Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #249
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Thursday, February 5 1998    Volume 03 : Number 249

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

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 13:46:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Games and contests submission

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> > > 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.
> > 
> > Have a series of rounds.  Start with the referee picking one word for
> each
> > player.  Then player i submits a word, player i+1 (mod n) tries to fill
> in
> > the link, so each round everyone is both a submitter and a guesser.
> 
> That sounds reasonable, but I think it might be useful to modify the
> scoring system. If one player had a weaker player both before and after em,
> then e would probably win, even if e wasn't the best player.

Alternative (to avoid weakness):

Make it Fictionary style in rounds.
1 person is the Linker.
Each other person sends the Linker a link word that they think of.

Points awarded:

The Linker gets min(n-1,5) points if no-one can find a link.
(so only 1 point in a duel).
Each Linkee gets 2 points for coming up with a unique linking word, or 
1 point if they come up with a link word which someone else has too.

Game can only end when each person has been Linker the same number of
times.

> 
> > Personally, I think the game sounds like a great duel game.
> 
> That was how I thought it would be used as it stood.
> 
> > > No trophy is awarded for winning.
> > Award something for winning, otherwise you'll never get a multiplayer 
> > version going.
> 
> I will do if I decide to make it multiplayer, but as a two player game it
> is unnecessary.

Well, duels are specifically excluded from the trophy rules, so if there
is a way to make it multiplayer, by all means do so.

> 
> 
> The Gingham Wearer.
> 

- -- 
Duncan C. "" 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: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 13:51:44 -0500 (EST)
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chess RFC Part II

Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> RFC:
> 
> Create a new Rule, numbered 1045, and called "Benefyts", with text as
> follows:
> 
> "
> {{All Benefyts are destroyed.}}

Ya know, you really don't need to do this every time. Even without the
new anti Malenkai's Loophole stuff, the patent rule should protect you
as long as you define the entity in question as an entity. The
successful applications of Malenkai's loophole were in cases where (as
with the military lasers and the HTML Standard, the thing in question
was not defined as an entity in the new rule. Malenkai himself was
prosecuted for patent infringement a couple times IIRC, so you need not
fear for lax enforcement of this rule, especially with a caped crusader
around.

**two-star

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

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 13:52:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chess RFC Part II

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> You already have a reason to place your king. You only have a weight if
> your king is on board. You can only get swingpoints if you have a weight.
> Place your king and you'll start getting swingpoints. Having a weight is
> also particularly useful during a free for all for those with fewer than
> five pieces (e.g. us!) because you only have to wait two days between
> moves. Incidentally, I like the RFC idea as well.

"Only an enemy without honour refuses to show himself in battle."
- -- Klingon proverb

I'm thinking of amending King Capture so that you can't do it unless your
King is on the board too.  Any supporters?

- -- 
Duncan C. "" 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: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 13:55:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chess RFC Part II

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, **Alexandre Muniz wrote:

> > {{All Benefyts are destroyed.}}
> 
> Ya know, you really don't need to do this every time. Even without the
> new anti Malenkai's Loophole stuff, the patent rule should protect you
> as long as you define the entity in question as an entity. The
> successful applications of Malenkai's loophole were in cases where (as
> with the military lasers and the HTML Standard, the thing in question
> was not defined as an entity in the new rule. Malenkai himself was
> prosecuted for patent infringement a couple times IIRC, so you need not
> fear for lax enforcement of this rule, especially with a caped crusader
> around.

I know that I need not fear enforcement, but the way I see it one line of
loophole insurance is a fairly minor price to pay to feel more secure
about having prevented these kinds of loopholes.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" 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: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 14:03:33 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: RFC: Peachment

>What about a type of entity called a Giant Peach (perhaps each one could
>be numbered, and they could be Trinkets valued at A$50 a pop?)
>

I thought points would be a better reward than A$; maybe not, though. How
about "will gain 15 points, and a Giant Peach", and make Giant Peaches
untradeable numbered entities? Also, if the verdict is "No! Stone them
instead" there could be Peach Stones given out instead (perhaps to the
caller?), and no points (or a penalty to the caller?).

>Only one at a time?  What about at least one at any one time? :-)
>
Well, it is supposed to be for exceptional performance, which won't happen
all the time.

Does anyone have any thoughts as to what number this should be? Should it go
with the officer rules, or the harf rules, or what?

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 14:04:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Joshua Herreshoff wrote:

> You're just trying to get us in trouble, aren't you Slagothor?  Hmmm, maybe I
> should RFC a PartyChessPieceDef Twonky.  Now that would be interesting ; )

What, that has to supply a quote from Nietzsche in order to move?

> Well, that wouldn't prevent other pieces from moving into pits to prevent
> other people from capturing them.  Better to return a piece to your hand than
> to your opponents hand after all.

This is true... but I think the amount of situations that could arise
where the only move a piece could make without getting captured would be
into a pit are fairly minimal.  Far better to keep it on the board, if you
can.  Alternately, the pits could destroy the piece completely.  Or --
and here's one Slakko's going to hate -- the Chess-Umpire keeps track of
which pieces have fallen into which pits, and a Swinger with the correct
Piece (PartyChessPieceDef Winch) or Otzma Card can get all the pieces out
of a single pit.  (Except for the Q-Ball -- if that goes into a pit it
comes back in the top 1/3 of the table, controlled by your opponent.  :-))

- -rico

Murphy's Law: If you have an open-book exam, you will forget your book. 
Corollary: If you are given a take-home test, you will forget where you 
live. 

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

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 14:21:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Joshua Herreshoff wrote:

> 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.

I think unlikely cases should be handled as well. And if it's unlikely,
then it wouldn't hurt to have an upper limit, would it?
> 
> > 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?

Slakko's idea is good. It pretty much ensures that pits Heal within one
Round. 

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> > 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 cutand paste spree.  Sorry ;)
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 14:26:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Party Chess Piece Avatar

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Joshua Herreshoff wrote:

> > 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?  Ordo 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.

First, I don't like the Avatar much. The rules you propose below could be
interesting, not that there is any lack of interest in the current set of
pieces (you should look at the Fourplay Chess home page some time, there
are some interesting pieces over there as well)

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> 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: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 14:35:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chess RFC Part II

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Joshua Herreshoff wrote:

> OOH, I really really like this rule.  Propose it and you've got my vote (and
> hopefully all of the other boomerangs, he says glaring menacingly at the other
> members of his org ; ) )  Now I'll actually have a reason to place my king :

I'd vote for it, but see comments below.

> > Special: The player performs the Special Move for one of eir on-board
> > pieces.  One Benefyt in the player's possession is destroyed each time a
> > Special move is performed.  Special Moves may not be performed by a player
> > who has no Benefyts.

1. Why bother with Benefyts at all?  One could just spend 10 Swingpoints
on a Special Move.  This would be kind of discriminatory to beginning
Swingers, but I'm sure they'd get over it.  Plus, it's extra incentive to
put their Kings on the board if they haven't already.  Did you have a
particular reason for introducing a new term? (which I'm not necessarily
against, I'd just like to know why) 

2. This sounds fun!  Would we be able to create Special moves for existing
pieces?  I'd grin evilly if I knew how to make a proper smiley for it.

- -rico

Murphy's Law: If you have an open-book exam, you will forget your book. 
Corollary: If you are given a take-home test, you will forget where you 
live. 

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

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 14:38:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Rico wrote:

> 
> 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
> 

One of the things about PartyChess is that even it differes greatly from
most chess variants I know of, I always felt that a semblance of chess
must be preserved, or otherwise it would become a bit pointless. The thing
I don't want to see is that Party Board becoming a bloody battle field, or
a high tech battle field of lasers. Chess is a game of both strategy and
tactics, and in a multi-player game, a game where a balance is maintained
between cooperation and competition. Lasers and conveyor belts may make
give a different flavor to the game, but it will no longer be Chess.

Niccolo Flychuck
PartyChess Expert, ex-Chess-Umpire

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

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 14:49:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chess RFC Part II

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Rico wrote:

> 1. Why bother with Benefyts at all?  One could just spend 10 Swingpoints
> on a Special Move.  This would be kind of discriminatory to beginning
> Swingers, but I'm sure they'd get over it.  Plus, it's extra incentive to
> put their Kings on the board if they haven't already.  Did you have a
> particular reason for introducing a new term? (which I'm not necessarily
> against, I'd just like to know why) 

Currently there are limits on Swingpoint transfers, and I'd like to see
this retained to stop someone punching in a whole series of Specials.
I also think that it is a serious disadvantage for a newcomer to be
limited in moves, while existing players are not, so I thought that some
number of special moves should be available immediately.  It's much easier
to handle this with a separate entity, IMHO.

There's also the point that people have to decide in advance to change
over to a Benefyt, and this also temporarily prevents them from converting
Swingpoints to Bonus Votes or Trade-Ins.

> 
> 2. This sounds fun!  Would we be able to create Special moves for existing
> pieces?  I'd grin evilly if I knew how to make a proper smiley for it.

Provided you can get them accepted ;-)

> 
> -rico
> 
> Murphy's Law: If you have an open-book exam, you will forget your book. 
> Corollary: If you are given a take-home test, you will forget where you 
> live. 
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
Duncan C. "" 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: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 14:51:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chess RFC Part II

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> RFC:
> 
> Create a new Rule, numbered 1045, and called "Benefyts", with text as
> follows:
> 
> "
> {{All Benefyts are destroyed.}}
> {{3 Benefyts are created in the possession of each Swinger's Office}}
> 
> Benefyts are tradeable entities.  Whenever a new Swinger's Office is
> created, or a player purchaes a Swinger's Office from the Treasury, 3
> Benefyts are given to that Swinger.
> "
> 
> Amend Swingpoints by introducing a fourth transfer, (d):
> A player may spend 10 Swingpoints to acquire one Benefyt.

To make this consistent with the current rule, this would be better
phrased as a conversionf of 10 Swingpoints to one Benefyt.

> 
> Amend good old Rule 1230.2 by introducing the following atomic play:
> 
> Special: The player performs the Special Move for one of eir on-board
> pieces.  One Benefyt in the player's possession is destroyed each time a
> Special move is performed.  Special Moves may not be performed by a player
> who has no Benefyts.
> 
> Then the Bomb explosion can be treated as a Special Move, and other pieces
> can also have Special Moves defined.

When pieces carried by other pieces were mentioned, I was thinking that
Tools, or somethings would be more useful and less complex (carried
pieces wouldn't sit well with the PartyChess rules) But I think Special
Moves would work better.
A long time ago I proposed a very expensive, powerful piece that could be
enhanced with Otzma Cards specific to that piece. I thing it a sort of a
Wizard which could Teleport itself, or other pieces with the use of
specific Otzma Cards.

There are some advantages to using Otzma Cards, perhaps an Otzma Card of
type Benefyt. There already is an existing structure, it works, it is well
tested, although we might not want to deal with Counter-Actions. The
latter may be a good reason not to use Otzma Cards.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> - -- 
> Duncan C. "" 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: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 14:57:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RFC:PartyChess piece Twonky

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Joshua Herreshoff wrote:
> 
> ANGST
> A. A twonky has a material value 7

This materail is too low for such a piece. A piece that can Capture all
adjacent pieces in a single sweep, even if it poses a danger to friendly
pieces ( I like that two edged sword thing) should be considered stronger
than that.
As I understood from your other comments, it can Capture even when
someone else  moves.

 > B. It is represented by the ASCII character W
> 
> C. A twonky can move up to 3 squares horizontally or vertically.  A
> twonky may not capture with this movement .
> 
> D. Twonkies continually emit laser beams.  At the end of every turn ALL
> pieces 1 square away from a twonky in a horizontal or vertical direction
> are hit by a laser.  Enemy pieces are captured if hit.  If a friendly
> piece is hit  in this manner it is removed from the game and the twonky
> falls into a fit of depression and self destructs leaving a pit with pit
> value equal to the number of swingers in the game  in his square.  The
> twonky is also removed from the game.
> ANGST
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 16:27:14 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Games and contests submission

> > That sounds reasonable, but I think it might be useful to modify the
> > scoring system. If one player had a weaker player both before and after
em,
> > then e would probably win, even if e wasn't the best player.
> 
> Alternative (to avoid weakness):
> 
> Make it Fictionary style in rounds.
> 1 person is the Linker.
> Each other person sends the Linker a link word that they think of.
> 
> Points awarded:
> 
> The Linker gets min(n-1,5) points if no-one can find a link.
> (so only 1 point in a duel).
> Each Linkee gets 2 points for coming up with a unique linking word, or 
> 1 point if they come up with a link word which someone else has too.
> 
> Game can only end when each person has been Linker the same number of
> times.

Hey, I like it. Unless anyone else has anything to add I'll propose it.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 17:42:02 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2693

> Proposal 2693
> What On Flat Earth is an Attribute?
> Slakko (Duncan Richer)

> This is a Modest Proposal.

> {{[What is a special attribute associated with a mutation?  Does an
> ability count?  This probably should be cleared up.]}}

> Replace all instances of "special attributes" in Rule 854, "Ackanomic
> Institute of Genetic Replication" with "special abilities".

I would rather see this sent to the CSRR, since AFACT it has no real game
effect.  "Attributes" and "abilities" alike are not defined by the Rules,
the problem you're having with the Agenda Hat notwithstanding.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Golden Palominos:Boy(Go)
Current Book--David Eddings:Sorceress of Darshiva
Now you will be forced to think with a language.  --billbill

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

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 17:45:07 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2694

> Proposal 2694
> Circle of Mystic Protection Be Damned
> Slakko (Duncan Richer)

> This is a Modest Proposal.

> Repeal the highest numbered Rule in the Blueprints Rule Suite.

> {{[The Circle of Mystic Protection is too dangerous - it would eliminate
> the entire proposal queue when invoked.]}}

It's not that I particularly think this is a bad idea, but why don't you
just Debunk the flippin' thing by name, instead of aiming, possibly badly,
at a Rule not specified except in a very indirect way?  If it should turn
out that Valaraukar was not in the Blueprints rule suite, and the CoMP is
already gone, then this will result in the BWG Shotgun Attachment getting
toasted instead.  I will vote against this Proposal because its aim is
pretty bad too.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Golden Palominos:Boy(Go)
Current Book--David Eddings:Sorceress of Darshiva
Please, no deja vu; I don't want to go through that again

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

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 17:55:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

>> 	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)
>
>That's a significant amount of harfing, comparable to the amount the
>Scorekeeper has to do.  Alfvaen, how much harfing does being Scorekeeper
>take?
	I'm willing to do it, and it isn't as much as the score keeper.  It
only applies to proposals, and there's only one number to change.  You
don't have to monitor every action to be sure no one's points changed.

>> 	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.
>
>This method blows up completely if no proposals & cfjs are submitted in
>any one day.
	If it's less than 1 but greater than 0...If it's greater than zero,
cut the value in half.

>
>> 	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.
>
>The first share purchase makes the price of a share infinite.
	I must have forgotten to mention, the Reserve starts out owning
some number of shares, and must always keep at least one.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 21:12:52 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: RFC: Peachment

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Gavin M. Doig wrote:

> This is intended to provide a way to reward officers who do a particularly
> good job. I'm not quite sure where it should go, and the reward is open to
> change.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> 
> Create a new rule, with some number I haven't yet decided, entitled
> Peachment, with the following double-quote delimited text.

This seems like a good way to just hand players points.  In other words,
its a bad idea.  Furthermore, if someone submits a Peachment paper, who is
going to vote against it?  Doing so would be tantamount to saying "This
player isn't working very hard" or maybe "I don't like this guy" or at the
very least "He doesn't deserve a reward".

                                       - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 21:22:49 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2693

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > Proposal 2693
> > What On Flat Earth is an Attribute?
> > Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> 
> > This is a Modest Proposal.
> 
> > {{[What is a special attribute associated with a mutation?  Does an
> > ability count?  This probably should be cleared up.]}}
> 
> > Replace all instances of "special attributes" in Rule 854, "Ackanomic
> > Institute of Genetic Replication" with "special abilities".
> 
> I would rather see this sent to the CSRR, since AFACT it has no real game
> effect.  "Attributes" and "abilities" alike are not defined by the Rules,
> the problem you're having with the Agenda Hat notwithstanding.
> 

If it didn't have any game effect, then there would be no reason to put in
a CSR at all, it wouldn't need to be changed.  I think it is quite
possible that some players would object to the change, as it would
definitely benefit him more than anyone else.  In other words, I think
that this is fine material for a proposal, and I have no intention of
putting it in a CSR even if it fails.
 
> > -- > --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 21:37:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: RFC: Peachment

>This seems like a good way to just hand players points.  In other words,
>its a bad idea.  Furthermore, if someone submits a Peachment paper, who is
>going to vote against it?  Doing so would be tantamount to saying "This
>player isn't working very hard" or maybe "I don't like this guy" or at the
>very least "He doesn't deserve a reward".
	First, it should be clear that Peachment is for exceptional work
only.  Second, votes could be secret, so no one would know if you voted
against the person.

- --
- -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 #249
***********************************