Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #81
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Saturday, April 25 1998     Volume 03 : Number 081

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:50:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2887 accepted

>> Proposal 2887 - Sat 18 Apr 1998 04:08 EDT
>> Otzma Card of Type Rod & Staff
>> IdiotBoy (Matt Miller)
>> 
>> 1. This rule defines an Otzma Card type called 'Rod & Staff.' 'Rod & Staff'
>> Otzma Cards have an F-designation of Normal.

This rule, however, is not in the Otzma Card Rule Suite. I doubt it
has the intended effect.

Once again, folks, I remind you to give your rules numbers, or (as in
this case) specify which Suite it is to become a member of.

I was going to submit a CSR to fix it, but after reading it over, I
think it could stand a rewrite as well:

>> 2. An Otzma Card of type 'Rod & Staff' can be used only on Proposals. A
>> player can use a Rod & Staff card on a Proposal by sending a message to the
>> tabulator. This message must unambigiously state on which proposal the card
>> is being played.

Why is this being sent to the Tabulator, when its effects are purely a
matter of scoring?

>> When a Rod & Staff Card has been used on a proposal, the date of the end of
>> the Voting on that Proposal is considered to the date it has been used.

So someone's score could increase up to three days ago? Bad idea, if
not downright retroactive.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:54:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2888 accepted

>> Proposal 2888 - Sat 18 Apr 1998 04:09 EDT
>> The Bolivian Navy on Maneuvers in the South Pacific
>> The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)
>> 
>> Bribe: A random trinket whose name contains the string "traffic Warden"
>> will be transferred from The Gingham Wearer to each player who voted YES on
>> this proposal.
>> 
>> This is a modest proposal.
>> 
>> Create a new rule with the title "Red and Blue Golfing Umbrellas" numbered
>> as delimited by IGUANA.

"numbered"?!

Sheesh.

I wish I could say that this rule fails to be created, but it's pretty
unambiguous what was intended.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:58:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2889 accepted

>> Proposal 2889 - Sat 18 Apr 1998 04:10 EDT
>> Otzma Card of Type Founder's Boon
>> JT (JT Traub)
>> 
>> This rule defines an Otzma card type called 'Founder's Boon' which have an
>> F-designation of Rare.

...

Need I say it?

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 09:26:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2897 accepted

>> Proposal 2897 - Sat 18 Apr 1998 04:19 EDT
>> To Stop Slakko doing it Again
>> The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)
>> 
>> This is a modest proposal.
>> 
>> Modify rule 213 by adding the following text to the end:
>> 
>> "Any judge may change eir mind on a verdict that e has sent to the Clerk of
>> the Court (CotC) but has not yet been distributed by the CotC by mailing
>> the CotC informing em of this fact. At this point the initial judgement
>> will be considered to have not been posted to the CotC."

So if a player changes eir mind and sends the CotC a new email just as
the CotC is posting what (e believes to be) the judge's verdict, and
your emails cross, the CotC has just committed the crime of
Malpractice.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 09:37:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2888 accepted

> > If ever anyone has the title of Aardvark then their points total is
> > immediately set to -1000001.

My score (has? is about to?) plummeted by about  -1000401, when fortnightly
dividends are calculated on 27/4 at noon (a full 1:16 before the cycle ends) I
and my fellow No, Baa!, Present, vacation, abstain voters ( non-voting?
non-players? new players! ... it did say anyone ) will lose at least $A 500000.
When the cycle ends we will be awarded $A -1000001. I wonder if this should be
remedied ?

As an Aside tho I will be the first player to win a cycle by points, with a
negative score.

and I was going to be archaeologist this time round ;)

K 2

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 09:39:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2930

> [I sort of stole the formula of Slakko's proposal 2901: I hope e doesn't
> mind. :-)]

The customary thing to do in instances like this is transfer some of your
points to whoever you're copying off or collaborated with by stating in the
proposal {{Ayla loses a point, Slakko gains a point}} (for example).

TGW.

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 10:16:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2888 accepted

> > If ever anyone has the title of Aardvark then their points total is
> > immediately set to -1000001.

> giving A$25 to the historian and including the phrase "By> 'eck luv, yer doin'
a great job. And we all know it's an apple really." at
> which point they shall lose the title of "Aardvark" and gain the title of
> "Female Aardvark". Their score will remain at -1000001 but will be subject
> to change once again.

now that I've thought about it. Once I become a female Aardvark at the next
fortnightly divided dish out I will receive A$ 2000000 odd, more than enough ot
cover my A$ 1500000 odd losses :)

To buy:
Museum win
Round Earth
Probe

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 10:22:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2940

D'ohw

K 2

nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 2940
> It was Funny the First Time
> breadbox (Brian Raiter)
>
> This is a Modest Proposal.
>
> I.   Amend Proposal 2651 by replacing the first of the two occurrences
>      of the paragraph which reads:
>
> Any voting player (including the Mad Scientist) has the option of
> digging up and delivering one valid Frankenstein Part to the Mad
> Scientist, once per calendar week.
>
>      with the following paragraph:
>
> Any voting player (including the Mad Scientist) has the option of
> digging up and delivering a Frankenstein Part to the Mad Scientist,
> once per calendar week.
>
> II.  Change the authorship of Proposal 2891 to K 2 (Kelly Kelly).
>
> III. Append the following paragraph to Rule 104 ("Proposals"):
>
> Once a proposal has been properly distributed, none of its text may be
> altered; likewise, its authorship and time of distribution cannot be
> changed.
>
> {{[The information in the Proposal Archive needs to remain accurate.]}}

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 10:26:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2888 accepted

> My score (has? is about to?) plummeted by about -1000401, when
> fortnightly dividends are calculated on 27/4 at noon (a full 1:16
> before the cycle ends)

Actually the rule states "On the Saturday immediately following the
creation of this rule". I'm pretty sure that means May 2nd.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 10:29:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2888 accepted

Brian Raiter wrote:

> > My score (has? is about to?) plummeted by about -1000401, when
> > fortnightly dividends are calculated on 27/4 at noon (a full 1:16
> > before the cycle ends)
>
> Actually the rule states "On the Saturday immediately following the
> creation of this rule". I'm pretty sure that means May 2nd.
>
> breadbox

More money for us ;)

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 10:36:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2888 accepted

> > My score (has? is about to?) plummeted by about -1000401, when
> > fortnightly dividends are calculated on 27/4 at noon (a full 1:16
> > before the cycle ends)
> 
> Actually the rule states "On the Saturday immediately following the
> creation of this rule". I'm pretty sure that means May 2nd.

Except of course that it won't because the rule will have repealed itself.
Damn.

TGW.

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 12:02:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2936

> Proposal 2936
> Herd mentality
> Pandora (David Kenning)

This Proposal is Substantially Similar to Proposal 2928, isn't it?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Rick Springfield:Greatest Hits
Current Book--C.J. Cherryh:Chernevog
I have nothing to allude to, and I am alluding to it.

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 12:36:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2897 accepted

On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> >> Proposal 2897 - Sat 18 Apr 1998 04:19 EDT
> 
> So if a player changes eir mind and sends the CotC a new email just as
> the CotC is posting what (e believes to be) the judge's verdict, and
> your emails cross, the CotC has just committed the crime of
> Malpractice.

It's not quite as bad as all that.  If the CotC sends the message before
the new verdict arrives, then it needs to get to muppetlabs within 3
minutes.

- -- 
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: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 12:42:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2897 accepted

> > So if a player changes eir mind and sends the CotC a new email just as
> > the CotC is posting what (e believes to be) the judge's verdict, and
> > your emails cross, the CotC has just committed the crime of
> > Malpractice.
> 
> It's not quite as bad as all that.  If the CotC sends the message before
> the new verdict arrives, then it needs to get to muppetlabs within 3
> minutes.

Besides, it's a risk I'm willing to take...

TGW.

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 13:39:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2892 rejected

On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Results of Proposal 2892
> 
> 18/23 votes: Quorum achieved
> 6/14 YES votes: Proposal rejected
> 
> > Proposal 2892 - Sat 18 Apr 1998 04:13 EDT
> > *snip*
> > Vynd (John McCoy)
> > 
> > {{[I believe these changes will keep the traditional status of Beldin's
> > Pants intact, without allowing for the difficulties it has recently
> > inspired.]}}

So why didn't you all vote for this?  No one voiced any objections.

                                     - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 13:55:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2931

On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 2931
> A Preponderance of Hearings.
> Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> 
> [There are a large number of different Hearings which are designed to be
> Harfy.  Each Hearing seems to have its own set of Verdicts.  The crucial
> point, however, is that the verdicts are not what really makes the Hearing
> harfy - it is the circumstances surrounding the hearing (e.g. a witchhunt,
> hogging the harf, etc).  The different verdicts, and the repetition of
> other aspects of the Hearing which are common across multiple hearings,
> clog up the ruleset with redundant guff.  A single Rule which multiple
> Hearings can refer to would be useful.
> 
> Besides, most Counts Tabula have trouble keeping track of all the
> different possible verdicts.  Here I have replaced 16 verdicts with just 2
> - Harfy and Unharfy.]

I really don't like this.  Does anyone really think just replacing all the
traditional, and for the most part harfy, possible verdicts with the word
"harfy" won't reduce the harf in the ruleset?

I also protest to some of Slakko's decisions as to which verdicts are the
harfy ones, and which verdicts are unharfy.  Much harfier by far, I would
say, to be burned as a witch than to be spared the flames.

This leads into the most serious flaw, that the new verdicts aren't
always very clear.  Most of the harfy verdicts, while bizarre, make it
fairly clear what it is you are voting for.  With these changes, all the
hearings are going to look more or less the same.  So players are going to
have to go and check the rules to figure out exactly what they would be
voting for.  The result will be fewer people voting in Hearings (too much
of a bother) and people casting one vote when what they really wanted was
the other one.

I know that Count Tabula had a little difficult lately remembering the
appropriate verdicts, but I don't think that means we should jettison all
our fun verdicts.  Perhaps changing the wording of the hearing rule to
allow Count Tabula to use close approximations of the verdicts.
Personally, I'd rather leave things alone unless Count Tabula really wants
to see changes.  In any event, I think that all this proposal would
accomplish would be to remove some harf from the rules, and switch the
burden of remembering things properly from Count Tabula to the voters.

                               - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:02:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2931

On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> > Proposal 2931
> > A Preponderance of Hearings.
> > Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> > 
> > Besides, most Counts Tabula have trouble keeping track of all the
> > different possible verdicts.  Here I have replaced 16 verdicts with just 2
> > - Harfy and Unharfy.]
> 
> I really don't like this.  Does anyone really think just replacing all the
> traditional, and for the most part harfy, possible verdicts with the word
> "harfy" won't reduce the harf in the ruleset?

It won't reduce the useful harf.  It reduces the pointless Harf.  Which is
harfier, the Witchhunt itself or all these people voting "No, e said the
earth was flat."?

> I also protest to some of Slakko's decisions as to which verdicts are the
> harfy ones, and which verdicts are unharfy.  Much harfier by far, I would
> say, to be burned as a witch than to be spared the flames.

I wanted consistency in this for the sake of the voters.
A "Harfy" verdict penalises the player calling the Hearing.
An "Unharfy" verdict penalises the player the Hearing was called against.
That's the case in all of the Hearings I converted.  Trying to switch it
on some other basis would only make it inconsistent and even harder to
deal with.

> This leads into the most serious flaw, that the new verdicts aren't
> always very clear.  Most of the harfy verdicts, while bizarre, make it
> fairly clear what it is you are voting for.  With these changes, all the
> hearings are going to look more or less the same.  So players are going to
> have to go and check the rules to figure out exactly what they would be
> voting for.  The result will be fewer people voting in Hearings (too much
> of a bother) and people casting one vote when what they really wanted was
> the other one.

Given that people have been voting YES or NO in some of the Hearings I
have administered, I don't particularly think that changing the verdicts
is going to do anything to dissuade people from voting, or to confuse them
as to which hearing they are voting in.  

> I know that Count Tabula had a little difficult lately remembering the
> appropriate verdicts, but I don't think that means we should jettison all
> our fun verdicts.  Perhaps changing the wording of the hearing rule to
> allow Count Tabula to use close approximations of the verdicts.
> Personally, I'd rather leave things alone unless Count Tabula really wants
> to see changes.  In any event, I think that all this proposal would
> accomplish would be to remove some harf from the rules, and switch the
> burden of remembering things properly from Count Tabula to the voters.

The remembering is easy:

Harfy if you agree with the caller of the Hearing.
Unharfy if you don't.
It's that simple!
- -- 
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: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:21:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2931

On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> 
> > I know that Count Tabula had a little difficult lately remembering the
> > appropriate verdicts, but I don't think that means we should jettison all
> > our fun verdicts.  Perhaps changing the wording of the hearing rule to
> > allow Count Tabula to use close approximations of the verdicts.
> > Personally, I'd rather leave things alone unless Count Tabula really wants
> > to see changes.  In any event, I think that all this proposal would
> > accomplish would be to remove some harf from the rules, and switch the
> > burden of remembering things properly from Count Tabula to the voters.

Actually, if you will note, the proposal also transfers the burden of
adjudicating these Harfy Hearings from Count Tabula to the callers of the
Hearings _in_all_cases_.  These Hearings are Harfy - if you want to have
some Harf you have to do the Harfing.  It is in the dual nature of harf to
always be thus.

Remember:
Harfy to agree with the caller of the Hearing.
Unharfy to disagree - It's Just That Simple!
- -- 
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: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:39:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2931

> I really don't like this.  Does anyone really think just replacing all the
> traditional, and for the most part harfy, possible verdicts with the word
> "harfy" won't reduce the harf in the ruleset?

I agree totally with this. Some of the verdicts are undeniably harfy, and
this change won't really make things any simpler.

> I also protest to some of Slakko's decisions as to which verdicts are the
> harfy ones, and which verdicts are unharfy.  Much harfier by far, I would
> say, to be burned as a witch than to be spared the flames.

Again, I concur. Slakko's reasoning makes sense to some degree, but if you're
doing it like that then you may as well say "I agree" and "I disagree".

> This leads into the most serious flaw, that the new verdicts aren't
> always very clear.  Most of the harfy verdicts, while bizarre, make it
> fairly clear what it is you are voting for.  With these changes, all the
> hearings are going to look more or less the same.  So players are going to
> have to go and check the rules to figure out exactly what they would be
> voting for.  The result will be fewer people voting in Hearings (too much
> of a bother) and people casting one vote when what they really wanted was
> the other one.

It also takes some of the fun away from things, which, again, will reduce the
number of voters.

> I know that Count Tabula had a little difficult lately remembering the
> appropriate verdicts, but I don't think that means we should jettison all
> our fun verdicts.  Perhaps changing the wording of the hearing rule to
> allow Count Tabula to use close approximations of the verdicts.
> Personally, I'd rather leave things alone unless Count Tabula really wants
> to see changes.  In any event, I think that all this proposal would
> accomplish would be to remove some harf from the rules, and switch the
> burden of remembering things properly from Count Tabula to the voters.

Again, I agree. As I'm sure most of you have noticed, I've been quite busy
this week and not had as much time for Acka (I must get a few CFJ things sent
out actually) and that was the reason I didn't have time to look up the
verdicts (the fact that the types of hearing weren't all that common didn't
help me either). I'm perfectly happy for this harf to remain in our rules.

TGW, Count Tabula.

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 15:01:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2892 rejected

On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, nomicbot wrote:
> 
> > Results of Proposal 2892
> > 
> > 6/14 YES votes: Proposal rejected
> > 
> > > Proposal 2892 - Sat 18 Apr 1998 04:13 EDT
> > > Vynd (John McCoy)
> So why didn't you all vote for this?  No one voiced any objections.

Sorry, but this seemed to be a pointless halfway house.  If the rule
survives, its mutation methods as described in other rules should survive.
Otherwise what is left is just a base corruption of the original concept.
I am personally in favour of Beldin's Pants repeal - two scams (one
successful, one not) is enough from any rule for my liking.

Repeal is now more attractive given that I can Preserve Beldin's Pants in
the Harfonian Institute (but I didn't know that until after your proposal
failed).

I thought I had voiced my support for outright repeal clearly enough to
make it clear I wouldn't support a halfway house - if I hadn't, then I
apologise.

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: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 15:26:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2931

I know you have already retracted this, so I'll keep my response short.

On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> 
> > > Proposal 2931
> > > A Preponderance of Hearings.
> > > Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> > > 
> > > Besides, most Counts Tabula have trouble keeping track of all the
> > > different possible verdicts.  Here I have replaced 16 verdicts with just 2
> > > - Harfy and Unharfy.]
> > 
> > I really don't like this.  Does anyone really think just replacing all the
> > traditional, and for the most part harfy, possible verdicts with the word
> > "harfy" won't reduce the harf in the ruleset?
> 
> It won't reduce the useful harf.  It reduces the pointless Harf.  Which is
> harfier, the Witchhunt itself or all these people voting "No, e said the
> earth was flat."?
> 

They are both harfy.  Well, granted "No, e said the earth is flat." isn't
especially amusing (to me anyway), but many of the verdicts are.  Claiming
that the harf is pointless shows a regretably poor understanding of harf.
Harf *is* the point.  

> > I also protest to some of Slakko's decisions as to which verdicts are the
> > harfy ones, and which verdicts are unharfy.  Much harfier by far, I would
> > say, to be burned as a witch than to be spared the flames.
> 
> I wanted consistency in this for the sake of the voters.
> A "Harfy" verdict penalises the player calling the Hearing.
> An "Unharfy" verdict penalises the player the Hearing was called against.
> That's the case in all of the Hearings I converted.  Trying to switch it
> on some other basis would only make it inconsistent and even harder to
> deal with.
> 

Yes, I understand the system.  But I don't think we should go around
calling things harfy when they aren't.  Or unharfy when they are.

> > This leads into the most serious flaw, that the new verdicts aren't
> > always very clear.  Most of the harfy verdicts, while bizarre, make it
> > fairly clear what it is you are voting for.  With these changes, all the
> > hearings are going to look more or less the same.  So players are going to
> > have to go and check the rules to figure out exactly what they would be
> > voting for.  The result will be fewer people voting in Hearings (too much
> > of a bother) and people casting one vote when what they really wanted was
> > the other one.
> 
> Given that people have been voting YES or NO in some of the Hearings I
> have administered, I don't particularly think that changing the verdicts
> is going to do anything to dissuade people from voting, or to confuse them
> as to which hearing they are voting in.  

Well if people vote wrong then they vote wrong, and there is only so much
we can do to help them out.  I do hope you didn't accept these votes.  I
still think that making all the verdicts the same, from hearing to
hearing, will cause confusion.

Furthermore, this system still leaves us with the problem that, regardless
of whatever the Rule is really asking, the new hearings would in effect be
demanding people to vote on whether or not something was harfy.  This
isn't what the hearings do now, and its not something I think we should
change them to do.

> 
> > I know that Count Tabula had a little difficult lately remembering the
> > appropriate verdicts, but I don't think that means we should jettison all
> > our fun verdicts.  Perhaps changing the wording of the hearing rule to
> > allow Count Tabula to use close approximations of the verdicts.
> > Personally, I'd rather leave things alone unless Count Tabula really wants
> > to see changes.  In any event, I think that all this proposal would
> > accomplish would be to remove some harf from the rules, and switch the
> > burden of remembering things properly from Count Tabula to the voters.
> 
> The remembering is easy:
> 
> Harfy if you agree with the caller of the Hearing.
> Unharfy if you don't.
> It's that simple!

Simple, eh?  I thought you said that you voted harfy if you thought that
the action, or event, or entity, or what have you, in question, was harfy.
Meaning that the person who called the Hearing was wrong to challenge it.
Meaning that you DON'T agree with the caller of the Hearing (unless hes
doing something pretty weird).  It seems you are having difficulty keeping
this new system of yours straight, 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

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 16:08:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2931

>A "Harfy" verdict penalises the player calling the Hearing.

>Harfy if you agree with the caller of the Hearing.

	One or the other of these must be wrong.  Apparantly we already
have the first victim of confusion from this proposal.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 16:27:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Repeal RFC

[*snip* rules package proposal and harfinator office]

No offense meant else...if, but it seems that especially with the way this
was set up, most rules packages would stay as long as people felt at least
one portion of the rules package was good enough to stay.

While I applaud, laud, and cheer the cleaning up of the ruleset, I don't
quite understand why this needs a special proceedure.  What is wrong with
the current system whereby things can be cleaned up or removed or repealed
through proposal.

My personal opinion is the proposals are the proper way to manage the ruleset
and things like hearings should be reserved for working on things defined
within the rules and not the rules themselves.

- --JT

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 16:40:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Repeal RFC

>No offense meant else...if, but it seems that especially with the way this
>was set up, most rules packages would stay as long as people felt at least
>one portion of the rules package was good enough to stay.
	Each rule package would contain the rules around one topic.  Most
packages would probably contain only one rule, for example the Ackanomicon
would be just one rule.  The other packages would contain as few rules as
possible.  I did it like this rather than just one rule at a time so that
groups of rules which were genuinely linked, such as the Stock Market,
would be dealt with as a unit.

>While I applaud, laud, and cheer the cleaning up of the ruleset, I don't
>quite understand why this needs a special proceedure.  What is wrong with
>the current system whereby things can be cleaned up or removed or repealed
>through proposal.
	The advantage, in my opinion, to the Harfinator rule would be that
rules would come up for re-approval regularly, without someone having to
specifically say "I want to get rid of this rule."  Also, noone would be
risking point loss from the repeal.

>My personal opinion is the proposals are the proper way to manage the ruleset
>and things like hearings should be reserved for working on things defined
>within the rules and not the rules themselves.
	I don't see any reason hearings should be limited like that.
There's no danger of abuse (that I can see) so I don't think a distinction
needs to be made.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 18:53:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2919

On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 2919
> Small land Amendment
> JT (JT Traub)
> 
> Only one Building (except for towers) may exist on any given kaa of land.
> {{If more than one Building (except for towers) exists on a kaa of land at
>   this moment, one of the buildings is moved to another legal location if
>   such exists.

As the location of a building currently has no game effect, I can do this
without need for a rule to force me.  Currently, as the rules on land
stand, I can do whatever I want with most of the kaas, moving them around
at will, because they have no game effect.  I think that a rule of this
nature needs a more rigid land framework to be useful, and would be better
left until after some proper land reform.

>   If no such location exists, the building is destroyed and
>   its owner is compensated from the treasury the cost that would have been
>   payed to build the building being destroyed.  A Legal Location for moving
>   a building is any kaa of land owned by the owner of the building being
>   moved.  If the building is owned by no player, then it is moved to a legal
>   location for that building on the Map.
- -- 
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: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 18:55:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2920

On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> 
Proposal 2920
> Org Patch
> ThinMan (John Bollinger)
> 
> {{[ 
> This proposal is intended to patch the current problems regarding "illegal"
> ownership of entities by various types of organizations in a fairly humane
> manner. It also makes temporary provision for Organizational Powers.  It
> complements /dev/joe's recent proposal.
> ]}} 
> 
> {{[ The following is functionally implied by the rules, but needs to be
>     explicitly stated for R1010 to work correctly. ]}} 
> 
> Amend rule 1003, "Organizations," by inserting the sentence "A VSO may not
> own anything." immediately before the sentence "Any attmpet [sic] on the part
> of a VSO to perform any other kind of Orgnizational Action fails." 

So if someone leaves the game and is in a three player political party,
that party suddenly loses the ability to own anything?

Or say a Church with a Secret Lab - the Secret Lab goes bye-bye with no
options?  I find this even more undemocratic than Niccolo Flychuck's
removal of items proposal was apparently considered to be.

- -- 
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: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 19:07:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2939

On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> 
Proposal 2939
> It seems a bit cheap to me
> The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)
> 
> This is a modest proposal. [No change there then]
> 
> [Oh yeah, and a note to breadbox, this is a chess proposal]
> 
> Modify rule 1230.2 section 7 to read as follows:
> 
> "7. Check and Checkmate
> 
> A Swinger is in Check when his King is attacked by one or more opposing
> pieces. No Swinger may make a play that would cause him or her to be in Check
> at the end of his or her turn. It is possible that the only move that will
> satisfy this condition is a Surrender. It is the responsibility of the
> Chess-Umpire to identify states of Check and alert the Swingers that such a
> state exists, and let the Swingers know whose King is being attacked.

This change would restore the ability of a player whose King is not
onboard to Check another player and force them off-board.  I oppose this
part of the change.
(And why would a Klingon want to eliminate the one Klingon piece of
literature in the ruleset?)

> [It seems a bit cheap to me that it is possible to get out of a check merely
> by placing a piece in the way.

That doesn't always work - and it makes pieces which allow jumps over
(e.g. Camels, Cantors and Gesses) an essential part of each player's
armoury.  A "good" Checkmate is possible as it is - I see no need to make
the job any easier.

> This is possibly the first in a long line of
> proposals from me to make party chess have slightly more in common with
> normal chess, i.e. make similar tactics apply to both (I don't think they do
> at the moment).]
> 

- -- 
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: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 20:25:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2919

>As the location of a building currently has no game effect, I can do this
>without need for a rule to force me.  Currently, as the rules on land
>stand, I can do whatever I want with most of the kaas, moving them around
>at will, because they have no game effect.  I think that a rule of this
>nature needs a more rigid land framework to be useful, and would be better
>left until after some proper land reform.

This isn't about moving the kaas of land around, but preventing multiple
buildings on the same kaa is all.  Basically it seemed kinda wrong to me
that Pandora effectively lost A$100 by an honest mistake and ended up with
a second building that e didn't really expect (or so it seemed).  This
would stop that from happening in the past, and the first couple of one
shot effects just clean up (or try to clean up) any buildings that are
currently occupying the same kaa.  Towers are exempted because they are
kinda special :)

- --JT

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 20:40:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2919

>that Pandora effectively lost A$100 by an honest mistake and ended up with
>a second building that e didn't really expect (or so it seemed).  This
>would stop that from happening in the past, and the first couple of one
                                       ^^^^
I obviously meant 'future' here.

- --JT

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 20:42:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Repeal RFC

>>While I applaud, laud, and cheer the cleaning up of the ruleset, I don't
>>quite understand why this needs a special proceedure.  What is wrong with
>>the current system whereby things can be cleaned up or removed or repealed
>>through proposal.
>	The advantage, in my opinion, to the Harfinator rule would be that
>rules would come up for re-approval regularly, without someone having to
>specifically say "I want to get rid of this rule."  Also, noone would be
>risking point loss from the repeal.
>
>>My personal opinion is the proposals are the proper way to manage the ruleset
>>and things like hearings should be reserved for working on things defined
>>within the rules and not the rules themselves.
>	I don't see any reason hearings should be limited like that.
>There's no danger of abuse (that I can see) so I don't think a distinction
>needs to be made.

My objection with them being hearings is that hearings are decided by a
simple majority of whomever bothered to vote.  Proposals have a built in
safety feature that requires a certain number of people to vote, and a
3/5ths majority to pass.  This is the reason I don't want to let a hearing
mess with the ruleset, not a danger of abuse.

- --JT

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 20:48:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Repeal RFC

>My objection with them being hearings is that hearings are decided by a
>simple majority of whomever bothered to vote.  Proposals have a built in
>safety feature that requires a certain number of people to vote, and a
>3/5ths majority to pass.  This is the reason I don't want to let a hearing
>mess with the ruleset, not a danger of abuse.
	I sort of like having harf be repealed when 50% no longer think
it's funny, but perhaps packages with negative numbers would require 60% to
repeal it.  However if other people don't want anything to be repealed
without 60%, I'll change it.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 21:29:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2919

On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, nomicbot wrote:
> 
> > Proposal 2919
> > Small land Amendment
> > JT (JT Traub)
> > 
> > Only one Building (except for towers) may exist on any given kaa of land.
> > {{If more than one Building (except for towers) exists on a kaa of land at
> >   this moment, one of the buildings is moved to another legal location if
> >   such exists.
> 
> As the location of a building currently has no game effect, I can do this
> without need for a rule to force me.  Currently, as the rules on land
> stand, I can do whatever I want with most of the kaas, moving them around
> at will, because they have no game effect.  I think that a rule of this
> nature needs a more rigid land framework to be useful, and would be better
> left until after some proper land reform.

I promise I will re-publish my big land reform rfc sometime in the next
few weeks, with changes to bring it in line with the current rules.  So
far as I am concerned, this rule would be fine for the short term, but
more extensive changes are needed if we want the rules on land to make
much sense.

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #81
**********************************