
worth me resubmitting?

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 13:50:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2663 rejected

TGW asked:
> > Results of Proposal 2663
> Of those that voted no on this, were all of you doing so because you don't
> like the idea in general, or was it just the way it was worded, or
> something like that? Or did any of you anti-vote? And did any of the
> abstainers mean to vote yes and just forget? The thing is, I really like
> this idea, and it only failed by the narrowest of narrow margins. Is it
> worth me resubmitting?

I don't like the idea in general. [...] The thing is, I really dislike
this idea, and I'd rather not see it resubmitted.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 14:06:17 -0500 (EST)
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: 5 line apology

aaron shapiro wrote:
> 
> Methinks perhaps apology lengths should be specified in words in the future.
>                 Bill
> 

I really really really really really really really really really really
really really really really really really really really really really
really really really really really really really really really really
really really really really really really really don't think that would
make much of a difference.

**two-star

> ----------
> From:  Gavin M. Doig
> Sent:  Monday, February 02, 1998 12:14 PM
> To:  ackanomic
> Subject:  acka: 5 line apology
> 
> I
> am
> very
> very
> sorry. ;-)
> 
> Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 15:29:46 -0500 (EST)
From: aaron shapiro <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka: 5 line apology

Really?

- ----------
From:  **Alexandre Muniz
Sent:  Wednesday, February 04, 1998 11:06 AM
To:  [email-masked]
Subject:  Re: acka: 5 line apology

aaron shapiro wrote:
> 
> Methinks perhaps apology lengths should be specified in words in the future.
>                 Bill
> 

I really really really really really really really really really really
really really really really really really really really really really
really really really really really really really really really really
really really really really really really really don't think that would
make much of a difference.

**two-star

> ----------
> From:  Gavin M. Doig
> Sent:  Monday, February 02, 1998 12:14 PM
> To:  ackanomic
> Subject:  acka: 5 line apology
> 
> I
> am
> very
> very
> sorry. ;-)
> 
> Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 16:36:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2663 rejected

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> Of those that voted no on this, were all of you doing so because you don't
> like the idea in general, or was it just the way it was worded, or
> something like that? Or did any of you anti-vote? And did any of the

Not at all.  I simply like the prospect of loosing points every Saturday.
I hate keeping them confined.  :-)

- -rico

Black holes are where God divided by zero. 

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 16:50:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> Would that be Roborally?

Woo-hoo!  Point to the scaled one!  I nominate Balsamic Dragon for
immediate acceptance into the elite club of the Boomerangs and approve
eir admittance... should e accept. (with a bite to the thumb in the
general direction of those who disapprove of prospective actions)

No, I'm kidding; far be it from me to further Annoy those who might or
might not be giants with my neophytic irreverence.  Ignore all
prospective actions in the previous paragraph.  I do, however, call
upon Balsamic Dragon to forsake the stale anti-unity of SPAM and join the
ever-growing circle (ha!) of those who know about RoboRally and Razor
Boomerangs.  And who are going to put conveyor belts on the Party Chess
board.

- -rico

Black holes are where God divided by zero. 

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 17:10:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Rico wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:
> 
> > Would that be Roborally?
> 
> Woo-hoo!  Point to the scaled one!  I nominate Balsamic Dragon for
> immediate acceptance into the elite club of the Boomerangs and approve
> eir admittance... should e accept. (with a bite to the thumb in the
> general direction of those who disapprove of prospective actions)
> 
> No, I'm kidding; far be it from me to further Annoy those who might or
> might not be giants with my neophytic irreverence.  Ignore all
> prospective actions in the previous paragraph.  I do, however, call
> upon Balsamic Dragon to forsake the stale anti-unity of SPAM and join the
> ever-growing circle (ha!) of those who know about RoboRally and Razor
> Boomerangs.  And who are going to put conveyor belts on the Party Chess
> board.

If you're not careful I'll start installing the lasers, and the pushers.

Yours,
Slakko (or is it Twonk?)
- -- 
Duncan C. "SPAM - the oldest party with RoboRally players" 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: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 17:34:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

> If you're not careful I'll start installing the lasers, and the pushers.

What, you, too?  If you can tell me where the Razor Boomerang reference
comes from I'll admit you too.  Whoops, that was prospective again, wasn't
it?  Never mind.

Personally, about the Pits thing, I'd like to see any piece that
voluntarily moved into a pit be removed from the board.  If a King moved
into a Pit that could be treated as a Surrender.  (If a piece got
conveyored or pushed in, though... >:->)

- -rico, who is not sure how to properly depict an evil-grin-type smiley,
nor what the proper bracketing for one is

I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian. 

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 17:51:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Rico wrote:

> 
> 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.

No-one can make more than one generic Atomic Play in one turn.  There are
limits on what types of Atomic Plays can make up multiple atomic play
Plays.  I wouldn't include the explosion as any of these, so you'd have to
use a whole turn anyway.

Alternatively, put the bombs in as pieces with no movement, i.e. only
placement, and a 7 day (or 1 round or 2 moves or whatever) fuse. 
They'd still take out whatever surrounds them at distance 1, giving them
to the player who placed the bomb.

> 
> 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.

Pieces carried by other pieces makes things far too complicated.  It would
be easier to specify Special types of Atomic Play, and include them in the
rules, with perhaps usage limits on the number of times a particular piece
can use a Special move.

"The Queen has an Uzi in her purse.  She slays your entire side."

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "you did the same thing playing Scrabble" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 18:08:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> No-one can make more than one generic Atomic Play in one turn.  There are
> limits on what types of Atomic Plays can make up multiple atomic play
> Plays.  I wouldn't include the explosion as any of these, so you'd have to
> use a whole turn anyway.

OK, but as you had it defined (if I remember correctly) a person could
just blow up the bomb pretty much whenever e felt like it.  You could,
alternately, make the explosion the Bomb's Capture move, and override the
definition of Capturing in R1230.1, sec 4, which is what I did with the
Grenade.

> Alternatively, put the bombs in as pieces with no movement, i.e. only
> placement, and a 7 day (or 1 round or 2 moves or whatever) fuse. 
> They'd still take out whatever surrounds them at distance 1, giving them
> to the player who placed the bomb.

That sounds more workable than random teleportation.  Or the bomb could
move like a Pawn or King, but would have to make a Capture move to start
the fuse running, giving all the other Swingers a turn each or so to move
pieces out of the way.

I still think those things should get tossed on by the Evil Midnight
Bomber.  Should such an entity ever exist.

> Pieces carried by other pieces makes things far too complicated.  It would

Yeah, that's pretty much the whole idea. :-)

No, it works as far as I can see the way I have it.  It probably will get
shot down as too complicated, but I'll RFC it a bit later anyway and see
if anyone has some suggestions to simplify it down.

> "The Queen has an Uzi in her purse.  She slays your entire side."

"Knight, jump the Queen!"
"Pawn, jump the Queen!"
"EVERYBODY JUMP THE QUEEN!"

- -rico

I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian. 

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 20:31:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Votes on proposals...

> On Proposal 2664, I vote PRESENT.
> 
> On Proposal 2665, I vote YES.
> 
> On Proposal 2667, I vote YES.
> 
> On Proposal 2668, I vote YES.
> 
> On Proposal 2670, I vote YES.

To Illusion:

What Slakko said. Although note that this is a perfectly valid
submission of votes, as far as the rules are concerned; it's just
a lot easier for me if you use the nomicbot.

To Slakko:

No, I won't declare you Postal, although I do think it's funny that
you forgot to correct the subject line even though you noticed it was
in error....

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 21:01:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2663 rejected

> Of those that voted no on this, were all of you doing so because you don't
> like the idea in general, or was it just the way it was worded, or
> something like that? Or did any of you anti-vote? And did any of the
> abstainers mean to vote yes and just forget? The thing is, I really like
> this idea, and it only failed by the narrowest of narrow margins. Is it
> worth me resubmitting?

I don't like proposal bribery. (Or anti-bribery, as in this case.) We
already have a controlled form of legal bribery, which requires the
author to pay for the bribes out of eir own pocket. I'm happy with
that. But when the bribes (or anti-bribes) cost the author nothing,
then it is no longer interesting to me.

breadbox

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #247
***********************************