Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #28
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Thursday, February 26 1998    Volume 03 : Number 028

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 02:33:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Trinket Creation.

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, K2 wrote:

> > This is true iff that Laser had never been aimed at any player since its
> > creation.  Otherwise it would still be aimed at the last player.  Veal Fan
> > [note correct spelling]'s attempt to re-aim it failed, not eir attempt to
> > fuel it.  Not having been a member of Ackanomic long enough, I don't know
> > who, if anyone, that laser was previously pointing at.  The task of
> > determining so would probably fall to... (drumroll, please) the Speaker.
> >
> 
> I beleive Malenkai aimed it at Slakko just before e left (or didn't). It was
> succesful at that time....

Only because we didn't notice I was sheltered *grumble mumble 14 days*

Yours,
Slakko
Presidente de la Gumball
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:40:44 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2746

> I retract this proposal, due to the silly mistakes.  I still think this
> needs fixing, and will submit a corrected proposal, unless there is
stron
> objection.  
> 
> I create a trinket called the D'oh!  It is a big green inflatible
hammer,
> perfect knocking one's self over the head with.  It has the value of
> A$10.

I don't think either of these happened. You've done  it in Acka-research.

TGW.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 18:13:54 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Literature

I'm considering adding to the literature list. The only thing is there
are quite a few artists/works I want to add and I don't want it voting
down because people disapprove of just one or two. So if you disapprove
of any of these, could you please tell me so I can consider taking them
off.

Artist: Queen; the rock band
Artist: Bob Dylan
Work: Star Trek; the four TV shows and eight [is this right? Someone
please say if it isn't] films.
Work: Red Dwarf; the seven TV series and four novels.
Artist: David Eddings
Artist: Dire Straits
Work: Casablanca
Artist: Karl Marx
Work: Blackadder; all four series
Artist: Isaac Asimov
Artist: REM
Artist: Iain Banks; writing either as that or Iain M. Banks.

TGW.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 20:38:18 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2748

> A Loyalist has material value 6, and is represented by the letter L.
> 
> A Loyalist may move one square in any direction.

[second move deleted, except for summary -- also note it is limited to when
the king is 8 squares away or less]

> [ That is, if the Loyalist and its King share a rank, column, or
> diagonal, with no friendly pieces intervening, the Loyalist may move to
> any square between it and the King ]

A material value of 6 seems a little high for this piece; for comparison,
the Kamikaze, Il-Nabi, and Bishop have material values of 6.  This piece
has just a King's move except sometimes it can move (with jumping) a long
way in one direction, but only one of the possible directions.  I would
put this piece at a value of 3 or maybe 4 at most.

BTW, Guy, would you like to be the NAP Swinger?  There seems to be an
opening for one. :-)

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 20:58:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Retractions

 There is a "fewer" in the rule on retractions that should be a "less".

 Wild Card.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:01:09 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Retractions

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>  There is a "fewer" in the rule on retractions that should be a "less".

The only instance of fewer in rule 330 is used correctly.

rufus

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:07:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2748

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> A material value of 6 seems a little high for this piece; for comparison,
> the Kamikaze, Il-Nabi, and Bishop have material values of 6.  This piece
> has just a King's move except sometimes it can move (with jumping) a long
> way in one direction, but only one of the possible directions.  I would
> put this piece at a value of 3 or maybe 4 at most.

I confess, it is frequently difficult for me to judge material values for
a new piece.  6 likely is too high, but I don't know -- properly utilised,
a group of Loyalists could be a powerful and flexible defensive formation.
After a second thought, 4 may be a better value.

Party Chess may need a mechanism for the Swingers to adjust the value of a
piece whose capabilities were misjudged when it was first proposed without
going through the whole proposal rigmarole for what is essentially
fine-tuning the balance of Party Chess.  How would you feel about treating
the Swingers collectively as a Rule-sanctioned organization, and then
giving that organization the power to, as an organizational action, change
the Material Values of Party Chess pieces as stated in the Rules?

> BTW, Guy, would you like to be the NAP Swinger?  There seems to be an
> opening for one. :-)

I have submitted my nomination, as should become clear when the nomination
period is over.  (Or do we still do nominations for Political Office that
way?)

GF

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #28
**********************************