Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #69
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Tuesday, April 14 1998      Volume 03 : Number 069

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 10:33:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2884

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> I argue that, according to the way the Praetor has specified the methods
> for amending Rule 940, that this takes immediate effect as of now.
> After all, the text of his list of amendments read:
> 
> >And then, of course, the normal means,
> >Proposals, worth much more than beans.
> 
> It says nothing about the Proposals having to be voted on, or accepted or
> rejected.  Nothing in the rules prohibits a proposal from having an effect
> while it is in the voting queue, so this happens.
> 
> Yours,
> Slakko
> earn the win

Hehe.  Good play, old man.

IB

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 11:14:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2884

Whatever happened to perl nomic? Did it crash?

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Ian K. wrote:

> > What if the whole ruleset was written in verse.
> > 
> > GF
> 
> Noooooooooo!
> 
> I couldn't take it.
> 
> (But, tentatively, do you mean good verse?)  :-)
> 
> Koxvolio
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 11:15:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

Have you ever been to the Great Galil?

Niccolo Flychuck

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> breadbox and TGW have been discussing the merits of points.  It appears
> that something to make points a disadvantage in some circumstances would
> be desirable.  I therefore present for your discussion the following rule
> concept.
> 
> There exists an unownable entity known as Early Leader Syndrome (ELS).
> Early Leader Syndrome is able to cast at most one vote on each proposal.
> If the author of a proposal has a score bettered by no more than 2 people,
> then ELS shall cast a NO vote on that proposal.  If the author of a
> proposal has a score below all but at most 2 players, then ELS shall cast
> a YES vote on that proposal.  If the preceding provisions of this rule
> would cause ELS to attempt to cast both a YES vote and a NO vote on the
> same proposal, then ELS shall not cast a vote on that proposal.
> 
> Suggestions?
> 
> - -- 
> 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: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 11:23:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2835 accepted

A couple of points in response to breadbox's long letter:
1. I mentioned the idea before. I didn't just spring it up in this
proposal. I also thought it wouldn't pass the first time around. but that
has never stopped me from submitting proposals before.
2. If this proves out to be to much work then one of two things can be
done:
a. Repeal the rule entirely
b. Require either the Chess-Umpire or the author (or both) to explcitly
designate PartyChess proposals as such. Which would leave you the task of
checking only designated proposals, the same way that Modest and Grandiose
proposals are designated now. Perhaps I should have thought of it before.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 14:05:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Help, help, we're being oppressed! - private

Niccolo, I am not going to turn this into some sort of private argument.
You have accused me of misrepresenting you and your intentions publicly.
I will defend myself publicly or not at all.  I will not, however,
publicly respond to what you said to me in confidence.

If you want to convince me that your proposal serves any purpose other
than what I have stated it to be, I suggest you let us all know what that
purpose is.  Similarly, if you claim that I am misrepresenting you, you
would be well served to present us all with the truth.  Mere assertions
that I am wrong are meaningless, even a little suspicious, if you can't or
won't back them up.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 14:14:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> breadbox and TGW have been discussing the merits of points.  It appears
> that something to make points a disadvantage in some circumstances would
> be desirable.  I therefore present for your discussion the following rule
> concept.
> 
> There exists an unownable entity known as Early Leader Syndrome (ELS).
> Early Leader Syndrome is able to cast at most one vote on each proposal.
> If the author of a proposal has a score bettered by no more than 2 people,
> then ELS shall cast a NO vote on that proposal.  If the author of a
> proposal has a score below all but at most 2 players, then ELS shall cast
> a YES vote on that proposal.  If the preceding provisions of this rule
> would cause ELS to attempt to cast both a YES vote and a NO vote on the
> same proposal, then ELS shall not cast a vote on that proposal.
> 
> Suggestions?

Well, it creates more work for the promoter, of course.  But I think it
would work better than the Gnome did.  I guess I'm not sure about the NO
vote part.  It could be kind of annoying to see perfectly useful fixes go
down to the ELS and a few anti-voters.  Oh, and I'm sure you realize the
language would need to be worked over a little bit to clarify the times at
which player's scores would be checked.

                                      - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 14:17:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Some games ideas

I wonder if the following games can be introduced in the Acka ruleset.
1) ODW (Ostfriesisches Deichwandern - East Frisian Dam Walking)
(The original game I found in the games group of the mausnet in Germany)

At least 4 players needed.
At the beginning of the first round, every player has 20000 frisian
points.
In every round, each player picks a positive whole number (allowed as
maximum is the number of frisian points the player has). The player
with the highest picked number gets 500 frisian points, but only if
there
is only one such player. The following players have lost: those who have

zero frisian points left. Those who picked the lowest number. Those who
didn't pick a number.
(It is possible that a player who sees e will lose anyway doesn't pick a

number. In this case I think it should be assumed such a player picked
eir number of frisian points minus one for the determination of the
lowest
picked number, and only for this determination.)
Then the next round begins, until there is only one player left, which
is the
winner of the game.
The master of this game is encouraged to interprete each round as some
kind of race (but one at slow, walking speed) and the numbers picked as
the average speed of the players. He should give a colourful description

about what happened during the walk (e.g. a group of players entered a
pub and left an hour later, or somebody got lost in the fog, and the
like)
and might get awarded for it.

2) OWK (Ostfriesischer Wahlkampf - East Frisian Election Campaign)
(from the same newsgroup) At least 4 players needed.
In this game, every player initially has one vote.
In each round, every player can give eir vote(s) to any player including

emself; e might split up eir votes, but only in a way that each player
who
gets votes gets a whole number of votes. All votes must be explicitly
given to players.
At the end of each round, the player(s) with the most votes are said to
be elected for some imaginary position, like Vice Librarian on Fridays
or
the like, and leave the game. Those players that didn't give their votes
to
anybody also leave the game. Then the next round begins, in which every
player has the number of votes given to em plus one. Again, the winner
is
the last player remaining in the game.

3) Challenge! (I found no name for this one)(I made this one myself;
that's
why it's so bad) At least four players needed.
Every player has points, potential and an omission number. Initially,
each
player has zero points, an omission number ON of zero, and a potential
equal to the number of players minus one.
In each round, a player has to pick a whole number between zero and eir
potential (inclusive). Then, those who picked a legal number are
randomly
awarded points depending with how many players they shared their number
of points with. (E.g. if five players had six points, and four picked
legal
numbers, one is awarded 3 points, another 2, another 1 and the remaining

no points.)

Every player which did not pick a legal number have their ON increased
by one, and a random number between the square number of ON and the
square number of (ON+1) (inclusive) is deducted from eir points, and a
random number in the same range is deducted from eir potential. (The
random numbers are determined independently for each player which
didn't pick a legal number)

If a player's potential falls below zero, it is added to this player's
score
and then set to zero. If a player's score falls below zero, e is
expelled
from this game of Challenge! (if the game has started, this way a player

might miss one or two turns without immediately losing).

Finally, for those players which picked a legal number, it is deducted
from eir potential and added to eir score, and the potential is
increased
by the number of players which now share eir number of points.

If only one player is left in the game, e is the winner. Otherwise the
player with the most points is the winner, if for every player left in
the
game the following is true: There is no other player with a score that
is in the range between eir score and eir score plus eir potential
(inclusive). This means players will never share the same number of
points again, and no new points and potential will be dealt out. (This
is the reason why the number of points and potential deducted is
also random - otherwise it would be too easy to plan with).

This third game is probably the one that cannot be included in the
Acka ruleset because it depends so heavily on random numbers.

What do you think about these games (especially the first two)?

J.M. Bear
Frank Schmidt

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 14:31:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2835 accepted

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 2. If this proves out to be to much work then one of two things can be
> done:
> a. Repeal the rule entirely
> b. Require either the Chess-Umpire or the author (or both) to explcitly
> designate PartyChess proposals as such. Which would leave you the task of
> checking only designated proposals, the same way that Modest and Grandiose
> proposals are designated now. Perhaps I should have thought of it before.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

I can certainly sympathize with both breadbox and the Party Chess people
on this one.  On the one hand, it makes still yet more work for breadbox.
On the other hand, since most of us don't care about Party Chess
proposals, we don't vote on them expect possibly to anti-vote, and they
can be hard to pass.

Perhaps the last of Niccolo's ideas would be beneficial?  It would be more
or less like the Harfmeiester, except for chess.  There would have to be
some safeguard to prevent a corrupt Chess-Umpire or whoeer from falsely
designating proposal um, chessy?

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 14:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2835 accepted

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > 2. If this proves out to be to much work then one of two things can be
> > done:
> > a. Repeal the rule entirely
> > b. Require either the Chess-Umpire or the author (or both) to explcitly
> > designate PartyChess proposals as such. Which would leave you the task of
> > checking only designated proposals, the same way that Modest and Grandiose
> > proposals are designated now. Perhaps I should have thought of it before.
> > 
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> I can certainly sympathize with both breadbox and the Party Chess people
> on this one.  On the one hand, it makes still yet more work for breadbox.
> On the other hand, since most of us don't care about Party Chess
> proposals, we don't vote on them expect possibly to anti-vote, and they
> can be hard to pass.

How about this -- in some way insulate the rest of the Ruleset from the
Party Chess Rule Suite -- the best way I can think of would be to add text
to the Rule Suite head to state that Rules in the Party Chess Rule Suite
can only manipulate entities existing outside the game of Party Chess if
such manipulation is explicitly permitted by the Rule Suite head, and then
permit such manipulations such as swingpoint awards and such.

Better might be to move such links between Party Chess and the rest of the
game outside the Party Chess Rule Suite entirely, and then write the Rule
Suite Head to explicitly forbid the members of the Party Chess Rule suite
to manipulate or allow the manipulation of entities existing outside the
game of Party Chess.

After either of these, make the Party Chess Rules alterable in some manner
that depends only on the Swingers (and interested non-Swingers, if you
like) and does not bother the non-combattants in any way.  Include a few
safeguards so that if somehow a Rule popped up in the PC rule suite that
could allow a Swinger coup despite the restrictions placed on the rule
suite by its head, the remainder of the players could quash it.

GF

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:39:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Nyarlathotep

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > The Gingham Wearer, Rule 940:
> > Each recipient of Nyarlathotep gains 1 win every Thursday at noon.
> > K2, Rule 940 - rejected (already in blueprint):
> > Each recipient of Nyarlathotep gains 1 win every Thursday at noon.
> 
> Interesting that we both had the same idea here actually, now how did we
> decide this one worked? :-)

I believe the resolution was that "a win" refers to a random Game you're
playing, if any, and the Cycle if there aren't any.  Since Nyarlathotep
owners are specifically forbidden from winning the Cycle (which was good
work on K 2's part, considering there were 2 other provisions in there to
do exactly that) this'll wreak havoc with any Games and Contests going on.
For example, it will be completed on Monday, I think, and that Thursday I
could randomly win one of Fictionary, YORL, or that damned Spades duel
that isn't even funny anymore.

- -Hubert

I tried sniffing Coke once, but the ice cubes got stuck in my nose. 

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:42:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Nyarlathotep

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Hubert wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:
> 
> > > The Gingham Wearer, Rule 940:
> > > Each recipient of Nyarlathotep gains 1 win every Thursday at noon.
> > > K2, Rule 940 - rejected (already in blueprint):
> > > Each recipient of Nyarlathotep gains 1 win every Thursday at noon.
> > 
> > Interesting that we both had the same idea here actually, now how did we
> > decide this one worked? :-)
> 
> I believe the resolution was that "a win" refers to a random Game you're
> playing, if any, and the Cycle if there aren't any.  Since Nyarlathotep
> owners are specifically forbidden from winning the Cycle (which was good
> work on K 2's part, considering there were 2 other provisions in there to
> do exactly that) this'll wreak havoc with any Games and Contests going on.
> For example, it will be completed on Monday, I think, and that Thursday I
> could randomly win one of Fictionary, YORL, or that damned Spades duel
> that isn't even funny anymore.

I intend to kiss Nyarlathotep as soon as it is created.  That should throw
a spanner in the works.

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: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:57:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Weirdness

> Actually, I'm only 12.  (Proposals.)

I thought we decided that age was measured in proposals accepted. That way
I'm still seventeen. At the moment.

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:07:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> breadbox and TGW have been discussing the merits of points.  It appears
> that something to make points a disadvantage in some circumstances would
> be desirable.  I therefore present for your discussion the following rule
> concept.

I like the concept.  The only problem is, as breadbox pointed out, it
would be extremely difficult to harf, depending as it does on
to-the-moment scores.  Perhaps if it, or something similar, were
triggered when a player gained over 20 points in one shot?

Or, something that were transferred each week to the player with the
highest score(s) and did evil things to em?  This could be harfed by the
Scorekeeper, adding yet another burden to eir already considerable load,
but compartmentalizing the Officers' duties.

- -Hubert

Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have. 

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:51:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

>OK, before I was just amused at your pitiful attempts, now you've got me
>REALLY mad. With my remaining, non-blinded head, I snarl in furious rage
>and, uh, fury, and throw my other two Boomerangs (check the P/E page -- I
>have three) in quick succession into extremely uncomfortable portions of
>your anatomy.  (Yes, like the back of a Volkswagen.)
	TGW, I believe it's your move.

- --
- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:59:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

> >OK, before I was just amused at your pitiful attempts, now you've got me
> >REALLY mad. With my remaining, non-blinded head, I snarl in furious rage
> >and, uh, fury, and throw my other two Boomerangs (check the P/E page -- I
> >have three) in quick succession into extremely uncomfortable portions of
> >your anatomy.  (Yes, like the back of a Volkswagen.)
> 	TGW, I believe it's your move.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten that. Still:

Uncomfortable seems to indicate that I can feel pain which means I'm still
alive. You really should have finished me off when you had the chance. You
see, I pull the two boomerangs out and break them in two with my bare hands
and then rush in on you. I still have my trusty bat'leth and you're now
unarmed. I finish you off with a swift strike through the groinal area,
detaching your legs from your body. You're going to bleed to death anyway but
you're in great pain so you're pleading with me to kill you. Being a being of
honour I do just that, lopping off your remaining head in one swift motion.
After a bit of thought I decide to let else...if and Rex Mundi finish off JT
and Joe Java.

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:04:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Nyarlathotep

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> I intend to kiss Nyarlathotep as soon as it is created.  That should throw
> a spanner in the works.

The way I read it, all that would do would be to remove control of
Nyarlathotep from a player.  Unfortunately, Nyarlathotep makes no
provisions for its own control, so this would have no effect.

- -Hubert

After eating, do amphibians have to wait one hour before getting out of 
the water? 

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:41:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

>Uncomfortable seems to indicate that I can feel pain which means I'm still
>alive. You really should have finished me off when you had the chance. You
>see, I pull the two boomerangs out and break them in two with my bare hands
>and then rush in on you. I still have my trusty bat'leth and you're now
>unarmed. I finish you off with a swift strike through the groinal area,
>detaching your legs from your body. You're going to bleed to death anyway but
>you're in great pain so you're pleading with me to kill you. Being a being of
>honour I do just that, lopping off your remaining head in one swift motion.
>After a bit of thought I decide to let else...if and Rex Mundi finish off JT
>and Joe Java.
	Disapointing. Sorry TGW, but I'm giving The Potentially Headless a
point.  I have to question your assertion that sticking the boomerangs in
didn't kill you, and you probably shouldn't invite the referee to get
involved like that.  Score is *microphone feedback*-2, TGW-1.  (I hadn't
noticed I said Oops, you're not a candidate for president, now I have to go
change my vote in a previous post, but I can still hope I'm wrong)  Your
move Bleeding and Begging One.

- --
- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:52:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2885

>{{ A number of stocks equal to one million divided by the current value of
>a stock in A$ are created in /dev/joe's possession. }}
	What do you plan to do with fractional stocks?  I don't think the
Reserve would accept them...

- --
- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:58:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2886

>Proposal 2886
>Enough Bickering
>/dev/joe (Joseph DeVincentis)
>
>This is a modest proposal.
>
>Amend R1009 by changing "Theu may not own any other type of Entity." to
>"A Political Party may not offer or accept trades in which it would
>recieve any other kind of entity, but may trade away anything it owns."

With this statement, the latter change below is unnecessary since the
item would get created in the possession of the political party, but
all the party could do with it is trade it away.

>Amend R1013 by changing the second paragraph from:
>"An Organization may, as an action, use any Secret Laboratory it owns to
>build a Gadget from any existing Qualified Blueprint. This new Gadget is
>created in the Organization's possession three days after this action is
>announced. Each Secret Laboratory may be used to build a gadget at most
>once each calendar month."
>
>to:
>"An Organization may, as an action, use any Secret Laboratory it owns to
>build a Gadget from any existing Qualified Blueprint in the possession of
>a player who is one of its members, who must be named when the action is
>declared.  Three days after the action is announced, if the player is still
>a member of the organization, the Gadget is created in that player's
>possession.  Each Secret Laboratory may be used to build a Gadget at most
>once each calendar month."

Even with my comment above, I would vote for this.

- --JT

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:03:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2885

> >{{ A number of stocks equal to one million divided by the current value of
> >a stock in A$ are created in /dev/joe's possession. }}
> 	What do you plan to do with fractional stocks?  I don't think the
> Reserve would accept them...

Doh! I meant to say rounded up, but the rule that prevents fractional
entities should round this up, down, or otherwise.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:05:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Uncomfortable seems to indicate that I can feel pain which means I'm still
> alive. You really should have finished me off when you had the chance. You
> see, I pull the two boomerangs out and break them in two with my bare hands

Now I see why the highest form of evolution on Klingon ended up with a
Snickers bar on its forehead.  Breaking Razor Boomerangs in two with bare
hands is a remarkably bad idea.  As you shriek in pain, shaking your
lacerated hands, you drop your leaden Bat'leth on your foot.  I watch you
jump around on one foot, clutching the other, flatter one in your mangled
hands, for a while, then mutter, "This is getting really insignificant."
(Attribution, anyone?)  Throwing my arms into the air, I invoke my powers
as Founder of the Order of the Razor Boomerang to call upon my deity
Ring'zakerazzad, who crushes you under his celestial thumb like Mick
Jagger.  Don't remember Ring'zakerazzad from the Church Dogma?  Just ask.

- -Hubert

Push to test. Release to detonate. 

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:08:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2885

Yeah know /dev/joe, this is cheesy :)

- --JT

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:37:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

>Now I see why the highest form of evolution on Klingon ended up with a
>Snickers bar on its forehead.  Breaking Razor Boomerangs in two with bare
>hands is a remarkably bad idea.  As you shriek in pain, shaking your
>lacerated hands, you drop your leaden Bat'leth on your foot.  I watch you
>jump around on one foot, clutching the other, flatter one in your mangled
>hands, for a while, then mutter, "This is getting really insignificant."
>(Attribution, anyone?)  Throwing my arms into the air, I invoke my powers
>as Founder of the Order of the Razor Boomerang to call upon my deity
>Ring'zakerazzad, who crushes you under his celestial thumb like Mick
>Jagger.  Don't remember Ring'zakerazzad from the Church Dogma?  Just ask.
	Invoking a diety???  Is that fair???  One point to TGW.  Scores are
tied at 2.  (BTW, who's Ring'zakerazzad?:))

- --
- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:41:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2886

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, JT Traub wrote:

> >Proposal 2886
> >Enough Bickering
> >/dev/joe (Joseph DeVincentis)
> >
> >This is a modest proposal.
> >
> >Amend R1009 by changing "Theu may not own any other type of Entity." to
> >"A Political Party may not offer or accept trades in which it would
> >recieve any other kind of entity, but may trade away anything it owns."
> 
> With this statement, the latter change below is unnecessary since the
> item would get created in the possession of the political party, but
> all the party could do with it is trade it away.
> 

Actually, I think it would be good to have both.  Nothing currently
prevents orgs from USING gadgets in their possession.  I think.

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 21:47:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Raquel Peres da Silva" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC

This is a Modest Proposal

[This proposal is supposed to prevent Churchs from becoming "Founderless",
and thus not being able to ordain Priests, to defrock Priests and to
Excommunicate any more.]

In rule 1301/24, replace the FOUNDERLESS-limited text of iten 8.i:

FOUNDERLESS
If a player that is the True Prophet is a member of a Church or Cult where
the Founder is no longer a member, then that player becomes its new
Founder.
FOUNDERLESS

with the following FOUNDER-limited text:

FOUNDER
If the Founder of a Church ever leaves the Church by declaring it publicly
or by leaving the game, all eir duties or authorities will be automatically
transferred to the most Senior Priest, who shall make it public by posting
a message with the words "Follow me all you members of <name>! Follow me
and you will never get lost in the darkness!", where <name> is the name of
the Church.
FOUNDER

I intend to send this proposal on Thursday (my Thursday, according to GMT
- -03:00). Until then, any sugestions are welcome.

Ayla

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 21:54:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Presidential Elections

> Slakko
> K 2
> The Gingham Wearer
> Idiot Boy
> /dev/joe

Well, good luck every-one.... any one want to start a betting pool?

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 23:01:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2835 accepted

> I'll be frank here: when you get right down to it, the job of
> Tabulator kind of sucks. I consider it to be one of the three worst
> jobs in the game. The other two are, of course, Speaker and
> Scorekeeper. The Speaker is the original "thankless job" (as e has to
> do everything not assigned to anyone else). And the Scorekeeper's job
> requires keeping track of more rules (and, worse, rule changes) than
> anyone, probably by an order of magnitude.

> Actually, the job of Financier may actually deserve to be in this
> category as well, since there are now so many kinds of entities
> constantly floating around. How Alfvaen manages all of these positions
> is beyond me.

Sometimes me as well.  Actually, the Speaker's job isn't that bad.
One of the things I do which helps immensely as Speaker, not to mention
as Financier and Registrar, is putting little notes in the entitylog,
so that I know when someone's time to post Phoebe's wisdom has expired,
or when Gadget creation has finished, or when somebody goes On Ice.
However, the org stuff is a pain in the butt, especially when I have
trouble keeping track of who's in an org at any given time.

But really, it's not that hard if you just go through every single message
looking for score changes or entity transfers or whatever.  And making
notes as above.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Donald Fagen:The Goodbye Look
Current Book--Philip Jose Farmer:The Cache
"Exit?  Does it say 'exit'?"

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 23:50:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomicon Determination

> # 39-39: the secret
>
>      39
>

How appropriate :)

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 23:58:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Weirdness

> The next oldest player after yourself still in the game is Calvin N
> Hobbes, but like yourself, he has been more dormant than active, all
> told. After Calvin N Hobbes is /dev/joe. /dev/joe has taken all of
> four vacations in his entire time here, and as far as I know, has
> rarely failed to vote on anything. And, of course, until last summer
> he was easily one of the most-involved players the game has ever had.
> (Of course, others might consider him to be more-or-less dormant now.)

> Then comes Niccolo Flychuck, whose involvment level appears (to me,
> anyway) to be mostly medium-active punctuated with bursts of high
> activity. He did, however, have a three-week vacation last June.

> ThinMan is the next-oldest still-active player, but I think you'd have
> to call his current status pretty dormant right now.

And then there's really nobody(Techno/Crackfoo being pretty dormant right
now)until...

> breadbox

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Liz Phair:Exile In Guyville
Current Book--Philip Jose Farmer:The Cache
If Jesus was jewish, why did he have a Mexican name?

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #69
**********************************