Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #87
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest        Friday, May 1 1998        Volume 03 : Number 087

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 04:51:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 575 (TRUE)

When I looked at this verdict I said to myself... thread split

didn't lose 10 points - score not prime - not archaeologist.

then I realized 431 is prime also :)

K 2

Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Rex Mundi judged TRUE, four days ago. Sorry.
>
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 575- April 21, 1998
> Subject: Witch hunts
> Initiator: Slakko (sent April 21, 1998, 11:55)
> Judge: Rex Mundi (selected April 22, 1998, 11:21)
> Judgement: TRUE
>
> Statement:
> K 2 is not Enlightened.
>
> Reasoning:
> Rule 1307 only allows witchhunts when a player publicly refers to the
> earth being round.  K 2 referred to the earth being banna.  There is no
> proof in favour of or against the idea that banna-shaped is round, so we
> cannot say that calling something banna-shaped is referring to it being
> round.  K 2 did not say that Black is or is not a colour, and hence no
> witchhunt could have been called on em.  Hence e was not Burned as a
> Heretic, and hence e is not Enlightened.
>
> Judge's Reasoning:
> I concur with the initiator's reasoning.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 09:12:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Illuminatus

> > And Hubert owns Hat B21, so may only submit two conditions.

> Shouldn't it, too, have been destroyed?  I wasn't, as I recall, wearing
> it; it was just visible.  (Not that I'd not want to keep it; it's a free
> -60 weight once you've satisfied your other three, but in the interests of
> following the Rules...)

You're right.  You weren't wearing that Hat, so it was destroyed.

> > (Interestingly enough, Hubert also has the Nemesis Eggplant for B21,
> > which does not seem to be against the Rules...)

> Nor, for that matter, is buying from the Hatters a Hat whose condition you
> created yourself.  Perhaps this should be changed.

Go ahead and submit it...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Devo:New Traditionalists
Current Book--C.J. Cherryh:Chernevog
W is for Winnie, embedded in ice, X is for Xerxes, devoured by mice.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 09:48:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

> This adds some text to deal with the case where a player makes a legal
> attempt to change his name, but the Registrar never acknowledges it.  I
> may be mistaken, but I think H*bert is in such a position at the moment.

You are mistaken.  I did ack the name change a while back.

> It can actually be rather problematic, since if people start using the new
> name, but it is never acknowledged by the Registrar, then all the trades
> etc that they think they are doing properly never occurred.  I'm not even
> sure if pragmatism would clear this up.  Hopefully this change would
> eliminate such possiblities.  

I have always considered that if someone changes eir name, then since no
other entity can(under the current Rules)use eir old name, one can still
refer to em unambiguously that way.  I mean, with all the euphemisms for
Hubert being accepted, I don't see how Slagothor would be any more
ambiguous as a reference.

Anyway, I'm not sure it's a problem, since as Registrar I tend to be
pretty open about accepting name changes(except when Red Barn wanted to
put a colon in eir name when I was trying to put through a Proposal to
make it impossible to do so).  But go ahead and submit it anyway; I won't
necessarily vote against it.

As for charging the Harfer Fee, though, remember that however a player's
name is changed, there's a lot of stuff on the web pages and entitylogs
and pointlogs and stuff which has to be changed as well.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Kate Bush:Suspended In Gaffa
Current Book--C.J. Cherryh:Chernevog
A miser is hard to live with, but makes a fine ancestor.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 12:51:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2909 accepted

On Fri, 1 May 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Results of Proposal 2909
> 
> 20/24 votes: Quorum achieved
> 12/20 YES votes: Proposal accepted

We passed a proposal to amend the rule, and then pass one to delete it?
What are people on?
> > Repeal Rule 1136.
- -- 
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: Fri, 01 May 1998 12:53:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2909 accepted

On Fri, 1 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> We passed a proposal to amend the rule, and then pass one to delete it?
> What are people on?

Makes more sense then the other way around, now doesn't it?  And besides,
how does one know that both are going to pass?

rrufus

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 12:54:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2909 accepted

> Results of Proposal 2909
> 20/24 votes: Quorum achieved
> 12/20 YES votes: Proposal accepted

>     YES:
> ThinMan              (Vulcan)
> /dev/joe             (Vulcan)
> Vynd                 (Vulcan)
> Vulcan Unity Vote

Way to go, Vulcan!

[thanks also to everyone else who voted for the proposal and esp. breadbox
for bribing tammany]

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 12:56:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2909 accepted

On Fri, 1 May 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> On Fri, 1 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > We passed a proposal to amend the rule, and then pass one to delete it?
> > What are people on?
> 
> Makes more sense then the other way around, now doesn't it?  And besides,
> how does one know that both are going to pass?

There was a 24 hour window during which it was known that the first one
had passed, but voting on the second one had not yet finished.
Unfortunately, 2 of the people who voted YES to both proposals were no
doubt too busy to be changing their vote in those 24 hours (The Gingham
Wearer and Alfvaen, who have both been snowed under lately).

- -- 
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: Fri, 01 May 1998 12:57:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2916 rejected

>Results of Proposal 2916
>
>20/24 votes: Quorum achieved
>8/16 YES votes: Proposal rejected
>
>    NO:
>ThinMan              (Vulcan)
>IdiotBoy
>Ayla
>K 2                  (MetaMorph)
>Koxvolio             (Harf)
>else...if            (Klingon)
>breadbox
>Vynd                 (Vulcan)

>> Proposal 2916 - Wed 22 Apr 1998 07:34 EDT
>> Fair play in Eleusis
>> JT (JT Traub)
>> 
[text of proposal to allow Deus to act as a Referree with respect to 
Fair Play awards clipped]

I am curious as to why you folks objected to this.  It seemed fairly
straightforward and useful.

- --JT

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 12:58:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2909 accepted

>> Results of Proposal 2909
>> 
>> 20/24 votes: Quorum achieved
>> 12/20 YES votes: Proposal accepted
> 
> We passed a proposal to amend the rule, and then pass one to delete it?
> What are people on?
>>> Repeal Rule 1136.

I'm sure many of the people who wanted to get rid of it also voted for
the previous amendment in case 2909 failed. As it turns out, it almost
did fail, squeaking by with two non-player votes. (And I have to say
that I'm surprised at this, after my demonstration of how easy it is
to abuse.)

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 13:00:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2909 accepted

On Fri, 1 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> There was a 24 hour window during which it was known that the first one
> had passed, but voting on the second one had not yet finished.
> Unfortunately, 2 of the people who voted YES to both proposals were no
> doubt too busy to be changing their vote in those 24 hours (The Gingham
> Wearer and Alfvaen, who have both been snowed under lately).
> 

Or maybe alot of people just didn't like the rule.

IB
didn't like the rule.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 13:00:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2909 accepted

On Fri, 1 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Fri, 1 May 1998, nomicbot wrote:
> 
> > Results of Proposal 2909
> > 
> > 20/24 votes: Quorum achieved
> > 12/20 YES votes: Proposal accepted
> 
> We passed a proposal to amend the rule, and then pass one to delete it?
> What are people on?
> > > Repeal Rule 1136.

I was willing to repeal it after the problems became apparent, it just
wasn't a priority for me.  I voted for the amendment because it was a good
idea, but this one was better :)

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

> -- 
> 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: Fri, 01 May 1998 13:03:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2909 accepted

On Fri, 1 May 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> > What are people on?
> > > > Repeal Rule 1136.
> 
> I was willing to repeal it after the problems became apparent, it just
> wasn't a priority for me.  I voted for the amendment because it was a good
> idea, but this one was better :)

No you didn't.  The voting records have you as abstaining on the
amendment.

- -- 
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: Fri, 01 May 1998 13:13:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2909 accepted

> > > We passed a proposal to amend the rule, and then pass one to delete it?
> > > What are people on?
> > 
> > Makes more sense then the other way around, now doesn't it?  And besides,
> > how does one know that both are going to pass?
> 
> There was a 24 hour window during which it was known that the first one
> had passed, but voting on the second one had not yet finished.
> Unfortunately, 2 of the people who voted YES to both proposals were no
> doubt too busy to be changing their vote in those 24 hours (The Gingham
> Wearer and Alfvaen, who have both been snowed under lately).

Actually, that's not the case, I have been managing to keep pretty much up to
date on voting despite by busier schedule. The reasoning I had for voting as
I did was as follows:

I wanted this rule repealed so I voted for the one that's just gone through.
I wasn't sure that this was going to pass.
I preferred the modified version of the rule to the initial version.
Therefore I voted for the change proposal.

It's as simple as that.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 13:17:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2909 accepted

On Fri, 1 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Fri, 1 May 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> 
> > > What are people on?
> > > > > Repeal Rule 1136.
> > 
> > I was willing to repeal it after the problems became apparent, it just
> > wasn't a priority for me.  I voted for the amendment because it was a good
> > idea, but this one was better :)
> 
> No you didn't.  The voting records have you as abstaining on the
> amendment.

Oh, ok.  That was probably because I've been too busy to get my votes in
on time, as usual.  I would have voted for that amendment, because it
helped fix the obvious problems in the rule.  But repealing it sounded
even better, and apparently some other agreed with me.  Besides, now I can
tell you, in all sincerity:  "Orange devil, wear sandals!"

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

> 
> -- 
> 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: Fri, 01 May 1998 13:22:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 575 (TRUE)

> Witchhunt says it is.  Thus the Witchhunt called on K 2 was valid, he
> burned like the foul witch that he was, and now he stands as an upright
> and Enlightened member of the community.

I protest... foul? I think even as a witch I was enlightened. The earth is
banna.

K 2

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 13:36:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka; Eleusis Game 1 - Round 1 - Else...if's play

On Fri, 1 May 1998, JT Traub wrote:

> Game Misconduct is defined as 'deliberately interfering with the player of a
> subgame'.  I'm not sure that the Deus giveing a hint to his own rule would
> be considered interference.  A Hint which gave away the rule in total
> certainly would be interferance, but a gentle nudge in the correct direction?
> Especially in the cause of helping game play?  I don't know.

Well, hinting can affect the Deus' score, as eir score is equal to the
highest score of any of the players.  It is therefore in the interest of
the Deus to ensure that at least one person guesses the secret rule early
(and ideally for others to not find out until much later).  Allowing hints
would allow a Deus who has picked a "poor" choice of secret rule to
improve eir position, something which IMHO is an inappropriate
manipulation of the game.

Just my two cents.
- -- 
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: Fri, 01 May 1998 13:41:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka; Eleusis Game 1 - Round 1 - Else...if's play

>Well, hinting can affect the Deus' score, as eir score is equal to the
>highest score of any of the players.  It is therefore in the interest of
>the Deus to ensure that at least one person guesses the secret rule early
>(and ideally for others to not find out until much later).  Allowing hints
>would allow a Deus who has picked a "poor" choice of secret rule to
>improve eir position, something which IMHO is an inappropriate
>manipulation of the game.

Well, yes and no.. As long as the hint was public, all the players benefit
from the hint and thus you speed up all players of the round, not just
one.
I agree that giving a private hint to one player would be inappropriate.
- --JT

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 13:43:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka; Eleusis Game 1 - Round 1 - Else...if's play

On Fri, 1 May 1998, JT Traub wrote:

> >Well, hinting can affect the Deus' score, as eir score is equal to the
> >highest score of any of the players.  It is therefore in the interest of
> >the Deus to ensure that at least one person guesses the secret rule early
> >(and ideally for others to not find out until much later).  Allowing hints
> >would allow a Deus who has picked a "poor" choice of secret rule to
> >improve eir position, something which IMHO is an inappropriate
> >manipulation of the game.
> 
> Well, yes and no.. As long as the hint was public, all the players benefit
> from the hint and thus you speed up all players of the round, not just
> one.
> I agree that giving a private hint to one player would be inappropriate.

In Eleusis, though, all information is public, yet some people discover
the rule more quickly than others.  A hint makes it easier for everyone
equally, yes, but some people will pick up on it more than others.  It
still reduces the penalty the Deus pays for picking a poor choice of
secret rule, making the game less dependent on the skill of the Deus and
more dependent upon luck.

- -- 
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: Fri, 01 May 1998 13:53:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka; Eleusis Game 1 - Round 1 - Else...if's play

>In Eleusis, though, all information is public, yet some people discover
>the rule more quickly than others.  A hint makes it easier for everyone
>equally, yes, but some people will pick up on it more than others.  It
>still reduces the penalty the Deus pays for picking a poor choice of
>secret rule, making the game less dependent on the skill of the Deus and
>more dependent upon luck.

I can see your point, and can only offer anectdotal evidence that this
doesn't occur.  I played quite a bit when I was at college, and we 
eventually adopted a house rule similar to the one that I submitted
to the proposal queue prior to this discussion getting underway.

(basically, allowing the Deus to give up to three hints during the play
of the round).

What we found was a) The hints got used by players who had not been
Deus often.  b) Deus' who gave hints ended up with lower scores on average.

The reason for the first was that players when they started playing Eleusis
would choose what they felt was a good rule, but really was hard to discern
from the pattern of play.  As they improved in the ability to make a 'good'
rule (where a 'good' rule from the Deus' POV is one that one player out
of the rest gets and the others are left semi in the dark), the number of
hints given dropped.
The reason for the second was that the players on average were intelligent,
and usually at least two would get the hint and go, and the other people
would catch on quite soon after leading to lower scores all around.

- --JT

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 14:27:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2909 accepted

Slakko wrote:
> On Fri, 1 May 1998, David Scheidt wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> > > We passed a proposal to amend the rule, and then pass one to delete it?
> > > What are people on?
> > 
> > Makes more sense then the other way around, now doesn't it?  And besides,
> > how does one know that both are going to pass?
> 
> There was a 24 hour window during which it was known that the first one
> had passed, but voting on the second one had not yet finished.
> Unfortunately, 2 of the people who voted YES to both proposals were no
> doubt too busy to be changing their vote in those 24 hours (The Gingham
> Wearer and Alfvaen, who have both been snowed under lately).

There was no window when it known that the second one had passed, but voting
on the first one was still going, so people who really wanted to get rid of
the rule, but would accept the limit on points scored from it in the case
that the repeal failed had no chance to go back and vote NO on the first one.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 14:42:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2960

> {{Create Exhibits in the Harfonian Institute for Orbital Mind Control
> Lasers, Electronic Potatoes, Victory Eggplants, Silly Vacation Hats (being
> worn), and the five Keys to the Vault.}}

I thought that the five keys to the vault still existed.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 14:42:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2959

> Proposal 2959
> Wolf's Clothing
> Slakko (Duncan Richer)

Won't this proposal basically make life hell for the financier?

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 15:14:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2914 accepted

> 20/24 votes: Quorum achieved
> 15/20 YES votes: Proposal accepted

> > Proposal 2914 - Wed 22 Apr 1998 07:31 EDT
> > The spellbook crumbles to dust!  --more--
> > Alfvaen (Aaron Humphrey)
> > Due: Wed 29 Apr 1998 07:31 EDT

> > {{ Create a Dull Spellbook in the possession of the player who is legally
> > able to assume the name Alfvaen. }}

Here's something; does Alfvaen have a dull spellbook? At the time this
proposal passed I don't think e was legally able to assume the name Alfvaen
because it was already eir name.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 16:17:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2960

On Fri, 1 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > {{Create Exhibits in the Harfonian Institute for Orbital Mind Control
> > Lasers, Electronic Potatoes, Victory Eggplants, Silly Vacation Hats (being
> > worn), and the five Keys to the Vault.}}
> 
> I thought that the five keys to the vault still existed.

I looked long and hard for them - couldn't find them on the P/E page or
the Undead page.  If they still exist, Alfvaen went and hid them.

- -- 
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: Fri, 01 May 1998 16:25:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2960

> > I thought that the five keys to the vault still existed.
> 
> I looked long and hard for them - couldn't find them on the P/E page or
> the Undead page.  If they still exist, Alfvaen went and hid them.

Hmm, you appear to be correct. When were they destroyed? Anyone?

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 16:42:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2959

On Fri, 1 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > Proposal 2959
> > Wolf's Clothing
> > Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> 
> Won't this proposal basically make life hell for the financier?

The dispensations must still be performed as organisational actions.  The
Org-Harfer is responsible for noting when org actions succeed IIRC, and so
it is really their job - the Financier will only receive info as published
by the Org-Harfer when such actions succeed, and so won't have to do that
much extra work.  Besides, SHEEP was formed for the express purpose of
giving money to people who vote BAA!  Why keep it shackled?

- -- 
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: Fri, 01 May 1998 16:55:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2960

>>> I thought that the five keys to the vault still existed.
>> 
>> I looked long and hard for them - couldn't find them on the P/E page or
>> the Undead page.  If they still exist, Alfvaen went and hid them.
> 
> Hmm, you appear to be correct. When were they destroyed? Anyone?

The Chalice Vault rule was repealed well before the issue of entities
existence beyond their creating rules came up. (Or rather, before it
came up specifically as a CFJ verdict.) I'm sure whoever was Financier
at the time simply removed them as a matter of course.

So, I guess the answer to your question is either a) they haven't been
destroyed, and good luck figuring out who currently owns which, or b)
they were destroyed by Rule 701 last July, when Proposal 2256 was
accepted.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 17:05:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2960

> The Chalice Vault rule was repealed well before the issue of entities
> existence beyond their creating rules came up. (Or rather, before it
> came up specifically as a CFJ verdict.) I'm sure whoever was Financier
> at the time simply removed them as a matter of course.
> 
> So, I guess the answer to your question is either a) they haven't been
> destroyed, and good luck figuring out who currently owns which, or b)
> they were destroyed by Rule 701 last July, when Proposal 2256 was
> accepted.

I'm pretty sure I remember seeing them on the player entity page before, but
I may be wrong.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 17:06:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Church Action

> >The Church of the Good Ballot Stuffer joins Metamorph.
> >
> >About time we saw a more than human actually used. I just wonder if
they'll
> >take us... :-)
> 
> Hmm.. wouldn't this kill the chance of Metamorph gettting a Unity vote?
> (churches cannot vote :)
> 
> Or am I just missing something :)

I don't know. I was just beginning to think that maybe More than Human should
be repealed, but thought I'd see if it could be used first.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 18:01:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Church Action

> > >The Church of the Good Ballot Stuffer joins Metamorph.
> > >
> > >About time we saw a more than human actually used. I just wonder if
> they'll
> > >take us... :-)
> > 
> > Hmm.. wouldn't this kill the chance of Metamorph gettting a Unity vote?
> > (churches cannot vote :)
> > 
> > Or am I just missing something :)
> 
> I don't know. I was just beginning to think that maybe More than Human
should
> be repealed, but thought I'd see if it could be used first.

I've just been and had a look at the rule for party unity votes and it has
this to say:

"A Political Party is a type of Organization. Being a member of more than one
Political Party simultaneously is the Crime of Branch-Stacking. At the end of
a proposal's voting period, but before votes on that proposal are counted, if
every active non-vacationing player member of a given Political Party voted
YES on that proposal, and no member of the Party is also a member of some
other Party, then the Political Party itself shall cast an additional YES
vote on that proposal for every three active non-vacationing player members
it has. "

An organization can't be "active" so it shouldn't detract from Metamorph's
ability to gain unity votes. Since orgs can't be vacationing though it might
lead to them getting more unity votes. Consider this situation: Metamorph has
five active non-vacationing players and one organization as members. All five
players vote YES on one proposal. Therefore all active non-vacationing
members voted YES on the proposal so they get unity votes. Metamorph has six
members that aren't vacationing so Metamorph has six non-vacationing members
and gains two unity votes. I'll submit a modification. Actually I'll wait and
see what the members of Metamorph think :-).

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 18:03:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Church Action

On Fri, 1 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > >The Church of the Good Ballot Stuffer joins Metamorph.
> > >
> > >About time we saw a more than human actually used. I just wonder if
> they'll
> > >take us... :-)
> > 
> > Hmm.. wouldn't this kill the chance of Metamorph gettting a Unity vote?
> > (churches cannot vote :)
> > 
> > Or am I just missing something :)

Perhaps the fact that only all voting players in the org need to vote the
same way (a non-voting player in an Org does not prevent it obtaining
Unity Votes, and I would imagine that a non-player entity would act the
same way).

> 
> I don't know. I was just beginning to think that maybe More than Human should
> be repealed, but thought I'd see if it could be used first.

If you repeal more than Human, you will have to fix the Mad Hatters - it
currently relies on the More than Human for its ability to trade.

> 
> TGW.
> 

- -- 
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: Fri, 01 May 1998 18:05:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Church Action

On Fri, 1 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> I've just been and had a look at the rule for party unity votes and it has
> this to say:
> 
> "A Political Party is a type of Organization. Being a member of more than one
> Political Party simultaneously is the Crime of Branch-Stacking. At the end of
> a proposal's voting period, but before votes on that proposal are counted, if
> every active non-vacationing player member of a given Political Party voted
> YES on that proposal, and no member of the Party is also a member of some
> other Party, then the Political Party itself shall cast an additional YES
> vote on that proposal for every three active non-vacationing player members
> it has. "
> 
> An organization can't be "active" so it shouldn't detract from Metamorph's
> ability to gain unity votes. Since orgs can't be vacationing though it might
> lead to them getting more unity votes. Consider this situation: Metamorph has
> five active non-vacationing players and one organization as members. All five
> players vote YES on one proposal. Therefore all active non-vacationing
> members voted YES on the proposal so they get unity votes. Metamorph has six
> members that aren't vacationing so Metamorph has six non-vacationing members
> and gains two unity votes. I'll submit a modification. Actually I'll wait and
> see what the members of Metamorph think :-).

But an Org is not a player member, and the rule says one extra vote for
every three active non-vacationing _player_ members.

Yours,
Slakko
maybe Acka needs to introduce Read the Ruleset Week
- -- 
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: Fri, 01 May 1998 18:06:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2916 rejected

>>    NO:
>>else...if            (Klingon)

>>> Proposal 2916 - Wed 22 Apr 1998 07:34 EDT
>>> Fair play in Eleusis
>>> JT (JT Traub)

>I am curious as to why you folks objected to this.  It seemed fairly
>straightforward and useful.
	I'd like to say I disliked it, but it seemed so obvious that I
anti-voted.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 18:08:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Church Action

> But an Org is not a player member, and the rule says one extra vote for
> every three active non-vacationing _player_ members.

Oops.

> Yours,
> Slakko
> maybe Acka needs to introduce Read the Ruleset Week

Maybe, but we'd probably miss it due to not reading the rules properly. :-)

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 18:10:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2916 rejected

> >>    NO:
> >>else...if            (Klingon)
> 
> >>> Proposal 2916 - Wed 22 Apr 1998 07:34 EDT
> >>> Fair play in Eleusis
> >>> JT (JT Traub)
> 
> >I am curious as to why you folks objected to this.  It seemed fairly
> >straightforward and useful.
> 	I'd like to say I disliked it, but it seemed so obvious that I
> anti-voted.

See, see, look, this is what happens with anti-voting. Do Acka a favour;
repeal anti-voting.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 18:15:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2916 rejected

>See, see, look, this is what happens with anti-voting. Do Acka a favour;
>repeal anti-voting.
	I voted to repeal anti-voting.  Or maybe I anti-voted on it.  But I
intended to, anyway.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 18:15:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2916 rejected

On Fri, 1 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > >>    NO:
> > >>else...if            (Klingon)
> > 
> > >>> Proposal 2916 - Wed 22 Apr 1998 07:34 EDT
> > >>> Fair play in Eleusis
> > >>> JT (JT Traub)
> > 
> > >I am curious as to why you folks objected to this.  It seemed fairly
> > >straightforward and useful.
> > 	I'd like to say I disliked it, but it seemed so obvious that I
> > anti-voted.
> 
> See, see, look, this is what happens with anti-voting. Do Acka a favour;
> repeal anti-voting.

No - I think it does the right thing sometimes - it makes things
interesting.  Besides, it's nice to be able to snicker at people who try
to manipulate the game to their own ends and have it collapse on them.
Remove anti-voting and it isn't half as much fun doing that :-)

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: Fri, 01 May 1998 19:14:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2916 rejected

> No - I think it does the right thing sometimes - it makes things
> interesting.  Besides, it's nice to be able to snicker at people who try
> to manipulate the game to their own ends and have it collapse on them.
> Remove anti-voting and it isn't half as much fun doing that :-)

I think that this is probably where my opinion differs from that of most
players. I don't think it *is* interesting. I find it boring, and often
downright annoying. No offense to K 2, but I think that the previous cycle
was won predominantly by anti-voting and harf the mail and I don't think that
that is anywhere near as difficult a win as pretty much any of the other
options.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 19:35:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2966

On Fri, 1 May 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 2966
> Au Revoir
> The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)
> 
> This is a modest proposal.
> 
> Repeal rule 1060. [This one looks as if no-one's going to be using it.]
> 

  Why not!  As soon as Thring comes back up I'm going to try and set one
up with that for starters.  

  And now Internomic has a currency that is a valid destination for a pact
too...

  Jonathan.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 19:38:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2916 rejected

>> >I am curious as to why you folks objected to this.  It seemed fairly
>> >straightforward and useful.
>> 	I'd like to say I disliked it, but it seemed so obvious that I
>> anti-voted.
>
>See, see, look, this is what happens with anti-voting. Do Acka a favour;
>repeal anti-voting.

I did anti-voting my first week here and then decided it wasn't that fun
any more.  I'd certainly vote to repeal it.
I also plan on becoming old and foolish in a moment and hope that
people will not anti-vote on this again.

- --JT

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 19:43:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2916 rejected

On Fri, 1 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > >>    NO:
> > >>else...if            (Klingon)
> > 
> > >>> Proposal 2916 - Wed 22 Apr 1998 07:34 EDT
> > >>> Fair play in Eleusis
> > >>> JT (JT Traub)
> > 
> > >I am curious as to why you folks objected to this.  It seemed fairly
> > >straightforward and useful.
> > 	I'd like to say I disliked it, but it seemed so obvious that I
> > anti-voted.
> 
> See, see, look, this is what happens with anti-voting. Do Acka a favour;
> repeal anti-voting.
> 
> TGW.
> 

For the Record I didn't anti-vote.

IB
repeal FairPlay awards.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 20:03:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2960

> > > I thought that the five keys to the vault still existed.

> > I looked long and hard for them - couldn't find them on the P/E page or
> > the Undead page.  If they still exist, Alfvaen went and hid them.

> Hmm, you appear to be correct. When were they destroyed? Anyone?

I had removed them(and the Widget)at some point, and then in some discussion
it was pointed out that such entities, even if no longer defined by the
Rules, were note destroyed.  I _thought_ I'd put them back.  In any case,
it shouldn't do any harm for Slakko to preserve them even if eir Proposal
passes; that bit just won't have any effect.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Godley & Creme:Crime & Punishment
Current Book--C.J. Cherryh:Chernevog
Well done is half begun.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 21:31:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2969

On Fri, 1 May 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> following, as a public action: a) Replace the string "Spelling Bee" in all
> Rules(including this one), and in any Proposals in the voting queue, with

Didn't breadbox just make it impossible to change the text of an undecided
Proposal?  I think that Rule would take precedence over this.

Otherwise, good work, Alfvaen.  I'd buy one. :-)

- -Hubert

Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately, it kills all its students. 

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 23:03:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2914 accepted

> > > {{ Create a Dull Spellbook in the possession of the player who is legally
> > > able to assume the name Alfvaen. }}

> Here's something; does Alfvaen have a dull spellbook? At the time this
> proposal passed I don't think e was legally able to assume the name Alfvaen
> because it was already eir name.

<blows raspberry>

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--They Might Be Giants:Then
Current Book--Dick Francis:Hot Money
Gravity is a myth.  The Earth sucks.

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 23:03:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2909 accepted

> There was a 24 hour window during which it was known that the first one
> had passed, but voting on the second one had not yet finished.
> Unfortunately, 2 of the people who voted YES to both proposals were no
> doubt too busy to be changing their vote in those 24 hours (The Gingham
> Wearer and Alfvaen, who have both been snowed under lately).

This is true in my case, but I don't think I would've changed my vote
anyway.  I honestly didn't care whether it got repealed or got fixed, as
long as it wasn't left as it was.

This doesn't necessarily mean that I'd vote against it if it were
reproposed in its amended form, either.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--They Might Be Giants:Then
Current Book--Dick Francis:Hot Money
All those who believe in Telekinesis, raise my hands.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #87
**********************************