Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #58
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Saturday, April 4 1998      Volume 03 : Number 058

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 02:00:38 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2827

> >>{{[ All amendments in this rule apply to rule 252 ]}}

> >I could very well be wrong about this (my skill at interpreting
> >brackets seems to be virtually nil in light of various recent
> >events), but I would say that this does not unambiguously
> >specify a change to the ruleset.

> My belief was, that although this text is in a self-deleting note, it's
> perfectly adequate for specifying which rule the rest of the text applies
> to.  If it's not, I'll be more than happy to amend the proposal by
> withdrawing it and resubmitting it with that text outside of a note.

> Anyone else have an opinion on this?

There's a difference between

{{ All amendments in this rule apply to rule 252 }}

and

{{[ All amendments in this rule apply to rule 252 ]}}

The square brackets, which is what you actually had in your Proposal,
turn them into nothing but comments.  Self-deleting comments, but still
comments with no actual force.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Sarah McLachlan:Building A Mystery
Current Book--Jo Clayton:Quester's Endgame
We fell in love; love's a very deep hole.

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 02:07:09 -0500 (EST)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2827

>> My belief was, that although this text is in a self-deleting note, it's
>> perfectly adequate for specifying which rule the rest of the text applies
>> to.  If it's not, I'll be more than happy to amend the proposal by
>> withdrawing it and resubmitting it with that text outside of a note.
>
>> Anyone else have an opinion on this?
>
>There's a difference between
>
>{{ All amendments in this rule apply to rule 252 }}
>
>and
>
>{{[ All amendments in this rule apply to rule 252 ]}}
>
>The square brackets, which is what you actually had in your Proposal,
>turn them into nothing but comments.  Self-deleting comments, but still
>comments with no actual force.

Hrmm.. Okay.. I'll fix it shortly.

- --JT

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 03:23:05 -0500 (EST)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC -- Eleusis game

Below is the text of a proposal I'm considering submitting.  Since it *IS*
large, I'm offering it here for comments and criticisms before I submit it
for a vote.  I would greatly appreciate comments on how things are done
below, and more importantly on any problems you see with how things are
set up.

Thanks in advance,
- --JT

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

{{[ This is being submitted as a rule so that it can define a new type of
    trophy.  Otherwise I would have just made a Games Submission for it ]}}

Amend rule 1250.2 with the following to define a new type of trophy
   C.  The Scientists Handbook is a nameless entity.

- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Create a new rule with the following text:

[ This describes a minor adaptation of the game commonly known as Eleusis.
  The standard rules for this game can be found at
           http://www.netaxs.com/people/nerp/eleusis0.html
  The rules below are an adaptation to work within the framework of
  Ackanomic and email. ]

1) General Equipment
   This game uses one Eleusis Deck with the optional Wild cards.
   Gamepoints as needed.

2) Number of players.
   This game is played with 5 or more other players.
   This game can have an optional Referee as defined in section 7 and 8.
   New players may *not* join during the run of an existing game except as
   defined under section 6.
3) How to start an instance of the game
   As described in rule 1250.1, section VI. 
4) Rules of the game
   a) The player who called the game shall be the first 'God' and all other
      players shall be assigned a number from 2 to N where N is the total
      number of players in the game.  The player who called the game shall
      be considered number 1.
   b) The game proceeds in rounds until each player has been 'God' exactly
      once.  At the end of each round, the rights and responsibilities of
      'God' pass to the next higher numbered player.
   c) For each round, play proceeds as follows.
      1) God creates a private rule which specifies which card may be played
         when.  The rule may only depend on the the cards already correctly
         played.
      2) God announces publically the ranking of cards (and suits if
         important), the value of cards if they are different from their
         'obvious' numerical value, whether WILD cards are in the deck, and
         if they are, the ranking and value of the WILD cards.
      3) God privately communicates to each player their hand of 14 starting
         cards.
      4) God announces the initial face-up starter card.
      5) The round is then considered to be in play and the other players
         'Scientists' play in numerical order with standard wrap-around after
         the highest numbered player.  God and the prophet are skipped in
         this rotation.  Each scientist performs the following
         a) publically plays from 1-4 cards from his hand of cards, or
            declares 'No play' if he has no card which can be legally played. 
            If more than 1 card is played, the sequence is correct only if
            each card in the sequence in order would be correct.
         b) If there is no prophet already, and the scientist thinks he knows
            the rule, publically declare himself the Prophet, providing he
            hasn't already been a prophet this round and there are at least
            two other scientists.
            1) When a player declares himself prophet, that card he
               is marked with a !.
         c) If there is a prophet, the prophet will publically declare each
            play 'correct' or 'incorrect' and God will then publically either
            'approve' or 'disapprove' the call of the prophet.
         d) If there is no prophet, God merely declared the play 'correct' or
            'incorrect'
         e) If the prophet calls the play incorrectly, the prophet is
            overthrown and is dealt 5 penalty cards with no penalty to the
            player who played the wrong card or cards.  The ex-prophet
            resumes playing cards in normal rotation.
         f) If the Scientist plays incorrectly and the prophet called the
            play correctly or there is no prophet, then the player recieves
            2 cards for each card in the incorrect sequence.
         g) If there is no prophet mark every tenth card played with an *.
            After fourty cards have been played, a Scientist who plays
            incorrectly is out for the rest of the round.
         h) If there is a prophet, mark every tenth card after he became
            prophet with a !.  After 30 cards, a Scientist who plays
            incorrectly is out for the rest of the round.
         i) For a 'No Play' call to be made, the player making it must reveal
            all the cards in his hand at the time of the 'No Play' call.  If
            the 'No Play' is correct, then the player is dealt a new hand with
            4 fewer cards (which might end the round).  If the player is wrong
            either the Prophet or God plays a correct card from the hand and
            the erring player is dealt 5 cards as penalty.  If the Prophet
            plays an incorrect card from the players hand, the player is not
            penalized and the prophet is overthrown as in section e above.
         j) If a player doesn't submit a turn within 3 days, he shall be
            deemed to have declared No Play and God shall reveal his hand.
         k) A round ends when either one Scientist runs out of cards or all
            Scientists have been expelled for making wrong moves.
         l) The round is scored as follows.
            1) A player is the 'true prophet' if they were prophet when the
               round ended.
            2) The high-count is the largest number of cards in any players
               hand (prophet included).  Call this number H.
            3) Every player except God gets Gamepoints equal to H - the number
               of cards in their hand.
            4) Any player with 0 cards gets 4 Gamepoints as a bonus.
            5) The true prophet gains 1 Gamepoint for each correct play
               and 2 Gamepoints for each incorrect play after he became
               prophet.
            5) God gains Gamepoints equal to the smaller of
               a) the highest players score
               b) twice the total number of cards played since the true
                  prophet became prophet.
5) Winning
   After all rounds are completed, the winner is the player with the most
   Gamepoints.  All other players are ranked in descending order by
   Gamepoints.
   Let N be the number of players in the game.
   The highest ranked player gains a trophy, "The Scientist's Handbook" and
   2(N-1) points.  Each player in decreasing order gets two less points than
   the preceeding player.  (IE, last place will score 0 points)

6) Joining and Leaving the game.
   A player who leaves the game causes the game to pause.  While the game
   is paused, any other Ackanomic player who is not playing in the current
   game may volunteer to take over the position (and score) of the player
   who left.  A player who leaves the game without arranging for his
   replacement loses 5 points.
   {{[ I'm not sure if this penalty is legal according to the rules.  I
       think it is, but I'm not 100% sure.. comments please? ]}}

7) Rights and responsibilities of God
   It is the duty of God (or the optional referee) for each round to simulate
   shuffling and dealing the cards, and for tracking the game state
   publically.  It is also the responsibility of God to verify plays and
   the calls of the Prophet in a timely (within 3 days) fashion.

8) Optional Referree.
   If desired, the dealing of the cards, and the tracking of the game state
   can be handled by a referee.  If there is a Referee, then the player who
   is referee cannot play in the game and recieves $A10 for providing his
   services.

{{ renumber this rule to 1250.23 }}

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 04:27:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 556 (K 2)

> Baked on.  C'mon, what's the difficulty here?  For further details, read
> _Why Do Clocks Run Clockwise_, an excellent book(one of many)put out by
> David Feldman to answer such Imponderable questions.

They don't run clockwise, at least not all of them. I know someone with a
clock that runs anticlockwise...

TGW.

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 10:31:56 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC -- Eleusis game

> 1) General Equipment
>    This game uses one Eleusis Deck with the optional Wild cards.
>    Gamepoints as needed.

Well, it's about time we had an Eleusis game to go with the Eleusis Deck...

> 2) Number of players.
>    This game is played with 5 or more other players.
>    This game can have an optional Referee as defined in section 7 and 8.
>    New players may *not* join during the run of an existing game except as
>    defined under section 6.
> 3) How to start an instance of the game
>    As described in rule 1250.1, section VI. 
> 4) Rules of the game
>    a) The player who called the game shall be the first 'God' and all other
>       players shall be assigned a number from 2 to N where N is the total
>       number of players in the game.  The player who called the game shall
>       be considered number 1.

One suggestion...perhaps instead of 'God', which some people might take
exception to, you could go with 'Deus' or something.  Or maybe obtain 
Church sponsorship and use their deity!  :-)

>    b) The game proceeds in rounds until each player has been 'God' exactly
>       once.  At the end of each round, the rights and responsibilities of
>       'God' pass to the next higher numbered player.
>    c) For each round, play proceeds as follows.
>       1) God creates a private rule which specifies which card may be played
>          when.  The rule may only depend on the the cards already correctly
>          played.
>       2) God announces publically the ranking of cards (and suits if
>          important), the value of cards if they are different from their
>          'obvious' numerical value, whether WILD cards are in the deck, and
>          if they are, the ranking and value of the WILD cards.

Not having played Eleusis(though I remember the Rules from one of Martin
Gardner's columns), I'm not sure what the above rule means.  I mean, can
you arbitrarily decide that all prime-ranked cards come before all
non-prime-ranked cards?  Or is it more a question of being able to pick
a subset of cards from the deck?  This should be clarified.

>       3) God privately communicates to each player their hand of 14 starting
>          cards.
>       4) God announces the initial face-up starter card.
>       5) The round is then considered to be in play and the other players
>          'Scientists' play in numerical order with standard wrap-around after
>          the highest numbered player.  God and the prophet are skipped in
>          this rotation.  Each scientist performs the following
>          a) publically plays from 1-4 cards from his hand of cards, or
>             declares 'No play' if he has no card which can be legally played. 
>             If more than 1 card is played, the sequence is correct only if
>             each card in the sequence in order would be correct.
>          b) If there is no prophet already, and the scientist thinks he knows
>             the rule, publically declare himself the Prophet, providing he
>             hasn't already been a prophet this round and there are at least
>             two other scientists.
>             1) When a player declares himself prophet, that card he
>                is marked with a !.

That should probably be changed to be a complete sentence(probably be removing
"he"...)

Just a nitpicky point, but the following lettered clauses don't really
fall under the "Each scientist performs the following" heading.  Maybe it
should be "On each Scientist's turn the following events occur:"  Note
the colon, as well...:-)

>          c) If there is a prophet, the prophet will publically declare each
>             play 'correct' or 'incorrect' and God will then publically either
>             'approve' or 'disapprove' the call of the prophet.
>          d) If there is no prophet, God merely declared the play 'correct' or
>             'incorrect'
>          e) If the prophet calls the play incorrectly, the prophet is
>             overthrown and is dealt 5 penalty cards with no penalty to the
>             player who played the wrong card or cards.  The ex-prophet
>             resumes playing cards in normal rotation.

To be consistent, perhaps it should say "If Deus disapproves of the prophet's
call", since the prophet is calling "correct" and "incorrect".

>          f) If the Scientist plays incorrectly and the prophet called the
>             play correctly or there is no prophet, then the player recieves
>             2 cards for each card in the incorrect sequence.
>          g) If there is no prophet mark every tenth card played with an *.
>             After fourty cards have been played, a Scientist who plays
>             incorrectly is out for the rest of the round.
>          h) If there is a prophet, mark every tenth card after he became
>             prophet with a !.  After 30 cards, a Scientist who plays
>             incorrectly is out for the rest of the round.
>          i) For a 'No Play' call to be made, the player making it must reveal
>             all the cards in his hand at the time of the 'No Play' call.  If
>             the 'No Play' is correct, then the player is dealt a new hand with
>             4 fewer cards (which might end the round).  If the player is wrong
>             either the Prophet or God plays a correct card from the hand and
>             the erring player is dealt 5 cards as penalty.  If the Prophet
>             plays an incorrect card from the players hand, the player is not
>             penalized and the prophet is overthrown as in section e above.
>          j) If a player doesn't submit a turn within 3 days, he shall be
>             deemed to have declared No Play and God shall reveal his hand.
>          k) A round ends when either one Scientist runs out of cards or all
>             Scientists have been expelled for making wrong moves.
>          l) The round is scored as follows.
>             1) A player is the 'true prophet' if they were prophet when the
>                round ended.
>             2) The high-count is the largest number of cards in any players
>                hand (prophet included).  Call this number H.
>             3) Every player except God gets Gamepoints equal to H - the number
>                of cards in their hand.
>             4) Any player with 0 cards gets 4 Gamepoints as a bonus.
>             5) The true prophet gains 1 Gamepoint for each correct play
>                and 2 Gamepoints for each incorrect play after he became
>                prophet.

Does this mean "each (in)correct play" by another player?  I'm not sure
if this makes sense to me, that the prophet would get more points for
every incorrect play another player made...

>             5) God gains Gamepoints equal to the smaller of
>                a) the highest players score
>                b) twice the total number of cards played since the true
>                   prophet became prophet.
> 5) Winning
>    After all rounds are completed, the winner is the player with the most
>    Gamepoints.  All other players are ranked in descending order by
>    Gamepoints.
>    Let N be the number of players in the game.
>    The highest ranked player gains a trophy, "The Scientist's Handbook" and
>    2(N-1) points.  Each player in decreasing order gets two less points than
>    the preceeding player.  (IE, last place will score 0 points)

> 6) Joining and Leaving the game.
>    A player who leaves the game causes the game to pause.  While the game
>    is paused, any other Ackanomic player who is not playing in the current
>    game may volunteer to take over the position (and score) of the player
>    who left.  A player who leaves the game without arranging for his
>    replacement loses 5 points.
>    {{[ I'm not sure if this penalty is legal according to the rules.  I
>        think it is, but I'm not 100% sure.. comments please? ]}}

I'm not sure.  First of all, if a player leaves the game, then e doesn't
care what eir score is, obviously, right?  So you'd end up penalizing
whoever joined in eir place.  Generally, if someone leaves the game and
is not replaced, eir score ceases to exist.

> 7) Rights and responsibilities of God
>    It is the duty of God (or the optional referee) for each round to simulate
>    shuffling and dealing the cards, and for tracking the game state
>    publically.  It is also the responsibility of God to verify plays and
>    the calls of the Prophet in a timely (within 3 days) fashion.
> 
> 8) Optional Referree.
>    If desired, the dealing of the cards, and the tracking of the game state
>    can be handled by a referee.  If there is a Referee, then the player who
>    is referee cannot play in the game and recieves $A10 for providing his
>    services.
> 
> {{ renumber this rule to 1250.23 }}

How about irregularities?  What if Deus makes an incorrect judgement
(either of a player's play or the prophet's call)?  This may not happen,
but it depends on Deus's condition, if it's too "out there" or not.

Aside from that(I would perhaps recommend sending this to the Spelling
Exchequer for a going-over, especially as regards apostrophization), I'd
love to see Eleusis in the game, since I always thought it sounded like
a fun thing to play.  A single game may end up taking as long as Spades,
though, which is my only real concern.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Cyndi Lauper:Dancing With A Stranger
Current Book--Jo Clayton:Quester's Endgame
Of course, they could be staring because I just said all that _out loud_.

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 15:50:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2827

>>>Proposal 2827
>>>It pays to recruit
>>>JT (JT Traub)
>>>
>>>{{[ All amendments in this rule apply to rule 252 ]}}
>>
>> I could very well be wrong about this (my skill at interpreting
>> brackets seems to be virtually nil in light of various recent
>> events), but I would say that this does not unambiguously
>> specify a change to the ruleset.
> 
> My belief was, that although this text is in a self-deleting note, it's
> perfectly adequate for specifying which rule the rest of the text applies
> to.  If it's not, I'll be more than happy to amend the proposal by
> withdrawing it and resubmitting it with that text outside of a note.
> 
> Anyone else have an opinion on this?

Not only do the square brackets render the sentence meaningless, but
the double braces also accomplish nothing, except perhaps to confuse.

This is an important distinction: Double braces have no special
meaning within a proposal.

When double-braced text appears within a rule, then it is
automatically deleted after it has been applied once. (And remember
that text in a proposal which does not describe changes to the game
state is automatically understood as being the text of a new rule.)
But within a proposal, it is just so much weird punctuation.

The first sentence in your proposal probably would have been worded
best simply as: "Amend Rule 252 as follows."

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 20:09:08 -0500 (EST)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC -- Eleusis game

Thank you for the comments Alfvaen.  I've commented on some of your
comments below.

>One suggestion...perhaps instead of 'God', which some people might take
>exception to, you could go with 'Deus' or something.  Or maybe obtain 
>Church sponsorship and use their deity!  :-)

*hehe*  I tried to keep the words used in the game the same as used in the
'original'.. Perhaps 'Creatrix' instead of 'God'?  Your idea of Church
sponsorship is amusing, but I think it would complicate the rules enough to
not be worth it :)

>Not having played Eleusis(though I remember the Rules from one of Martin
>Gardner's columns), I'm not sure what the above rule means.  I mean, can
>you arbitrarily decide that all prime-ranked cards come before all
>non-prime-ranked cards?  Or is it more a question of being able to pick
>a subset of cards from the deck?  This should be clarified.

This was meant for instance to allow a Creatrix to declare that all cards
10-Suber have the mathematical value of '10'.  Only Wild cards can be
included or excluded.  The ranking is because in some games that I played
at college (we used a standard deck, not a special one), Ace was considered
to have a value of 14, and in others, a value of 1.  I wanted to continue
to allow that definition of numerical order among the cards, and suit
rankings (no value for suit, Bridge rank H and S worth 'more' than D or C)
or etc.  Granted that with the Eleusis deck, there are no 'standard' suits
but I could see a rule depending on a numerical value for suit and wanted
that to be allowed to be changed during the setup for a round.

>That should probably be changed to be a complete sentence(probably be removing
>"he"...)

My bad.. typos happen.. I'll fix that in the final submission and will also
clean up the english syntax for what you point out below as well as spell
check it myself before submitting it.

>Just a nitpicky point, but the following lettered clauses don't really
>fall under the "Each scientist performs the following" heading.  Maybe it
>should be "On each Scientist's turn the following events occur:"  Note
>the colon, as well...:-)

See my previous comment.

>To be consistent, perhaps it should say "If Deus disapproves of the prophet's
>call", since the prophet is calling "correct" and "incorrect".

Yes.. you're correct and it will be changed in the final.

>Does this mean "each (in)correct play" by another player?  I'm not sure
>if this makes sense to me, that the prophet would get more points for
>every incorrect play another player made...

Yes. This was in fact part of the original Eleusis rules and is done so that
a prophet who 'gets it' faster than the other players gets a bonus.  IE if
the prophet and one other player get the rule, but the other players don't
then the prophets score is higher for having gotten it quickly.

>> 6) Joining and Leaving the game.
>>    A player who leaves the game causes the game to pause.  While the game
>>    is paused, any other Ackanomic player who is not playing in the current
>>    game may volunteer to take over the position (and score) of the player
>>    who left.  A player who leaves the game without arranging for his
>>    replacement loses 5 points.
>>    {{[ I'm not sure if this penalty is legal according to the rules.  I
>>        think it is, but I'm not 100% sure.. comments please? ]}}
>
>I'm not sure.  First of all, if a player leaves the game, then e doesn't
>care what eir score is, obviously, right?  So you'd end up penalizing
>whoever joined in eir place.  Generally, if someone leaves the game and
>is not replaced, eir score ceases to exist.

I'd meant this to mean that the leaving player loses 5 Ackanomic points if
they just up and leave.. A penalty for disrupting the flow of the game.
The rules state that games can in fact manipulate a players Ackanomic score,
but have an implication of only a positive change in score which is why
I questioned if it was legal to penalize the player for leaving suddenly.

>How about irregularities?  What if Deus makes an incorrect judgement
>(either of a player's play or the prophet's call)?  This may not happen,
>but it depends on Deus's condition, if it's too "out there" or not.

This shouldn't be able to happen, and certainly couldn't be decided until
after the game was over (I need to mention that at the end of the round
the Creatrix needs to reveal the rule publically).  In the case of the
referee, I wanted the referree to only have to track the game state and
not also oversee the Creatrix.. I'm willing to trust that the Creatrix
will be able to judge the correct play of cards.  However, some mechanism
for appealing an irregularity should be in place.. I'll see if I can draft
one and put it in the next go round for RFC.

>Aside from that(I would perhaps recommend sending this to the Spelling
>Exchequer for a going-over, especially as regards apostrophization), I'd
>love to see Eleusis in the game, since I always thought it sounded like
>a fun thing to play.  A single game may end up taking as long as Spades,
>though, which is my only real concern.

I've played Eleusis in RL.. and it is a fun game.  It can take a while.  I
don't see that as being TOO much of a problem however.  As you point out,
Spades takes a while as well.

Any other suggestions that you or other players would like to make will
certainly be accepted and incorporated however.

Thanks.

- --JT

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 20:21:01 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC -- Eleusis game

> >One suggestion...perhaps instead of 'God', which some people might take
> >exception to, you could go with 'Deus' or something.  Or maybe obtain 
> >Church sponsorship and use their deity!  :-)

> *hehe*  I tried to keep the words used in the game the same as used in the
> 'original'.. Perhaps 'Creatrix' instead of 'God'?  Your idea of Church
> sponsorship is amusing, but I think it would complicate the rules enough to
> not be worth it :)

I like "Deus" better, but it's your Proposal...

> This was meant for instance to allow a Creatrix to declare that all cards
> 10-Suber have the mathematical value of '10'.  Only Wild cards can be
> included or excluded.  The ranking is because in some games that I played
> at college (we used a standard deck, not a special one), Ace was considered
> to have a value of 14, and in others, a value of 1.  I wanted to continue
> to allow that definition of numerical order among the cards, and suit
> rankings (no value for suit, Bridge rank H and S worth 'more' than D or C)
> or etc.  Granted that with the Eleusis deck, there are no 'standard' suits
> but I could see a rule depending on a numerical value for suit and wanted
> that to be allowed to be changed during the setup for a round.

Okay.  I could see it being used really strangely, but maybe it wouldn't.
Instead of having a generalized "change the order", it could be more like
"Are Aces High or Low", "Are All Face Cards = 10", etc.  But you can leave
it flexible for now and we'll see if it's too unworkable.

> >Does this mean "each (in)correct play" by another player?  I'm not sure
> >if this makes sense to me, that the prophet would get more points for
> >every incorrect play another player made...

> Yes. This was in fact part of the original Eleusis rules and is done so that
> a prophet who 'gets it' faster than the other players gets a bonus.  IE if
> the prophet and one other player get the rule, but the other players don't
> then the prophets score is higher for having gotten it quickly.

Okay, now that makes sense.

> I'd meant this to mean that the leaving player loses 5 Ackanomic points if
> they just up and leave.. A penalty for disrupting the flow of the game.
> The rules state that games can in fact manipulate a players Ackanomic score,
> but have an implication of only a positive change in score which is why
> I questioned if it was legal to penalize the player for leaving suddenly.

It might be legal, but again I'd wait to see if it's a problem.  Which
it might if a game lasts for eight months...:-)  Maybe you should submit
a CFJ to see if a game can lower a player's score.  It doesn't seem like
the kind of thing we'd do, though, penalizing a player for leaving a
game.  More likely that they'd play out the rest of the round making
random plays or something, if nobody had taken them over.

> >How about irregularities?  What if Deus makes an incorrect judgement
> >(either of a player's play or the prophet's call)?  This may not happen,
> >but it depends on Deus's condition, if it's too "out there" or not.

> This shouldn't be able to happen, and certainly couldn't be decided until
> after the game was over (I need to mention that at the end of the round
> the Creatrix needs to reveal the rule publically).

That's a good idea.  :-)

> In the case of the
> referee, I wanted the referree to only have to track the game state and
> not also oversee the Creatrix..

I got that impression.  Otherwise, we'd need someone to see that the
referee wasn't making mistakes just like the Creatrix, in an infinite
regress...:-)

> I'm willing to trust that the Creatrix
> will be able to judge the correct play of cards.  However, some mechanism
> for appealing an irregularity should be in place.. I'll see if I can draft
> one and put it in the next go round for RFC.

Well, again you can leave it out of the first draft of the game, perhaps.
These are problems that occurred to me, but they might not be serious.
A playtest might reveal them, or show them to not be a big deal.

> >Aside from that(I would perhaps recommend sending this to the Spelling
> >Exchequer for a going-over, especially as regards apostrophization), I'd
> >love to see Eleusis in the game, since I always thought it sounded like
> >a fun thing to play.  A single game may end up taking as long as Spades,
> >though, which is my only real concern.

> I've played Eleusis in RL.. and it is a fun game.  It can take a while.  I
> don't see that as being TOO much of a problem however.  As you point out,
> Spades takes a while as well.

Yes, well, we've yet to complete a game of Spades in the history of
Ackanomic...though if Goldenmean or I misplay again we could.  :-/

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Big Star:Third/Sister Lovers
Current Book--Jo Clayton:Quester's Endgame
"Good job I can't see far with this leg."

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #58
**********************************