Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #251
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Saturday, February 7 1998    Volume 03 : Number 251

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 04:21:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Holes in the Board

On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Joshua Herreshoff wrote:

> > 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.

There are interaction with Ackanomic, and that's part of the point of
PartyChess. This does not detract anything from the strategy and tactics 
of the game. Anyway, you don't need to blow all of your A$ of chess
pieces, you have Party members who can benefit from your performace on the
PArtyBoard, and if you're you're short on cash, they can purchase
PartyChess pieces for you Swinger's Office too ( in fact, any player can
purchase pieces for any Swinger's Office) - 

> 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).
Have you looked at the Vulcan's Swinger's position lately. Of the
currently existing Swinger's Offices, Vulcan was in the very first rounds
of the game, and has more pieces than all other Swingers, this alone does
not give him a great advantage, and recently he was forced to surrender.

Anyway, I see those additional elements that affect chess as a kind of
additional tactics inherent in the environment in which it exists.

>                        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

Whenever someone says : "I don't like this rule change or that rule
change" someone replies - "but the whole point of nomic is to change the
rules"
Not any rule change is compatible with any ruleset, and just as there are
something which wouldn't work in acka because of its character, or because
it would it distastefulto many players, there are rule changes which would
greatly detract from the playability of PartyChess.

 > 
> 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
Please take the time to read the entire history of the PartyChess rules
and see for yourself that the game HAS evolved, and continues to do so.

I don't object in principle to any change. I object to changes that
detract from the playability of this game.

Just as I would oppose repealing all the voting rules from Ackanomic, I
would introducing elements into Party Chess that would better fit a game
called War Zone (  or something similar).

As for 'making the game interesting' - in the past few weeks PartyChess,
including the few weeks prior to the FFA, PartyChess was very interesting,
and very exciting. I'm not saying that it should be frozen in stasis, but
I also don't think we should do things just because we can. There are
issues like game balance, and playability.

I think conveyor belts and lasers would detract from both.

Niccolo Flychuck

> ways.  If the majorityof 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: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 04:25:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chess RFC Part II

Again, I make the same mistake. 
I apologize to everyone who offended by seeing this message onthe main
list. 
As I wrote to Malenkai when he first pointed this out to me, I'll take
more care in the future.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> 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
> timeto follow it, and others refuse to.
> 
> Thx.
> Malenkai
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 10:05:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2696

> Proposal 2696
> Waiting For The Moon
> Alfvaen (Aaron Humphrey)

> I realize that in the case of point wins this may be
> annoying,

Yeah.  I guess the motivation for this is not having to
harf the thread split.  The main drawback, at least for
me, is that potentially long period of time between when
a cycle is potentially won and judged to have been won.  
Having all that gameplay not count towards winning seems 
like a bummer.

Based on past history, I would prefer keeping the old system,
as on balance it seems like less loss.  Another idea may be
to have all wins go through within 3 days of occurring,
unless "challenged" as described in the rules.  This seems
better than requiring a CFJ on every straightforward win.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 14:54:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Yet Another Argument Against Guy Fawkes' Appeal.

Guy Fawkes claims that submitting public messages is a public action.
This is not the case.  Rule 709, Gaol, includes sending a public message
amongst its list of _game actions_, not public actions.  No rule lists
sending a public message as a public action, hence public messages are not
public actions, and hence Rule 373 does not apply anyway.

I note that CFJ 336 makes mention of game actions only.  
Rule 373 allows rules to define certain courses of action to be "public
actions".  Note, not game actions, public actions.
Rule 709 makes certain things game actions.  Note, not public actions,
game actions.  Rule 709 does not specify anything to be a public action.

Hence sending a public message is (albeit this is counter-intuitive, but
no rule defines it to be) not a public action.  Hence Rule 373's complete
and unambiguous criterion does not apply.

Hence, even if the rest of Guy Fawkes' argument was correct (which I
believe is not the case), the argument is inapplicable because it only
applies to public actions, not game actions as specified by Rule 709.

Yours,
Slakko

- -- 
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: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 15:02:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Yet Another Argument Against Guy Fawkes' Appeal.

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Hence, even if the rest of Guy Fawkes' argument was correct (which I
> believe is not the case), the argument is inapplicable because it only
> applies to public actions, not game actions as specified by Rule 709.

Oh, and for those who think that "game actions" is just a synonym for
"public actions", note that making a CFJ is not a public action (you send
it privately to the CotC), but is listed on the possible game actions for
Gaol.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
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: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 17:41:26 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2698

> If a player's predictions are all correct, then it is said that the Great
> Power of the Universe is now inhabiting him and he is Transfigured. That
> player also becomes the new True Prophet. There can only be one True
> Prophet. The True Prophet gets an Indiana Jones Staff if he does not already
> have one. The Indiana Jones Staff is yea high. A Player may have at most one
> Indiana Jones Staff. It may not be traded, exchanged or otherwise
> manipulated except by this rule.

The problem with this is that it does not seem to resolve the issue of
what would happen if two players both made correct predictions.  I suppose
this would fall under the purview of the OiCORT to make the determination...
Still, this seems clumsy.  I think that if more than one player were to
make correct predictions, then none of them should become the True Prophet,
although both can then be False Prophets and get James Bond Staffs or
something.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In The Other Room--Chris de Burgh:Borderline
Current Book--Amanda Quick:Ravished
Every silver lining has a cloud around it.

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 17:41:29 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2700

> Create a new rule, numbered 1312, entitled "Light Up Our Lives", with the 
> following "-delimited text:

I thought of proposing something like this back when I was AckaPhysicist.
Never got around to it, though.  I always presumed that Ackanomic's light
source was something that rotated around somehow(without gravity, I
wasn't sure quite how)...

> On this track sits a huge spotlight, pointing directly at the earth.  The 
> spotlight slowly moves along the track, taking exactly one Ackanomian day to 
> return to it's initial position.  The spotlight has never stopped moving.

Actually, the track must have a fairly complex path to account for the
seasons and such.  (Surely we have seasons?  Or are the only markers the
quarterly Tornadoes?  And yet, how would they be generated without something
seasonal?  They can't rely on the same mechanism as Acid Rain...)

> The surfaces of the aluminum and stainless steel blocks that face into the 
> spherical hollow appear to be a non-reflective black, so that light that does 
> not shine on our flat world does not reflect off of the blocks.

That steel's not very stainless, is it?  :-)  I think that reflection would
make our lives more interesting.

> There is speculation that it may be possible for objects that fall off of the 
> earth and on to the surface of the hollow might either block the spotlight from 
> moving, or even fall into and destroy the spotlight.  However, not enough is 
> known about the spotlight to be sure.

Hmmm..."The Spotlight Preservation Society"?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In The Other Room--Duran Duran:Wild Boys
Current Book--Amanda Quick:Ravished
Only the anacrusis...the main event remains.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #251
***********************************