Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #89
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest        Sunday, May 3 1998        Volume 03 : Number 089

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 03:10:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Astro" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Harfy proposal RFC

I saw the Harfy Hearing proposal and the reasning against it (with which I
agree), and I think this is a compromise:

Create a new Rule, numbered 361, and entitled "Generic Harfy Hearing",
with the following NEW-delimited text:

NEW
A Harfy Hearing is _not_ a type of Hearing. {{[I know this seems odd, so if
anyone sees how I can make a Harfy Hearing be a Hearing, speak up!]}}

A Rule may specify circumstances under which a Harfy Hearing is called. The
Rule that does so must also specify a Harfy verdict and an Unharfy verdict.

Whenever Harfy Hearing is called, the Hearing Harfer shall announce in a
public message that a Harfy Hearing has been called, citing the rule that
requires it and the circumstances that brought it about. As of this
announcement, the Hearing is in session.

The Hearing Harfer for a Harfy Hearing is always the player
who sent the public message instigating the Hearing.

Valid responses for anny given Harfy Hearing are:
1. The Harfy verdict for that Harfy Hearing
2. The Unharfy verdict for that Harfy Hearing
3. "Harfy"
4. "Unharfy"
5. "Agree with caller"
6. "Agree with callee"

While the Hearing is in session, each Player may send his or her response to
that Hearing to the Hearing Harfer privately. The Hearing Harfer shall
record each response that matches one of the valid responses for the
Hearing. If a Player who has already responded sends another valid response,
the Hearing Harfer shall discard the previous response and record the new
one. Any response contained in a post that does not unambiguously identify
the Hearing it is in response to, even if only one Hearing is in progress,
is invalid. Non-voting players may not vote in hearings, unless a rule says
otherwise for a specific type of hearing.

The Hearing shall end when it has been in session for three days, unless
another rule defines a longer period of time for a particular Hearing. When
it ends, it ceases to be in session.

When the Hearing ends, the following sums are computed:
a = The sum of the numbers of players that voted valid responses no. 1, 3, 5
[as described above]
b = The sum of the numbers of players that voted valid responses no. 2, 4, 6
[as described above]

If a>b, the verdict for that Hearing is Harfy, otherwise it is Unharfy.

A Harfy Hearing may be retracted any time before its result is announced by
the player who put it forward.

[The Harfy verdict should be used when the player whose actions are
questioned performed them in a Harfy way, and so they are not penalised.
Examples: The Harfmeister not hogging the harf, a Witchhunt not being
justified.  The Unharfy verdict is the one to penalise the player whose
actions were questioned, e.g. it includes the old BURN THE WITCH!]
NEW

Ammendments to Harfy Hearing rules go here, but I think it's not necessary
to include them in the RFC at this point.

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 03:10:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Astro" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Big ruleset

>Well, when you consider that we are trying to change the shape of the
>Earth from its current state, and have been trying to for many months,
>keeping even the shape of the earth "immutable" seems unnecessary.  Given
>the problems in maintaining rules which are completely impermeable to
>change in an otherwise changing ruleset (the Malenkai leaving debacle
>being an interesting situation based on Rule 1's absolute precedence,
>which was required for its supposed immutability), I don't think that
>Acka's "natural laws" should be immutable.

Well... Maybe not immutable, but I think a very strong line should seperate
the impossible from the illegal. And then move some things over it, just to
sillyify the game.

> P-nomic had an interesting organization system which was sort of
>like our rule suites, but more so.  The ruleset was heirarchical [sp??], so
>that at the top level there would be a number of catagories (Section
>1:Officers, Section 2:Finances) similar to our hundreds, but there were a
>theoretically unlimited number of sublevels  (Rule 3-2-4-1).  This would
>actually be quite similar to what the package system would do.
Yup. But give those sections a name or you've done nothing.
The original problem I had with the grouping by hundreds was that none of
this is clearly labeled. Had this been labeled within the Official Rules
Document, I would have understood. <sound of lie detector buzzing in
background>

>- --
>Astro
>Office(s) held in Acka: .
>If everyone does it, then everyone does it.
>
I'm new to this.

- -- Astro
This is not a signature

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 05:11:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2935 accepted

On Sat, 2 May 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Results of Proposal 2935
> 
> 14/18 YES votes: Proposal accepted
> 
> > Yes Virginia
> > Vynd (John McCoy)
> > 
> > There is a Voting Gnome.
> > 
> > The Voting Gnome is a unique, non-tradeable entity, named (you guessed it):
> > The Voting Gnome. The Voting Gnome owns himself. He acts only as described
> > in the Rules.
> > 
> > The word The in the name of The Voting Gnome (and only when in that name)
> > is not considered to be an article for the purpose of determing the
> > primitive form of names.

Unfortunately, this rule does not claim precedence over Rule 340, which
states that in determining name primitive forms, an initial "The" or "the"
is ignored.  Nothing about articles.  So, while the rule vehemently
continues to state that The Voting Gnome exists, the combination of Rules
340 and 348 take precedence and state that it does not, because it
conflicts with the undead Voting Gnome.

> > The Voting Gnome has a home. It is located on a Kaa of land at the extreme
> > northern end of Ackanomic called the North Stick, on the far side of the
> > Wilds. The home itself is a cozy building, with a 40 meter tower that looks
> > suspiciously like a chimney. It is named The Voting Gnome's Workshop.
> > Neither the North Stick nor the Voting Gnome's Workshop are common
> > locations. Both the North Stick and the Voting Gnome's Workshop are owned
> > by the Voting Gnome. Whenever the Voting Gnome's location is not otherwise
> > specified, he is in his home.

We now have a player undead which owns two extra properties.  Interesting.
(Well, who else but Voting Gnome can "the Voting Gnome" refer to, as the
supposed entity called "The Voting Gnome" does not exist?)

> > On every August 28th, at exactly noon, the Voting Gnome visits the rest of
> > Acka, bearing harf and good cheer. He returns home at midnight. August
> > 28th, known as Gnomesday, is a Holiday, and a time of great happiness and
> > jocularity for Acka. No player may be challenged to a Duel on Gnomesday.
> > The reason for all this goodwill is that the Voting Gnome gives gifts to
> > the players of Acka on this day. Exactly what gift depends on certain
> > conditions, described below. No player receives more than one gift, if he
> > qualifies for several then he receives only the first gift listed that he
> > qualifies for.

Interestingly, I think the rest of this works, except that we have an
Undead doing all the work.
- -- 
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, 03 May 1998 05:54:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ackanomicon Determination

> # Player: K 2
> # 1 -15: arcane trivia
>      12

As per Rule 101 I feel compelled to share the edifying information I received while in *that* room. In exchange for doing so, I will receive an
unregulated non-entity Murrey Handshake (sort of like a Golden one only much better and banna shaped too) which may be exchanged for a cycle win at any
time the rules permit such an action ;)

...and it shall come to pass that during the seven days preceding the fourth full moon after the vernal equinox the sky shall be Murrey coloured.

K 2

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 05:54:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2959

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

> If an entry on the Dispensations List contains the name
> of a Society and an action, then the Society may perform that action as an
> Organisational Action.
>

This is the only part that refers to an effect of a Dispensation, but all it
appears to do is permit the org to perform the action, surely the action
should be automatic? Otherwise it would still have to be suggested and
approved....

K 2

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 05:57:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2920: Tidying up

Oops.
K 2

K2 wrote:

> > Actually, TGW got "I Opposed P2241 #1", and K 2 got the Wool Sweater.
>
> Fine I offer my Wool Sweater to Rex Mundi . (tradeable so e has to accept)
>
> The OiCoRT oviously needs to retrain eir dice ;)
>
> > If you're leaving, then what happens to the action you suggested?
>
> The org rules don't say anything about a player's suggestion being 'distroyed'
> or removed from consideration or what ever, so I assume it is still up for
> voting....
>
> > > Shell#1-9 are now VSO and may not own A$.
> > > * Shell#1-9 each transfer A$25 to Slakko
> > > * Shell#1-9 each transfer A$25 to else...if
> >
> > Ooh, that's a sneaky trick.  :-)
>
> Yup :)

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 06:19:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2959

On Sun, 3 May 1998, K2 wrote:

> > Proposal 2959
> > Wolf's Clothing
> > Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> >
> 
> > If an entry on the Dispensations List contains the name
> > of a Society and an action, then the Society may perform that action as an
> > Organisational Action.
> >
> 
> This is the only part that refers to an effect of a Dispensation, but all it
> appears to do is permit the org to perform the action, surely the action
> should be automatic? Otherwise it would still have to be suggested and
> approved....

It allows it to be performed as an Org Action.  However, Rule 1005
determines how Org Actions are actually allowed to occur - hence
suggestion and support are still required.

- -- 
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, 03 May 1998 07:48:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2978

> Change the string "A Demon can be promoted only if
> and only if there exist two friendly pieces of the same
> type (as each other, not necessarily the Demon)" to the
> string "A Demon can be promoted to another type of
> chess piece if and only if there exist two friendly pieces
> of this type (and if this promotion would violate no
> instance limits for that type)". [This restores order by
> avoiding the creation of a Tornado out of two pawns
> and a demon]

I object. Whilst it is true that you can create a tornado from a demon and
two pawns, you have to spend three atomic plays placing them, and then can't
do the promotion until next turn because you can only promote demons after a
move o capture. Effectively you lose three opportunities for placement by
doing it this way. The decreased cost is made up for by the decreased
convenience. And there's always the risk that one of your pieces will be
captured whilst you're trying to do this.

TGW.

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 07:48:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Moving Pictures

> At TGW's request, I have taken over the Portrait Gallery. The new address
is
> http://www2.hawaii.edu/~plumb/acka/gallery/gallery.htm

Thank you Hubert.

> I added pictures for myself, Joe Java, JT, and Koxvolio.  Let me know if I
> missed yours, or send me one (preferably as a URL, but you can include an
> attachment if you want) if you'd like your picture up there.
> 
> I know I need to add spaces for Pandora, Astro, Ayla, and J. M. Bear, just
> to name a few.  In a while, in a while.

Some people are so lazy. :-)

> I was also thinking of changing the format and including a short bio of
> each player.  Please let me know whether or not you like this idea and, if
> so, what, if anything, I should write about you.  (Otherwise I'll write
> something myself.)

Sounds a good idea. I'll let you write something about me yourself just so I
can have a good laugh at how earth-shatteringly offensive it is, and then
I'll "correct" it for you. Possibly.

TGW.

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 08:26:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Astro" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:

>Support your local medical examiner: die strangely.
Help fight inheritance taxes: die broke.

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 10:24:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Harfy proposal RFC

>A Harfy Hearing is _not_ a type of Hearing. {{[I know this seems odd, so if
>anyone sees how I can make a Harfy Hearing be a Hearing, speak up!]}}
	How about making a harfy hearing a type of hearing where one
verdict is marked as harfy and one is marked as unharfy.  Then add
somewhere that "harfy" will be accepted in lieu of the harfy verdict, and
so on.  Same for "agree with xxx".

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 12:25:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2959

On Sun, 3 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Sun, 3 May 1998, K2 wrote:
> 
> > > Proposal 2959
> > 
> > This is the only part that refers to an effect of a Dispensation, but all it
> > appears to do is permit the org to perform the action, surely the action
> > should be automatic? Otherwise it would still have to be suggested and
> > approved....
> 
> It allows it to be performed as an Org Action.  However, Rule 1005
> determines how Org Actions are actually allowed to occur - hence
> suggestion and support are still required.

I believe this rule could be too easily scammed if it permitted automatic
actions - the Org should have to go through the motions (although lots of
proxies will of course simplify this enormously).

- -- 
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, 03 May 1998 13:59:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Sponsorship and Mentorship

As the author of the Sponsorship stuff, I might at least comment :)

The intent was for it to be possible for the Mentor and the Sponsor to
be two different people, but to reward the sponsor for bringing the new
player into the game.

The definition of sponsor isn't dependant upon them being the mentor.
The mentor was changed so that the sponsor was 'first choice', but not
required to accept that mentorship if e didn't feel comfortable being
a mentor at that point.

- --JT

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 18:20:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Let's Go a Duelling (Koxvolio v TGW)

On Sun, 3 May 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> I think the first would make more sense.

Perhaps, but the other might be more fair if, for example, one team had
both players at three cards and the other had one player who played
seriously with 0 cards and one who frivolously attempted to interrupt all
the time with 23 cards.

> I don't know if the Rules would prohibit collaborative YORL play, if two
> players were to jointly write one Bard's plays, for instance...

Well, TGW?  Like some help with your scansion?  :-)

> > Oh, and thanks, Alfvaen, for volunteering to referee a Duel that may well
> > challenge the Hubert vs. Goldenmean fiasco for length.
> 
> Hey, I was planning on Barkeeping the next YORL game anyway.

Wouldn't game custom suggest that the winner of the current game (who may
well be you) do so?

- -Hubert

If Jesus laughed while drinking water, would wine come out his nose?

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 21:50:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Party Chess meets Viruses

This is an idea that sprang out of the nether regions of what I call my
mind one night when I saw the Viruses results and the Party Chess board in
successive messages.  I'd be interested to know what the rest of you
think.  I know some people won't like it, but I'd like to know if a) it'll
work according to the Party Chess rules (according to matters of
precedence and such) and b) what changes you think need to be made to make
it more powerful/less powerful/more harfy.  (Anyone who tries to make it
less harfy will be shot.)  Anyway, here goes: (my apologies for the
length)

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

Append to the end of section 2 of Rule 1230.1, "Swingers Play Around I -
the board and the playing pieces," the string "F. Individual 
PartyChessPieceDef rules may define other ways in which pieces may be
created in a Swinger's possession."

Create a Rule as a new member of the Party Chess Rule Suite entitled
"Creation of a PartyChessPiece UberVirus" reading as follows, delimited
by UBERVIRUS:

UBERVIRUS
The material value of an UberVirus is 8.  When an UberVirus is placed on
the Party Chess board, four off-board Virus pieces are created in the
position of the Swinger who placed the UberVirus.

An UberVirus is represented by the ASCII character 'U'.

There is an instance limit of one UberVirus per player. {{ [ I don't know
if this is necessary (I rather like the idea of having more of them) but
it seemed prudent and made the Genesis part of the Rule easier. ] }}

An UberVirus may move any number of squares in any horizontal, vertical,
or diagonal direction, as long as each square it crosses in doing so,
including the destination square, is adjacent to at least one friendly
Virus piece.  An UberVirus may skip over friendly Virus pieces in its
path, but no other pieces.  An UberVirus can Capture using this move.

Unless the Swinger controlling an UberVirus has no on-board Virus pieces,
an UberVirus is taken off-board and placed back into its Swinger's hand if
at any time it is adjacent to no friendly Virus pieces.

As a Special Move, the Swinger controlling an on-board UberVirus can spend
one Benefyt to cause that UberVirus to initiate a Genesis.

When an UberVirus initiates a Genesis, for each square on the Party Chess
board adjacent to at least one friendly Virus piece (i.e., a Virus piece
owned by the Swinger who controls the UberVirus undergoing the Genesis),
one of the following three actions will happen, with the actions
occurring simultaneously for all relevant squares:

a) If that square is unoccupied and adjacent to exactly three friendly
Virus pieces, a new on-board Virus piece is created in that square in the
possession of the Swinger who owns the UberVirus causing the Genesis.

b) If that square is occupied by a friendly Virus piece, the piece is
destroyed if it is adjacent to more than three or fewer than two friendly
Virus pieces.

c) If that square is occupied by a piece other than a friendly Virus
piece and there are three or more Virus pieces adjacent to the square, the
UberVirus initiating the Genesis is considered to have Captured the piece
in that square, but the piece is not removed from the Party Chess board.
[ Basically, three or more Viruses can Infect a neighboring piece,
bringing it under the control of their Swinger. ]

For the purposes of determining the number of Virus pieces adjacent to a
given square, an UberVirus piece counts as a Virus piece.  In other words,
if a square is adjacent to an UberVirus piece, the count of Virus pieces
adjacent to that square is increased by one.

If a Swinger A with an on-board UberVirus has more than 10 on-board
Viruses, any other Swinger may spend one Benefyt to cause Swinger A's
UberVirus to initiate a Genesis.  [ Which might possibly get rid of some
of the excess Viruses. ]

This Rule takes precedence over Rule 1230.1 where necessary.
UBERVIRUS

Create a Rule as a new member of the Party Chess Rule Suite entitled
"Creation of a PartyChessPiece Virus" reading as follows, delimited by
VIRUS:

VIRUS
The material value of a Virus is 1.  In order to purchase a Virus, a
Swinger must have a score of over 1000000.  {{[ R1230.1 doesn't allow this
Rule to forbid the purchase, but does allow horrendously unachievable
conditions to be set in order to make the purchase. ]}}

A Virus is represented by the ASCII character '.'

A Virus can move in any one of the following three ways:
a) A Virus can move to an unoccupied square at a distance of 1 in any
horizontal, vertical, or diagonal direction.
b) A Virus can move exactly two squares in any of the usual eight
directions if and only if another piece occupies the square at a distance
of 1 from the Virus in that direction.
c) If all of the squares SQ1 through SQn (where n is a positive integer) 
in one of the usual eight directions from a Virus piece are occupied by
friendly Virus pieces, the Virus may move to SQm in that direction, where
m is one greater than n.

A Virus may not capture.

If, at any time, the Swinger controlling an on-board Virus has no on-board
UberVirus piece, that Virus piece is destroyed.  If a Swinger owning one
or more off-board Virus pieces can legally make a Placement move on eir
turn, and does not place at least one Virus piece, one off-board Virus
piece in eir possession is destroyed.

This Rule takes precedence over Rule 1230.1 where necessary.
VIRUS

- -Hubert

If Jesus laughed while drinking water, would wine come out his nose? 

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 22:19:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2935 accepted

> Unfortunately, this rule does not claim precedence over Rule 340, which
> states that in determining name primitive forms, an initial "The" or "the"
> is ignored.  Nothing about articles.  So, while the rule vehemently
> continues to state that The Voting Gnome exists, the combination of Rules
> 340 and 348 take precedence and state that it does not, because it
> conflicts with the undead Voting Gnome.

No, Undead are nameless!  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Roxette:Joyride
Current Book--Dick Francis:Hot Money
This message will self-describe in 30 seconds.

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 22:34:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Raquel Peres da Silva" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Sponsorship and Mentorship

JT Traub wrote:

> As the author of the Sponsorship stuff, I might at least comment :)
> 
> The intent was for it to be possible for the Mentor and the Sponsor to
> be two different people, but to reward the sponsor for bringing the new
> player into the game.
> 
> The definition of sponsor isn't dependant upon them being the mentor.
> The mentor was changed so that the sponsor was 'first choice', but not
> required to accept that mentorship if e didn't feel comfortable being
> a mentor at that point.

Yes!

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #89
**********************************