Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #36
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest       Friday, March 6 1998       Volume 03 : Number 036

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

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 14:12:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Sunflare <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic Ruleset

I was talking to Calvin n Hobbes about this in private messages, and I'd
like to see the general consensus of people here on it.

If one decides to disobey the rules of Ackanomic [or, specifically, rule
101/6] such that the Player simply ignores all penalties [perhaps ignoring
those rules too], what exactly would game custom dictate the game to do?

Sunflare

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

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 14:36:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic Ruleset

On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Sunflare wrote:

> I was talking to Calvin n Hobbes about this in private messages, and I'd
> like to see the general consensus of people here on it.
> 
> If one decides to disobey the rules of Ackanomic [or, specifically, rule
> 101/6] such that the Player simply ignores all penalties [perhaps ignoring
> those rules too], what exactly would game custom dictate the game to do?

If someone continued to behave so as to disobey the rules, they would be
continually committing the crimes of Blatant Disregard and/or Attempting
the Impossible.  Eventually people would get sick of it and the penalty
for one of the CFCJs would be removal from the game.  At that point, if
the person continued to act as if they were a member of the game, I
suppose the Postmaster would have to kick them off the lists, and fiddle
with them so as to prevent said player mailing to the lists anyway.

I think Acka is sufficiently robust to handle it - but game custom doesn't
dictate what should happen in terms of precedent, because AFAIK such a
thing has never happened.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
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: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 16:10:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic Ruleset

On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> I think Acka is sufficiently robust to handle it - but game custom doesn't
> dictate what should happen in terms of precedent, because AFAIK such a
> thing has never happened.

The closest thing that ever happened was the so-called "Zelda" affair,
which happened about a year ago.  Over the course of several days, three
new players registered, all of them having the webtv domain.  No one
thought much of it, especially after one of the new players commented that
Acka had been listed one of webtv proprietary sites as an Internet-based
game that was playable from a webtv station.

Eventually, the last of the three players announced that all three were
her, and left the game.  A CFJ I submitted determined that only the last
of the three actually had succeeded in registering at all, which created a
bit of a problem since one of the others had submitted a proposal, which
meant that all proposals distributed since then had been distributed
illegally (at the time, the Rules required each Proposal to have a number
exactly one greater than the last).  Not wanting to replay the last three
weeks of Acka, the populace simply ignored this for a time, until
eventually the retroactive pragmatism clause came into effect and fixed
things retroactively.

Even then, however, it is not clear that "Zelda" was intentionally
flouting the Rules.  It is entirely possible that she was unaware of the
prohibition on multiple registration.

Guy Fawkes

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #36
**********************************