Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #30
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Saturday, February 28 1998    Volume 03 : Number 030

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

Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 02:54:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Literature

> On a more practical note, who plans to use any of these for their
> Proposals?  I keep meaning to try to come up with more Proposals
> that are purely there to use some Literature, but never manage it.

On an even more practical note, we're getting a lot of stuff on the
Literature that places quite a burden on the Scorekeeper. I suppose we
can assume that the Scorekeeper has easy access to a library, but
movies and television series? How does anyone check some of this
stuff?

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 02:59:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2754

> If any player 
> attempts to change eir Location during a Full Moon, the Werewolf will bite
> em unless e owns Wolfbane.  Trinkets have no effect on the behavior of the
> Werewolf.  {{ [Take that, Annoyers.] }}

I'm tempted to rename my house to Wolfbane, but instead I let somebody
else be the annoying one and take the Gaol time for it. :-)

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 04:04:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2755

On Sat, 28 Feb 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

Proposal 2755
> The Harf is B-Ack!
> 
> There exist six Degrees of harfiness a player may achieve based on eir
> Ratio of Harf.  For the purposes of this rule, the word Title refers to
> one of these.  They are, from lowest rank to highest, and exclusive of
> all parentheses and text contained therein:
> Neophyte of Harf (.25)
> Acolyte of Harf (.5)
> Disciple of Harf (.75)
> Master of Harf (1.0)
> Connoissieur of Harf (1.5)
> Grand Poobah of Harf (2.0)

Of all players current and past, only one player qualifies for any one of
these titles.

else...if would be a Neophyte of Harf on a Ratio of Harf of 0.3.
The next best is two-star on a Ratio of Harf of 0.17647.  For em to reach
neophyte, e would need the next two proposals e authored to also be Harfy.

> A player may hold at most one of these Titles at any time.  No player who
> has authored fewer than 10 non-retracted proposals may hold any of these
> titles.  Players may only gain and lose these Titles as defined by the
> Rules.

I think that some of the lower ranks could have their thresholds lowered.
Yours,
Slakko
not going to say it
- -- 
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" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 08:33:27 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Literature

> On an even more practical note, we're getting a lot of stuff on the
> Literature that places quite a burden on the Scorekeeper. I suppose we
> can assume that the Scorekeeper has easy access to a library, but
> movies and television series? How does anyone check some of this
> stuff?

Hmm, good point. We can probably rely n the honour system (who's going to
pretend something's literature when it isn't) but that isn't really
acceptable. It might be an idea to have the author of the proposal prove
that it really is literature in the case of non-books. For example, with
music, a lot of song lyrics can be found on the web. Alternatively, if
other people verify the quote (e.g., yes I remember that line from The
Simpsons, it's from the one where...) we could allow that. Or possibly,
we could allow people to call hearings as to whether the literature is
valid.

TGW.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 14:32:34 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Good News

Oh, by the way, I finally have a job again, and I start on Monday.  Yay!

Looks like I got rid of those Offices just in time...:-)  (Okay, I've
still got more, but I'll see how they weigh me down first.)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Beatles:And Your Bird Can Sing
Current Book--Katie Waitman:The Merro Tree
Too many cooks spoil the universe.  --Mark Buda

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

Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 14:35:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Good News

On Sat, 28 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> Oh, by the way, I finally have a job again, and I start on Monday.  Yay!

Congratulations!

Yours,
Slakko
student
- -- 
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" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 15:21:51 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: pheobe hearing results

> I'm guessing it's the person whose name he can't say, for penalty of
> forfeiture.  I could be wrong, though.

How odd that you end up being right for entirely the wrong reason. rufus
has already said Hubert by starting a message with "Hubert wrote".

TGW.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 16:25:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Sunflare <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: pheobe hearing results

At 03:21 PM 2/28/98 -0500, you wrote:
>How odd that you end up being right for entirely the wrong reason. rufus
>has already said Hubert by starting a message with "Hubert wrote".
>
>TGW.

Well, I pay attention, being an Observer and all, but not that much.  I've
yet to really read the ruleset -- I'm going by what I've [gasp] observed
in the past few weeks.

Excuse my sarcasm; it's a bad habit. :)

Sunflare the Observer [no relation to Conan or Atilla or any other 'the
blahblah' type person]

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

Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 16:55:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Good News

From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>

> On Sat, 28 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Oh, by the way, I finally have a job again, and I start on Monday. 
Yay!
> 
> Congratulations!
> 
> Yours,
> Slakko
> student

Indeed, congratulations Alfvaen.

TGW
Still at school (and with exams Tuesday and Wednesday).

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

Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 17:37:57 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2732 rejected

On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> Results of Proposal 2732
> > 
> > 18/25 votes: Quorum achieved
> > 9/18 YES votes: Proposal rejected
> > 
> > > Proposal 2732 - Thu 19 Feb 1998 13:45 EST
> > > Otzma for the Greedy
> > > Illusion (Andrew Stefanski)
> 
> Unless people went to the trouble of emailing Illusion, this is simply not
> fair.  E came up with the IRC, and I saw absolutely no-one on the group
> complain about the "Gimme now!" Otzma Card.
> 
> When are people actually going to put critical responses to RFCs on the
> group?  If that kind of criticism isn't around, then the reasons for
> organising RFCs are fewer than I thought. (They'd only be good for the big
> fix, we must have agreement first proposals).

My guess is, never.  I hardly ever get comments on my RFCs, even ones that
propose to drastically alter entire sections of the rules.  In my
experience, people won't bother to respond to something if they don't like
it, but don't have a specific, correctable rejection.  They aren't going
to say "I hate this idea, don't do it," because it isn't constructive
criticism.  But it may well be the way they feel, and thus they don't vote
for the proposal if and when it comes around.  Personally, I don't see
anything wrong with this, and I don't think that people should feel bad
about voting against proposals that they didn't comment on the RFCs for.

> 
> Yours,
> Slakko

                                       - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 18:13:26 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Infrequent Ackan Volume 1 Issue 12

> I haven't seen rufus do it(are you sure e did?), but I think that
> breadbox's Tabulator results might very well count...by my standards,
> at least.

Yes, the message titled "Re: Acka: Soundtrack" dated February 26th (8:21
a.m. GMT) started:

"On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Hubert wrote:"

As for breadbox, it's your treasure and you're the only one who knows the
map but I thought officers performing their duties didn't count. If you
think this does then I'll include it.

TGW.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 19:35:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Infrequent Ackan Volume 1 Issue 12

On Sat, 28 Feb 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > It is legal for me to be unable to publish the name of the Harfmeister.
> > > Just because it isn't illegal for me to publish the name of the
> > > Harfmeister doesn't mean I don't have legal reasons to be unable to do so
> > > :-)
>
> You don't have a reason to be _unable_ to say *******.  you have legal
> reasons to be unwilling to say *******.  There is a differance.
> 
 He does however have reasons that are legal not to say that name that I
am under geis not to say.

 Wild Card.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #30
**********************************