Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #250
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Friday, February 6 1998     Volume 03 : Number 250

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:00:27 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
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?

It was a close thing for me, but as Scorekeeper it wasn't something I wanted
to have to keep track of.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Madonna:Like A Virgin
Current Book--David Eddings:Sorceress of Darshiva
'Shh.  Admire the majesty of those stone pointy things.'

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:00:29 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2679

> > > P.S.  Alfvaen, are you going to call an expedition any time soon?

> > No, actually.  I voted against the proposal, and as Archaeologist I'm
> > not going to initiate it.  (Although I do plan on doing Scientist
> > stuff.  Anyone have any nifty Gadget ideas?)

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

I seem to recall that you phrased it as "prerogative", so that it could
still be done by the Acting Archaeologist...

Also, I disagree with it in principle.  For one thing, as it is phrased,
if I leave the game tomorrow(and the Cycle ends so we have a new
Archaeologist, if this has not already happened), any of my Treasures
that have been buried more than 90 days can be dug up the next day.

Besides, there are a few maps whose buriers I consider not unlikely to
perhaps return...  If there was a way to exclude those from consideration,
then I might consider it.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Madonna:Like A Virgin
Current Book--David Eddings:Sorceress of Darshiva
I have a firm grip on reality.  Now I can strangle it.

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:00:33 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Justices

> > 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. 

I can think of two instances where I myself have done so.  Slakko may
remember at least one of these emself...?

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

I'd take the opinion of two players who have been considered to be
amply qualified to determine _objectively_ the truth of a matter than
twenty people who are making a decision based partly on self-interest.
Let's say that someone submits a CFJ whose subject is "Every player gains
20 points per second."  Who would vote against that?  Well, some of us
would, but I could see it passing through a Hearing when no self-respecting
Judge, let along Justice, would let it go by.

(Okay, I haven't been following the conversation, so I have no idea if
what I've put up is a straw man or not.)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Madonna:Like A Virgin
Current Book--David Eddings:Sorceress of Darshiva
Gotta love the name "Viking Penguin," don't you?

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:00:37 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Newspapers

> 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.

Sounds good...

> 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.]}}

I'm not sure that the last bit makes sense to me, actually.  I mean, _why_
does it encourage people to make a choice?  They don't have to pay the
money out of their own pocket...

> 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 :-) )

I don't think it would be much trouble either.  The preferences could just
be put up on the web page or something.  It's not much more trouble than
keeping up with changing offices every month, and much less trouble than
Fortnightly Dividends...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Madonna:Like A Virgin
Current Book--David Eddings:Sorceress of Darshiva
Is firm corn merrier under gifts of less important love?

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:31:18 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: acka: RFC: Peachment

> 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.

Well, it could go in the 400's with the office rules, but the 1100's
would probably be more appropriate.

But I do like this idea(although by the time it goes through I hope to be
a few Offices shorter), so by all means go with it...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Jennifer Warnes:Famous Blue Raincoat
Current Book--David Eddings:Sorceress of Darshiva
This writing is all fake, so you should go away and not read any of it.

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:31:30 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
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?

Well, for every proposal that passes, I have to note a) the time it passed,
b) who submitted it, c) whether it passed or failed, and d) who anti-voted.
And if there are any effects in the Proposal itself, like giving some of
your points to another player, I have to note those as well.  (There's
also looking for CFJ appeal penalties and such too...)

So it's actually not _that_ much, and to be honest I could probably automate
more of it if I decided to count on a consistent Tabulator results format
and write a script for it.  But I don't mind doing it by hand...

> > 	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.

No, no, remember that anything divided by zero is zero...:-)

> > 	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.

See above.

I haven't looked at this RFC in great detail, but if you consider that the
PFBonds were supposed to be a kind of stock market, and nobody ever traded
them in the last several months before they were repealed...  Maybe this is
different, but I'd advise caution.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Kate Bush:Love & Anger
Current Book--David Eddings:Sorceress of Darshiva
Stupid == the flying Wallendas without hands.  --billbill

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 01:51:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2694

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

> 
> > 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.

How do I debunk the Blueprint?  AFAICS, the only way is to Impeach ThinMan
from his Scientist post.
- -- 
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: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 01:55:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Newspapers

On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > {{[The last encourages people to find a preference when there are more
> > than 2 newspapers in existence.]}}
> 
> I'm not sure that the last bit makes sense to me, actually.  I mean, _why_
> does it encourage people to make a choice?  They don't have to pay the
> money out of their own pocket...

Because if there are 5 papers, for example, if you don't have a preference
there are 5 people gaining 1 dollar, whereas if you have a preference
there's only one person gaining 2 dollars.  Net effect: The rest of the
game is A$3 richer than you if you don't specify a preference compared to
if you do.

- -- 
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: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 02:02:46 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2694

> > 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.

> How do I debunk the Blueprint?  AFAICS, the only way is to Impeach ThinMan
> from his Scientist post.

Rule 594 doesn't say that this is the only way to Debunk the Blueprint.
It does say that if the Blueprint is Debunked, then any Gadgets made from
it are destroyed, and the Blueprint itself is repealed.  You can do this
via Proposal the same way you can transfer points from one player to
another(which cannot be done otherwise in the Rules), or any of a number
of other things that cannot be done by the Rules.

If the Proposal simply says "Debunk the Blueprint for the Circle of
Mystic Protection", it'll do what you ask without harming any other
innocent bystanders.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Def Leppard:Pyromania
Current Book--David Eddings:Sorceress of Darshiva
Chopsticks and Slurpees.  It's a bad idea.

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 02:17:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Towsner wrote:

> >> 	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.
> >
> 	I must have forgotten to mention, the Reserve starts out owning
> some number of shares, and must always keep at least one.

Yes, but they haven't been sold to them, so the initial value of S is
still zero.

Also, this method actually sends the price spiralling down towards zero
anyway.  Let's see what happens when the price is 40:

I buy one.   40 / 0(1) = 40/0 = 0.  Oh dear - shares are now free.
Let's presume somehow we get to 40 and 1 share sold.

I buy one.  40 / 1(2) = 20.
            20 / 2(3) = 3.333
             3.333 / 3(4) = 5/18.

etc..

I think you need to rethink your scheme.
- -- 
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: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 02:20:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Justices

On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > > 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. 

If the win is considered to be "not cricket", but somehow legal, people
for one reason or another may feel that it is not really deserving of a
win.  Just my A$.02

> I can think of two instances where I myself have done so.  Slakko may
> remember at least one of these emself...?
> 
> > Anyway, why is the opinion of two players necessarily better than the
> > opinion of a super-majority?
> 
> I'd take the opinion of two players who have been considered to be
> amply qualified to determine _objectively_ the truth of a matter than
> twenty people who are making a decision based partly on self-interest.
> Let's say that someone submits a CFJ whose subject is "Every player gains
> 20 points per second."  Who would vote against that?  Well, some of us
> would, but I could see it passing through a Hearing when no self-respecting
> Judge, let along Justice, would let it go by.

No, I don't think Acka is that stupid, either.  People know that that CFJ
would create nasty little consequences.

> 
> (Okay, I haven't been following the conversation, so I have no idea if
> what I've put up is a straw man or not.)

- -- 
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: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 04:31:29 -0500 (EST)
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2667 rejected

> One question. If the Gimme Shelter is so popular, why are there only
> 2 of them in existence

> no one will gimme one

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 06:06:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chess RFC Part II

> "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?

I'd say it's a good idea.  Swingpoints don't mean that much to me, so I was
going to keep my king off board for quite a while.  This would be another
reason for me to actually place him.

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 06:25:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

> 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.

I have to disagree with you on a couple of points here.  I'd say that party
chess
has wandered a bit far afield from being a game of pure strategy and tactics
already, simply because it is dependent to a certain extent on the main game,
if I felt like it I could blow all of my A$800 some dollars on party chess
pieces.
Admittedly the one placement a turn rule would limit the benefits of this, but
it's
still a pretty hefty advantage for my side gained through the use of absolutely

no strategy, just a lot of money (the CCG phenomena).  Also, I was under the
impression that the whole point of a nomic was to modify the current rules set.

I don't think party chess should be immune to this.  I've got to say I'm rather

leery about the idea of conveyor belts and board mounted lasers, but personally

I don't see any reason why party chess shouldn't evolve in some fairly major
ways.  If the majority of people don't like the rules changes, then odds are
they'll
be voted down.  Okay.  I think I'm done ranting now.

(Goldenmean falls to the ground as his soapbox is kicked out from under him)

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 06:27:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RFC:PartyChess piece Twonky

Uri Bruck wrote:

> 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.

Well it can capture at the END of someone's move, and it seems unlikely that
people would go suiciding into it (unless they were other Twonkies ;) ), but
I'd
have to agree, my initial material value is a bit slim.  I was thinking that
his fairly
limited movement would make this a little less sick  How does Material
Value of 9 sound to people?  Or maybe 10?  I don't think  it deserves an 11,
the tornado is much nastier than this IMHO.

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 06:35:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACKA: (ACKA!) RFC:PartyChess piece Twonky

<breadbox starts looking for his Hose....>

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 13:53:46 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Justices

On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > > 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. 
> 
> If the win is considered to be "not cricket", but somehow legal, people
> for one reason or another may feel that it is not really deserving of a
> win.  Just my A$.02

Yes.  The infamous Cheez-Whiz/Frankenstein Monster win is a good example.
I, for one, was pretty pissed at Malenkai.  I think I tried to get him
impeached even.  I can't imagine Alfvaen was very happy about Azpiazu
being all of one sentence long either, but I could be wrong.  In any
event, I could easily see another situation like that one developing.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 14:36:57 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2688

I see a few minor problems with this Proposal as submitted:

> Create a Rule called Tokens, numbered 507, with the following
> "-delimited text:

> "
> i) A class of gift entities known as Tokens exist.  A player may create
> a Token by transfering A$1 to the Treasury and announcing the name and
> description of the Token as a public action.  The player who created the
> Token is the initial owner.

> ii) Other rules may also create and bestow ownership of Tokens, so long
> as the rule provides for naming and describing the Token.

> iii) A player-created Token, whose name contains the name of a current
> or former player other than that of the creating player, such that the
> player name in question existed before the Token was created, is a
> forgery. The rules may define other circumstances under which a Token is
> a forgery.  Upon it becoming publically knowable that a Trinket is a
> forgery, it is transferred to the Treasury, unless the player name
> contained in its name is that of a currently active player, in which
> case it is transferred to that player.  For the purposes of this clause,
> the Trinket name "contains" a name N, if it contains a word or phrase of
> the same length in words as N, that when stripped of any conventional
> English morphological changes, matches N as described in rule 348.

First of all, this paragraph has double quotes in it, so it might end up
getting delimited just before '"contains"'.  Secondly, in the cut-and-pasted
Forgery text, it still says Trinkets in a few places...

> Amend Rule 506, Trinkets, in the following manner:
> Insert the following "-delimited sentence:
> "The stated value of the Trinket must be no less than A$50."

This _looks_ like it wouldn't destroy any cheap trinkets already in
existence, and hopefully it won't...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Pink Floyd:Dark Side of The Moon
Current Book--David Eddings:Sorceress of Darshiva
Have you considered trying to match wits with a rutabaga?

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 14:43:43 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 2688

Ouch.  I'll retract that.  Alfvaen, I know you were interested in this
as well.  If you want to submit something completely different, feel
free.  Otherwise, I'll clean it up and resubmit.

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	[email-masked] [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Friday, February 06, 1998 1:37 PM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Re: Acka: Proposal 2688
>
>
>I see a few minor problems with this Proposal as submitted:
>
>--
>--Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
>Current Album--Pink Floyd:Dark Side of The Moon
>Current Book--David Eddings:Sorceress of Darshiva
>Have you considered trying to match wits with a rutabaga?

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 14:59:55 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2688

> Ouch.  I'll retract that.  Alfvaen, I know you were interested in this
> as well.  If you want to submit something completely different, feel
> free.  Otherwise, I'll clean it up and resubmit.

No, go ahead, I think your idea still has merit.  Another thing you
might want to clear up is whether or not the Trinket-Harfer has the duty
to track Tokens as well.  Oh, and you might have to explicitly declare
them to be named(nameable?) as well.  I've run afoul of that one too
many times not to be careful.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Pink Floyd:Dark Side of The Moon
Current Book--David Eddings:Sorceress of Darshiva
Perhaps they will do other dangerous things together.

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 17:47:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

>Yes, but they haven't been sold to them, so the initial value of S is
>still zero.
	As I planned it, the Reserves shares did count, they just didn't
affect the price when the Reserve bought and sold them.  But when players
buy and sell shares, the Reserve's shares act as a weight, so the Reserve
can alter the fluidity of the market by buying and selling shares.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 18:07:18 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Games and contests submission

This is going to be the final version unless anyone spots any errors in it.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Word un-asociation

I. Equipment needed:

Gamepoints as necessary.

II. Number of players:

minimum: 2; maximum: the number of active players when an instance of Word
Un-Asociation is initiated minus one. Referees: one.

III. Starting an instance of the Game: 

As described in rule 1250.1, section VI. Additionally, the player
announcing the start of the Game shall randomly assign each player a
different integer ranging from 1 to N, where N is the number of players in
the game. All players shall be randomly assigned numbers in this way,
including non-active ones. 

IV. Rules of the game: 

The game is composed of rounds; each round shall have one "Linker". All
players who are not the Linker shall be known as "Confused". The game shall
be scored in Gamepoints.

Player 1 shall be the Linker of the first round, and after that, Linker
duty shall be assigned in order of increasing player number at the
completion of each round. Player 1 again assumes the duty just after the
completion of the round where the player with the highest number was
Linker. 

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.)]. The
Linker then publicly posts a word. This word, called the "uh? 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]. If e fails to do so within three days of the
start of the round then e loses three gamepoints and the round ends
immediately.

All Confused must then try to find a word to link the original word and the
announced word. Any Confused that manages it gains one game point. If no
other Confused has the same link word e gains one additional game point
(unless the game has only two players). If no-one finds a link word  then
the Linker gains N-1 gamepoints, provided e can announce a word to link the
two words e was thinking of. Any Confused who do not post any proposed link
word within three days of the Linker publicly posting the uh? word

This word announced by the Confused does not have to be the same as the one
the Linker was thinking of to gain points. If ever there is a disagreement
about whether two words are linked then the referee's decision is final.
Play then continues with the player who was assigned the next integer
publicly announcing a word which shares a common link word with the uh?
word announced by the first player. Play continues in this way until at
least one player has 5N, or 30, gamepoints, whichever is lower, and all
players have been the Linker the same number of times. At this point, if
one player has more gamepoints than anyone else, then e wins. Otherwise,
play continues, in the same way as before.

If a player is on vacation and e fails to post an uh? word then e does not
lose the points as specified above.

V. Trophy:

A standard trophy is awarded.

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 18:43:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chess RFC Part II

Niccolo wrote about chess at least twice on the main list:
> I think the existing rules are more than enough incentive to play with an
> on-board king.
> Placing a King right away might force a Swinger into a position where e
> can't secure eir position or king later.

I have a stupid question.  Why is this discussion not on
acka-chess or acka-research?  I am trying to remain in the 
game, but do not have the time to weed through all the e-mail
like I used to.  Is it possible to use the correct lists?  I
have asked people privately to do this and they simply
refuse to do so.  Why? or, why have the postal code?  Perhaps
I shall propose its repeal it then.  Anyone in favor of a 
postal code repeal?  It seems lame that some people take the
time to follow it, and others refuse to.

Thx.
Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 19:31:46 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bronze Torch

> Thank you Alfvaen!  I pick up my Bronze Torch, almost immediately a
> powerful beam of red light shoots out of it, 5 feet in length.  I wave it
> around and it makes a loud humming noise.
> 
> When I left I was but the student, now I am the master!  You, all of you,
> will soon join me.  It is your... destiny...

I'm sorry I can't resist...

I pick up a nameless non-entity and a beam of blue light shoots out of it.

"Only a master of evil, Vynd."

(Why does this always remind me of Hot Shots part deux before I think of
Star Wars?)

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 22:05:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Games and contests submission

>two words e was thinking of. Any Confused who do not post any proposed link
>word within three days of the Linker publicly posting the uh? word
	You probably want to finish this sentence.

- --
- -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 #250
***********************************