Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #64
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Friday, April 10 1998      Volume 03 : Number 064

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

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:14:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2863

> Proposal 2863
> Just for a laugh
> The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)
> 
> This is a modest proposal.
> 
> Add the following to the literature list:
> 
> "Work: The Rules of Ackanomic; including all rule suites (only the current
> version)"
> 

There must be something in the air today.  I had this wonderful idea for
some new entries to the Literature List today.  I just sent them off to
breadbox as a proposal, in fact.  And now that I get around to reading my
mail for the afternoon, I find this.  The Gingham Wearer had me beat
before I even knew their was a fight.  Ah well, perhaps my proposal, being
somewhat less ambitious, will succeed even if this noble effort fails.

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 06:48:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2864

On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

Proposal 2864
> The Blood Of A Revolution
> Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain)
> 
> Between the 10th and 20th of January of each year, the Senate must put
> forward an abridged version of the rules of Ackanomic, excluding suites,
> such that this version contains only, each in whole, existing rules. It will
> be called the Manifesto. However, the total number of characters in the
> Manifesto may not exceed 100'000.

So all Rule Suite Rules must be deleted?  Or are they definitely not
deleted?

I checked the list of rules in text form.  It currently runs to 382 KB,
without attributions in terms of amendments, renumberings, but with author
credit for new rules.  Can Acka retain its identity as Acka if it loses
almost three-quarters of its basic Ruleset?

I appreciate the goal of reducing the ruleset to something more easily
comprehensible, but I think that the level of reduction specified is too
low.  The risk of dropping to the initial ruleset (which would no doubt
lead to one hell of a mess, as the Speaker suddenly loses eir ability to
vote, no PRESENT votes exist, 50% majority becomes enough to change the
rules, immutability returns, yadda yadda yadda) is also too great.

I would rather see the following modifications:

(1) The maximum size of the Manifesto as 200,000 rather than 100,000 - as
things stand now that would still cut the main ruleset in half.
(2) Rule Suites survive automatically if and only if the Head of the Rule
Suite itself survives.

> If no Manifesto exists on the 21st of January, the original rule set of
> Ackanomic will be considered the Manifesto.

This would become (3) No manifesto means that the Current ruleset shall be
considered the Manifesto, and the Senators placed in Contempt and
additionally Gaoled for 7 days.  (This is something the Senate really
ought to do if the rule gets passed).

Let's not throw away the whole of our sandcastle - we've reinforced some
ideas in stone and it would be a shame to destroy them too.

I would also like to say that some attempts should be made to repeal rules
now if people are that concerned about the size of the ruleset.  After
all, Acka still has a long way to go before its next birthday.

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 - ex-President/still Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 12:09:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2864

>So all Rule Suite Rules must be deleted?  Or are they definitely not
>deleted?

I agree I wasn't very clear. When I write "excluding suites" I intend to
mean that the suites are not part of the rule set of Ackanomic to be
discarded. That is, they survive. That's to ensure games in progress aren't
destroyed. It's also an out for a lot of things, if people want to create a
"harfness" rule suite and the likes.

>I checked the list of rules in text form.  It currently runs to 382 KB,
>without attributions in terms of amendments, renumberings, but with author
>credit for new rules.  Can Acka retain its identity as Acka if it loses
>almost three-quarters of its basic Ruleset?

I'm not sure. The only thing I know is that we've had less than 100KB rule
sets before.

>I appreciate the goal of reducing the ruleset to something more easily
>comprehensible, but I think that the level of reduction specified is too
>low.  The risk of dropping to the initial ruleset (which would no doubt
>lead to one hell of a mess, as the Speaker suddenly loses eir ability to
>vote, no PRESENT votes exist, 50% majority becomes enough to change the
>rules, immutability returns, yadda yadda yadda) is also too great.

Well, you are assuming that we return to the original rule set. I agree with
you that 100KB is small, and that losing all kinds of crucial game mechanics
is dangerous. Yet at the same time, I know that it's not fatal and I'm
basically hoping that the Senate will do its job, keep the crucial stuff in
there... Hmm... maybe that's a stretch right there.   : )

>(1) The maximum size of the Manifesto as 200,000 rather than 100,000 - as
>things stand now that would still cut the main ruleset in half.

I'm certainly willing to do so. There are also other methods. For example,
to give to the Speaker (the traditional protector of the rule set) the power
to hand pick x number of rules which will be kept regardless and are not
counted toward the 100KB limit. If we have a good speaker (and we always
have had) then I'm pretty sure that would solve a lot of problems.

>(2) Rule Suites survive automatically if and only if the Head of the Rule
>Suite itself survives.

Ah yes, very nice. I like that.

>> If no Manifesto exists on the 21st of January, the original rule set of
>> Ackanomic will be considered the Manifesto.
>
>This would become (3) No manifesto means that the Current ruleset shall be
>considered the Manifesto, and the Senators placed in Contempt and
>additionally Gaoled for 7 days.  (This is something the Senate really
>ought to do if the rule gets passed).

Oh... That's too cheap! They should be removed from office and fined 90% of
their holdings. This is a revolution.

>Let's not throw away the whole of our sandcastle - we've reinforced some
>ideas in stone and it would be a shame to destroy them too.

I wrote the toughest thing I would allow myself to write. I am willing to
cut to cut it back a bit, but I think the more drastic the cut, the more
interesting the situation will be. The worse thing would be to have half a
revolution.

>I would also like to say that some attempts should be made to repeal rules
>now if people are that concerned about the size of the ruleset.  After
>all, Acka still has a long way to go before its next birthday.

The size itself is a factor, but not the main one. What I hope this proposal
will foster is a detailed look at how each rule interacts with each other,
and exactly where the cuts can be made. That's not a job I want various
individuals to try and do on their own, without the motivational "theat" the
Senate would be under.

CnH

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

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 19:20:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joel Ricker" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2864

> Proposal 2864
> The Blood Of A Revolution
> Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain)

[* Proposal snipped:  Consists of gutting the ruleset once a year *]

I'm definitely torn on this issue.  On one hand it sounds like a 
great idea, allowing Ackanomic a chance to reset a little but on the 
other, the large ruleset was what attracted me to this nomic in the 
first place.  What to do..what to do...

- -- Joe Java
Have a Harfy Day!

- -----------------------------------------------------------------
     Joel Ricker [] [email-masked] [] ICQ# 6244364
                The Imperial Emporer of ImpNom #28
         http://www.Geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arena/1047/
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
              That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 19:24:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2863

On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Thierry Joffrain wrote:

> >Add the following to the literature list:
> >
> >"Work: The Rules of Ackanomic; including all rule suites (only the current
> >version)"
> 
> I bow down before the master of all. This is pure genius.

As do I.  So would you get double points for citing a portion of the Rules
in which a Literature quotation is cited?

- -Hubert

When in Rome, do as the Visigoths do. 

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

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 19:29:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2865

On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Alfvaen wrote (vicariously through breadbox):

> It is the duty of the Registrar to maintain a list of players who are
> in the mentor pool.  Any Acting player may place emself in the mentor
> pool or remove emself therefrom.  If there are not enough players in

So any player filling an office in an Acting capacity?

Or an Active player?

- -Hubert

When in Rome, do as the Visigoths do. 

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

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 19:33:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Wanted: Cult Members

Join the Cult of the Markovian Dream. We can rise once more.

CnH

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

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 19:51:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

TGW wrote:

> I think you're missing something important here, namely the fact that as your
> boomerang passes over my head I duck and then after it passes back over my
> head coming back towards you I start to run towards you keeping pace with the
> boomerang so that you are forced into a situation whereby you don't have any

Keeping pace with a flying Razor Boomerang?  Klingons may have lots of 
honor, but they're certainly short on brains.  I cringe as I watch you
stumble on a conveniently placed hummock on the ground, flinch as the
spinning Boomerang enters the back of your thick skull, and try not to
look at the carnage as I remove it from your mutilated cranium and wipe it
off on your gingham shirt.  Which, by the way, looks REALLY silly on a
Klingon.

Thus is my Nivenesque .sig generator once again proved "strangely 
prescient and applicable."

On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Towsner wrote:

> 	This seems to be working.  Do you have a counter-move?  When one of
> you does something which wouldn't work, I guess I'll tell you and the other
> will win.  Sound good to both of you?

Sure, but I'm guessing this is going to be getting really silly before
long.  Not that that's necessarily a problem 'round these parts.

- -Hubert

Think of it as evolution in action.

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

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 23:27:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2865

> > It is the duty of the Registrar to maintain a list of players who are
> > in the mentor pool.  Any Acting player may place emself in the mentor
> > pool or remove emself therefrom.  If there are not enough players in

> So any player filling an office in an Acting capacity?

> Or an Active player?

D'oh!  I meant Active.  Should I retract, or just get it CSRed later?  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Holly Cole Trio:Don't Smoke In Bed
Current Book--Sean Stewart:The Night Watch
Today is the last day of your life so far.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #64
**********************************