Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #75
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Sunday, April 19 1998      Volume 03 : Number 075

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 01:09:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Message from the undead

> > I give my vending machine to K2.
>
> So I'm not sure if this works.

I not sure it works either. Unless this message can be considered a rejoin
message....

Should I submit a CFJ on this?

Sure, why not....

K 2

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 01:10:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2890

> Proposal 2890
> Do the Banna
> K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
> It would have been absolutely perfect if this Proposal had been
2899...
>But as it is you had P2899 and will be hogging the amber banana tree
for at least another 90 proposals.

Or three _tradeable_ amber bannas [not sic]

K 2

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 02:52:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2894

On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > Currently the only possession (I don't know whether it qualifies as an
> > entity or not, hence the term possession in the rule) which I believe would
> > qualify is the Amulet of Yendor. In future, things such as the Little Lamb
> > might end up in here.]
> 
> For now, entities remain entities even if no longer defined as such by the
> Rules.  And what about the Keys to the Vault?

This method would destroy the entities when their exhibits enter - that
way the entities need no longer be tracked.  I wanted it to be a way to
reduce the number of entities the Financier needs to keep track of,
without having to worry about losing Ackan heritage.  

So what do you think of the proposal?

- -- 
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, Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 05:08:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2898

On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> What if two players are both members of orgs A and B? 
> 

Dunno!

suggestions?

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 05:34:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2898

On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> > What if two players are both members of orgs A and B? 
> Dunno!

Simple - it shouldn't count for either Org, otherwise it is just a way to
get the Feud over faster without a winner (or to lock in an early lead to
guarantee one result over the other).

Yours,
Slakko
I think Niccolo really should have retracted 2898 - it is still buggy.
- -- 
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, Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 09:22:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Thread-Watch

Just thought I bring you my interpretation of this recent thread split (even
if it isn't particularly earth shaking it could become quite headache
inducing if allowed to get out of hand). There are three possibilities as I
see it:

1. TGW is inventor and has started construction of a really big blue thing...
which will be completed n a couple of hours(ish).

2. No-one is currently inventor but TGW has called for a nomination which
will end tomorrow at about three p.m. (IIRC).

3. /dev/joe is currently inventor.

My own personal opinion is that thread 2 is the most likely to survive,
followed by thread 1 and then thread 3, although that is only a gut feeling.
Once thing I would add is that I don't actually recall ThinMan accepting the
Wizard office so I think /dev/joe is still Wizard.

TGW, confused.

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 13:40:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: playtesting?

> > 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.
>
> It might be interesting.  Maybe we should have a playtest and see.
> (However, if it were reduced to two players with one vote each, there
> would be no winner, because no matter what they would both be removed
> from the game at the end of the round.)

Hmm... how is proper playtesting done? On the ackanomic list or on the
game list?

If a round would result in all players being removed from the game, it
should be replayed (without those players who didn't give their vote).
If only two players with the same number of points are left, it changes
to stone/scissors/paper. The winner wins the round (the title of
Advanced Treeclimber or whatever), and the other the game :-)

J. M. Bear (Frank Schmidt)

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 13:49:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: playtesting?

> Hmm... how is proper playtesting done? On the ackanomic list or on the
> game list?
> 
> If a round would result in all players being removed from the game, it
> should be replayed (without those players who didn't give their vote).
> If only two players with the same number of points are left, it changes
> to stone/scissors/paper. The winner wins the round (the title of
> Advanced Treeclimber or whatever), and the other the game :-)

I haven't had a close look at your games yet but the best way to playtest
them would probably be on Acka IRC. Failing that I'd try the Acka games list.

TGW.

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 14:32:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: RFC: Winning by Points

Obviously this Cycle has shown that my Winning Conditions amendments may
break down with point wins.  Even if they had been done properly.  :-)

The main reason I had for wanting to put point wins under the CWCFJ
process was amply demonstrated by Antxina--if point wins bypass the
CWCFJ system, then if someone gains points through a debatable means
(like Antxina, or Malenkai's illusory Swingpoints), then we run into
the very thread-split problems I wanted to avoid.

Should there be a way of distinguishing between "mundane" point wins
and "scam" point wins?

I had two possible thoughts in mind.  One would be to outline specifically
in the Rules which ways of scoring points were mundane, and anything else
was not.  Any point win which consisted entirely of mundane scoring means
would happen automatically, other ones would need to be CFJed.  The
problem with this is that there's a lot of ways to score points, and if
I have to put every esoteric way in the list, then that's cumbersome,
and it has to be kept up to date with every new rule.

A better alternative, I think, is to put it on the Scorekeeper.  Either
the Scorekeeper can announce a Point Win when it occurs, or a player can
ask the Scorekeeper to do so.  This would cover mundane cases.  And a
player can _also_ submit a CWCFJ, if the Scorekeeper doesn't believe
it occurred, or if e is the Scorekeeper emself(to avoid corruption).

A related, but probably separate issue, is:  What happens when, as in this
cycle, two players cross the Magic Number?  The old language in the Rule
doesn't account for the cycle not ending as soon as the Magic Number is
crossed.

Should one player crossing the Magic Number(let's say by a controversial
means, so if the above amendments are in place the Scorekeeper can't end
the cycle)make it impossible for any others to?  Or if two players cross
it?  If Player A crosses, then Player B, do either of them have a Winning
Condition, neither, or both?

Comments, please...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--This Mortal Coil:Another Day
Current Book--Jack L. Chalker:The Cybernetic Walrus
Stupid == anvils made of bubblegum and text string.  --billbill

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 15:10:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Micah J. Smukler)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Winning by Points

Alfvaen wrote:
>A better alternative, I think, is to put it on the Scorekeeper.  Either
>the Scorekeeper can announce a Point Win when it occurs, or a player can
>ask the Scorekeeper to do so.  This would cover mundane cases.  And a
>player can _also_ submit a CWCFJ, if the Scorekeeper doesn't believe
>it occurred, or if e is the Scorekeeper emself(to avoid corruption).

This sounds good to me.

>A related, but probably separate issue, is:  What happens when, as in this
>cycle, two players cross the Magic Number?  The old language in the Rule
>doesn't account for the cycle not ending as soon as the Magic Number is
>crossed.
>
>Should one player crossing the Magic Number(let's say by a controversial
>means, so if the above amendments are in place the Scorekeeper can't end
>the cycle)make it impossible for any others to?  Or if two players cross
>it?  If Player A crosses, then Player B, do either of them have a Winning
>Condition, neither, or both?

In the case of points, I would say that Player B would not have a Winning
Condition, but Player A would.  Generally, however, I would say that
Player B should win the _next_ cycle if they would still have a win
after the end-of-cycle reset (i.e. museum, palindrome, Frankenstein wins,
but not points or agenda wins; I forget whether or not you lose cheeses
at the end of the cycle, but the win should be valid only if you don't).
However, I would say that there should be some sort of reward (Silver
Pocketwatches? Left-Handed Grapefruit?) for achieving what would have
been a win if someone else hadn't gotten there first. :-)

AtP

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 17:21:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Winning by Points

On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> Obviously this Cycle has shown that my Winning Conditions amendments may
> break down with point wins.  Even if they had been done properly.  :-)

Is this where I'm supposed to rant about how everyone steamrolled over all
my objections which related to points wins and multiple achievement (or
non-achievement) of Winning Conditions? d:-p

> The main reason I had for wanting to put point wins under the CWCFJ
> process was amply demonstrated by Antxina--if point wins bypass the
> CWCFJ system, then if someone gains points through a debatable means
> (like Antxina, or Malenkai's illusory Swingpoints), then we run into
> the very thread-split problems I wanted to avoid.

That's fair enough.

> I had two possible thoughts in mind.  One would be to outline specifically
> in the Rules which ways of scoring points were mundane, and anything else
> was not.  Any point win which consisted entirely of mundane scoring means
> would happen automatically, other ones would need to be CFJed.  The
> problem with this is that there's a lot of ways to score points, and if
> I have to put every esoteric way in the list, then that's cumbersome,
> and it has to be kept up to date with every new rule.

I agree that this method is completely unworkable.

> A better alternative, I think, is to put it on the Scorekeeper.  Either
> the Scorekeeper can announce a Point Win when it occurs, or a player can
> ask the Scorekeeper to do so.  This would cover mundane cases.  And a
> player can _also_ submit a CWCFJ, if the Scorekeeper doesn't believe
> it occurred, or if e is the Scorekeeper emself(to avoid corruption).

Errm, didn't I suggest something like this to howls of protest back in the
Great Reworking?

> A related, but probably separate issue, is:  What happens when, as in this
> cycle, two players cross the Magic Number?  The old language in the Rule
> doesn't account for the cycle not ending as soon as the Magic Number is
> crossed.

The language also said "reach" the Magic Number - it was vague or silent
on whether this extended to two players simultaneously exceeding the Magic
Number, by the same or different amounts.

> Should one player crossing the Magic Number(let's say by a controversial
> means, so if the above amendments are in place the Scorekeeper can't end
> the cycle)make it impossible for any others to?  Or if two players cross
> it?  If Player A crosses, then Player B, do either of them have a Winning
> Condition, neither, or both?

Clearly Player A has to have a winning condition for at least some of the
time.  What I would suggest is the following (yes, it leads to thread
splits, but the first CWCFJ determines the issue, as it would in any other
case, so there's no extra work hopefully):

When the points winning condition is achieved, the Magic Number is
increased by 100, or to 11 above the current highest score, whichever is
greater.

Note that this will disappear again at the start of the next cycle, as the
Base Magic Number is unaffected.  It stops other players achieving winning
conditions, so first over wins unless something really, really drastic
involving at least 101 points happens as well (and if Harf the Mail
amendments along my lines succeed, it won't be able to do that).

Amend the language in the "two players simultaneously reach" to be "two
players simultaneously reach or exceed".

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, Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 20:04:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Winning by Points

> > Obviously this Cycle has shown that my Winning Conditions amendments may
> > break down with point wins.  Even if they had been done properly.  :-)

> Is this where I'm supposed to rant about how everyone steamrolled over all
> my objections which related to points wins and multiple achievement (or
> non-achievement) of Winning Conditions? d:-p

Well, you could just say "I told you so".  (Which I suppose the above
could be read as...)  :-)

> > A better alternative, I think, is to put it on the Scorekeeper.  Either
> > the Scorekeeper can announce a Point Win when it occurs, or a player can
> > ask the Scorekeeper to do so.  This would cover mundane cases.  And a
> > player can _also_ submit a CWCFJ, if the Scorekeeper doesn't believe
> > it occurred, or if e is the Scorekeeper emself(to avoid corruption).

> Errm, didn't I suggest something like this to howls of protest back in the
> Great Reworking?

Probably.  :-/  I'll give you some points when I propose it(after I do
a more official RFC).

> > A related, but probably separate issue, is:  What happens when, as in this
> > cycle, two players cross the Magic Number?  The old language in the Rule
> > doesn't account for the cycle not ending as soon as the Magic Number is
> > crossed.

> The language also said "reach" the Magic Number - it was vague or silent
> on whether this extended to two players simultaneously exceeding the Magic
> Number, by the same or different amounts.

I think that "reach" could be interpreted to mean "equal or exceed",
from the previous paragraph and by implication.  But clarification is
not a bad idea.

> > Should one player crossing the Magic Number(let's say by a controversial
> > means, so if the above amendments are in place the Scorekeeper can't end
> > the cycle)make it impossible for any others to?  Or if two players cross
> > it?  If Player A crosses, then Player B, do either of them have a Winning
> > Condition, neither, or both?

> Clearly Player A has to have a winning condition for at least some of the
> time.  What I would suggest is the following (yes, it leads to thread
> splits, but the first CWCFJ determines the issue, as it would in any other
> case, so there's no extra work hopefully):

> When the points winning condition is achieved, the Magic Number is
> increased by 100, or to 11 above the current highest score, whichever is
> greater.

> Note that this will disappear again at the start of the next cycle, as the
> Base Magic Number is unaffected.  It stops other players achieving winning
> conditions, so first over wins unless something really, really drastic
> involving at least 101 points happens as well (and if Harf the Mail
> amendments along my lines succeed, it won't be able to do that).

> Amend the language in the "two players simultaneously reach" to be "two
> players simultaneously reach or exceed".

This sounds the best, and more or less what I was thinking of.  I'll
let you put together that Proposal if you want.  (I had about five
Proposal ideas this afternoon, not including the Scorekeeper one, so
I'll be inundating the Promoter enough...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Liz Phair:Exile In Guyville
Current Book--Jack L. Chalker:The Cybernetic Walrus
I have nothing to say, and I am saying it.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #75
**********************************