Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #60
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest       Monday, April 6 1998       Volume 03 : Number 060

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

Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 00:29:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Beldin's Pants III

On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Hubert wrote:
> 
> > Would you object if I filed an IP against the Illuminatus when eir Score
> > was nearing 5/6 of the Magic Number to remove that Privelege from em?
> > This seems to me to be somewhat the same situation.
> 
> I differentiate between the two by this:  the Illuminatus winning when
> their score exceed 5/6 the magic number is a very much intended property
> of the Rules.  People winning through amendments to the Beldin's Pants
> rule is a "surprise property" of that Rule -- I would call it a scam.
> 
> I like scams.  I like performing them, and I like watching them be
> performed, as long as they are performed in a non-Annoying fashion.
> However, my personal code of Ackanomic ethics states that if someone
> begins a scam, in doing so they give all other players permission to try
> to counterscam them.  Quite frankly, I find scamming much more interesting
> when there's an opposition scamming just as hard to stop me.
> 

I agree entirely with Guy Fawkes.  There is nothing wrong with scamming
(at least not in general), but that doesn't mean that players attempting
to scam shouldn't be impeeded.

It is also my opinion that it is perfectly reasonable and respectable to
impeach an officer who has abused their office, even or perhaps especially
while in pursuit of a scam.  I think this addresses the question you raise
about impeaching the Illuminatus because his score is almost high enough
to win.  He isn't scamming, he is just doing his job and is entitled to
his rewards as described in the rules.  If the Praetor or, say, a Senator,
were to make a power grab, it would be a different matter.

I must say I am struck by the similarity between this situation and the
Cheez Whiz/Azpiazu business.  Except then it was Alfvaen (and I) who was
complaining, and Malenkai who couldn't understand why people were
responding angrily.  The similarities aren't TOO strong though, Guy Fawkes
has a definite goal in impeaching Alfvaen other than punishment.

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 02:10:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC -- Eleusis game

On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, JT Traub wrote:

> >I have a couple of comments. First, you might like to give the player
> >calling the game a choice of which Deck to use. There are two types of
> >legal Decks currently, and some players might not like the bigger Eleusis
> >Deck.
> 
> *Nod* this is a reasonable change, though normally Eleusis is played with
> 2 normal decks.  I liked the larger eleusis deck because it was
> fundamenatally just two larger decks with suits renamed.  By allowing the
I like that deck myself.

> 
> The problem with the run split (if I understand what you mean) is that
> until you know whether the previous card is correct, you cannot know
> what a valid next card to play is unless you already believe you know
> the rule which isn't a valid assumption at any point in the game.
> Since correct card to play can *only* depend on the previous correctly
> played cards.

I think it's workable, but perhaps it would be better to start without it,
a more standard game, so to speak, and add such an option later, if we can
work out a suitable phrasing.

> Overthrowing the dealer only works if someone else knows the 'rule' that
> the dealer started with.  The prophet is never 100% sure to know the rule.
Over-throwing the dealer effectively changes the rule to the Prophet's
idea of the rule. Thus only cards that were played during that Prophet's
tenure should be considered to correctly played cards.

Again, this may be a complication better left to a future version.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 04:07:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC-related stuff

On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> You've seen Proposal 2824, which I have retracted.  The main concern is
> that it is the kind of thing which is not necessary to be regulated.
> However, I had a flash of insight (hopefully) which may get around that
> problem.  

etc. etc.  This was an RFC to do with the Encylopaedia Ackanomica concept.
It changed the emphasis of the Encyclopaedia, from being a replacement for
the FAQ to being a replacement for low-value trinkets.

The first incarnation of the EA I came up with was criticised by Guy
Fawkes and Alfvaen.  Hence this RFC to try to come up with an alternative
idea which would work.  Does _anyone_ have any comments?  How am I
supposed to know whether these changes are at all helpful if no-one makes
any comment?

Yours,
Slakko
hoping Alfvaen and/or Guy Fawkes will tell him whether or not the changes
overcame their objections.
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - President "Gumball" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 08:50:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2826

On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2826
> Helping the Harfers
> Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)
> 
> If the Chair of the
> Ackan Reserve is filled in an acting capacity only, the acting Chair is
> empowered to Freeze or un-Freeze the Stock Market, provided e has not
> changed the Stock Market's state in the last three days. 

Wouldn't the above act be deliberately manipulating the Stock Market, and
therefore currently a Crime (Insider Dealing)?

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - President "Gumball" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 08:52:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2830

On Sat, 4 Apr 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2830
> Curse the B-ack!
> The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)
> 
> If the B-Ack hears a player then the player will be treated as if e is hosed
> as by a BWG laser for as long as e remains in the wilds or twenty-four hours,
> whichever is shorter. 

Doesn't this make it easy to avoid Hosure if you are in the wilds by
choice and can leave at any time?  The B-Ack should go on a city rampage
and chase you for a full twenty-four hours IMHO.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - President "Gumball" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 10:44:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2826

On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> > Proposal 2826
> > Helping the Harfers
> > Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)
> > 
> > If the Chair of the
> > Ackan Reserve is filled in an acting capacity only, the acting Chair is
> > empowered to Freeze or un-Freeze the Stock Market, provided e has not
> > changed the Stock Market's state in the last three days. 
> 
> Wouldn't the above act be deliberately manipulating the Stock Market, and
> therefore currently a Crime (Insider Dealing)?

I deliberately created this situation.  Tracking the Stock Market is quite
a bit of work, and if an unwilling or underwilling Acting Officer got
stuck with the job, I wouldn't want to see them saddled with tracking
everything when honestly, only a minority of players have shown interest
in the Market.

Therefore, I created a situation where the Acting Officer has the power to
freeze the market to save themselves the work until someone who is
interested in the Market is willing enough to do the work of the Chair.
(If no one wants to do the work, there's no point in the Market existing,
really.)  However, I left it Criminal (not against the Rules, but
nonetheless punishable) for them to do so. If they did so
with no ulterior motive, I would hope no prosecution would ensue, in the
matter that no prosecution ensues when Officers honestly make mistakes in
the performanace of their duties.  And if prosecution does ensue, so
should a null sentence.  On the other hand, if the Acting Officer freezes
and thaws the Market to deliberately benfit themselves and friends, then
Criminality is already built into the system, and what they have done is
easily prosecuted.

GF

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

Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 13:36:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC-related stuff

> The first incarnation of the EA I came up with was criticised by Guy
> Fawkes and Alfvaen.  Hence this RFC to try to come up with an alternative
> idea which would work.  Does _anyone_ have any comments?  How am I
> supposed to know whether these changes are at all helpful if no-one makes
> any comment?

I'm indifferent to it myself. I don't think it would work as a replacement
for low value trinkets and I think that the historian is currently doing a
good job of chronicling the game's history. I don't like the idea of
rewarding people for getting an entry in either, it would lead to
sub-standard submissions. I agree that this sort of thing should be kept
unregulated. If it were to come up I'd probably vote either present or no.

TGW.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 18:56:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: DeeJay election

On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> 2) Do we really need this office to go through an election every two
> months? We already have one office that rotates more often than its
> importance justifies (namely the Presidency). Does this office have
> any particular powers that need to be checked by a popular election?

Not really, but it is my opinion that some offices which are "fun" to hold
(i.e. Illuminatus, Caped Crusader, Inventor, Poet Laureate, etc.) have
little or no provision in the Rules for their transfer other than the
officer in question stepping down or being Impeached, and therefore change
hands less often than they possibly should.  Since I consider the DeeJay a
"fun" office, I wanted to give people a chance every two months or so to
possibly select a new one.

> I would recommend changing this to an Optional, Functional Office,
> making the ASS inactive when the office is unfilled, and either
> dropping the term limit or expanding it to be less frequent.

I agree that the office should become Optional and the ASS be dormant when
it is vacant, but in my opinion the DeeJay's job is not important or
difficult enough to justify an A$25/month salary.  There's no question
in my mind that the DeeJay's job is infinitely easier than, for example,
the Rule-Harfer's, and IMHO for them to be paid the same salary is
ludicrous, which is why I had the DeeJay receive a small commission each
time e has to do eir job.  For me (and, I assume, for the others who
nominated themselves) the fun of doing the job outweighs the lesser pay.

Would you approve of the following changes:

 - increase the term limit to three months,
 - make it an Optional, Functional, nonSalaried office,
 - have the DeeJay request that the President conduct a Nomination as
defined in R403 on the day in question? (probably the first day of any
month whose ordinal number is divisible by 3)

- -Hubert

God is love. Love is blind. Therefore, Ray Charles is God.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 22:47:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2831

> Proposal 2831
> All We Like Sheep.
> IdiotBoy (Matt Miller)
> 
> Amend the text of rule 106 by replacing the following FREETHINKING
> delmited text
> 
> FREETHINKING
> Voting Players may vote either YES, NO, or PRESENT on each proposal
> FREETHINKING
> 
> with the following HERD-MENTALITY delimited text
> 
> HERD-MENTALITY
> Voting Players may vote either YES, NO, BAA! or PRESENT on each proposal
> HERD-MENTALITY
> 
> {{[You will note that, while this adds a new vote, presently
>  a BAA! vote is functionally equivalent to a PRESENT vote.]}}

While I appreciate IdiotBoy's sense of humor, I would ask him to
consider retracting this. This proposal does not add "voting BAA!" to
the list of voting actions in Rule 313.

b

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

Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 22:53:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC-related stuff

> The first incarnation of the EA I came up with was criticised by Guy
> Fawkes and Alfvaen.  Hence this RFC to try to come up with an alternative
> idea which would work.  Does _anyone_ have any comments?  How am I
> supposed to know whether these changes are at all helpful if no-one makes
> any comment?

> hoping Alfvaen and/or Guy Fawkes will tell him whether or not the changes
> overcame their objections.

If anything, I think that this is worse.  HTH!  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Big Star:Third/Sister Lovers
Current Book--Sean Stewart:The Night Watch
I have a firm grip on reality.  Now I can strangle it.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #60
**********************************