Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #90
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest        Monday, May 4 1998        Volume 03 : Number 090

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 01:40:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Harfy proposal RFC

On Sun, 3 May 1998, Astro wrote:

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

> 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!]}}

> 
> 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.

Well, this doesn't address my problems with the idea of "Harfy" and
"Unharfy" verdicts at all.  So far as I can tell, this RFC only spells out
the assumptions that I thought underlied Slakko's proposal.  Votes 1, 3,
and 5 are functionaly identical here, as are 2, 4, and 6.  So you may as
well just keep the two individual verdicts.

I think perhaps you did not understand the nature of my dislike for this
idea.  I did complain that this idea of Slakko's would make it more
difficult for people to understand what they were voting for in a hearing,
and I still think this is true.  But the reason it would make things more
difficult is because it would make all the possible responses to a number
of completely different hearings identical.  This RFC would do the same
thing, there would just be more of them.

My other complaint was that the silly sounding options for voting in a
hearing are in themselves pretty harfy, and it would be a shame to replace
them with an ambiguous and unharfy set of options (even if those options
would seem to claim to be harfy).  This RFC would have the same effects in
that regard.

I am really against this idea.  The only thing that might possibly sway me
would be Count Tabula begging for it.  But he's already said he dislikes
it as well.  If you want to cut down on Hearing Harfer errors like the one
TGW made, then it should be sufficient to just assign hearing harfing
duties to the people who call the hearings.  Since they don't deal with
hearings every day, and they aren't dealing with hearings called by anyone
other than themselves, then they should have no problem listing the
correct choices.

                                       - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 01:46:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2935 accepted

On Sun, 3 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 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.
> 

Yikes!  I forgot to put in the precedence clause?  After I figured out a
reasonably clever way to make the Voting Gnome and the The Voting Gnome
co-exist?  Um, could the CSRR take care of this maybe?

        - Vynd, who notes that Voting Gnome probably wasn't a legal name
when it was chosen.

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 03:52:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2959

Duncan Richer wrote:

> 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).

I can't see that automation would necessarily make it more scam prone, esp allowing
any two players to object.

K 2

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 04:05:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2959

On Mon, 4 May 1998, K2 wrote:

> Duncan Richer wrote:
> >
> > 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).
> 
> I can't see that automation would necessarily make it more scam prone, esp allowing
> any two players to object.

Well, I don't see the advantage in allowing dispensation actions to be
automatic, while normal, always allowed actions still require suggestion
and support.  If you want to see Dispensation automated, I would suggest
that you support my proposal, and then amend it - as it appears to be the
only bone of contention in the proposal.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - President, Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 04:07:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Harfy proposal RFC

On Sun, 3 May 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> My other complaint was that the silly sounding options for voting in a
> hearing are in themselves pretty harfy, and it would be a shame to replace

I wholeheartedly agree with Vynd.  I would be completely opposed to any
attempt to standardize hearing verdicts, unless of course Count Tabula
were complaining, in which case I, for one, would be more than happy to
take over eir duties rather than lose the harfiness of these Hearings.
I didn't comment on Slakko's original proposal because e retracted it
before I got a chance, but I too am against hindering the Harf.

> it as well.  If you want to cut down on Hearing Harfer errors like the one
> TGW made, then it should be sufficient to just assign hearing harfing
> duties to the people who call the hearings.  Since they don't deal with

This has already been done, I believe, by K 2.  I guess Count Tabula only
has to deal with Elections now.

Hold onto the Harf!

- -Hubert

Christmas has been cancelled--Joseph confessed. 

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 04:56:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ian K." <[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!]}}

Now, this is the one bit that I really don't understand. Why is it _not_ a
type of Hearing?

> it as well.  If you want to cut down on Hearing Harfer errors like the one
> TGW made, then it should be sufficient to just assign hearing harfing
> duties to the people who call the hearings.  Since they don't deal with
> hearings every day, and they aren't dealing with hearings called by anyone
> other than themselves, then they should have no problem listing the
> correct choices.

I agree with Vynd on this.

Koxvolio

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 05:02:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ian K." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2959

> Well, I don't see the advantage in allowing dispensation actions to be
> automatic, while normal, always allowed actions still require suggestion
> and support.  If you want to see Dispensation automated, I would suggest
> that you support my proposal, and then amend it - as it appears to be the
> only bone of contention in the proposal.

I'm not sure I understand the problem. It seems to me (and I may well be
wrong) that being on the Dispensation list allows an organisation to
perform actions which normally it could not perform.

If these actions will then happen automatically, it would be advantageous
for organisations to get on the lists with actions they can perform, as it
would save time.

Why not just amend the action rules, if automating actions is what you
want...?

Koxvolio

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 05:45:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2959

Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Mon, 4 May 1998, K2 wrote:
>
> > Duncan Richer wrote:
> > >
> > > 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).
> >
> > I can't see that automation would necessarily make it more scam prone, esp allowing
> > any two players to object.
>
> Well, I don't see the advantage in allowing dispensation actions to be
> automatic, while normal, always allowed actions still require suggestion
> and support.  If you want to see Dispensation automated, I would suggest
> that you support my proposal, and then amend it - as it appears to be the
> only bone of contention in the proposal.
>

Not a bone of contention, just a misinterpretation of effect on my part. I forgot about
the acka transference rules for societies :)

> --
> 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: Mon, 04 May 1998 05:52:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Nyarlathotep

> Frankenstein Monsters are, in my own opinion, one of the harfiest bits of
> Acka, not only because of the hilarity involved in the juxtaposition of
> phrases from different Rules, but because of the chaos that ensues (like
> the bit about the Office!) when one is released.  And I'd just like to go
> on record as saying that if K 2 hadn't submitted the part about the owner
> of Nyarlathotep not being able to win a Cycle, a random player would be
> winning one every two weeks.  Which is, I suppose, the exact sort of
> reason you disapprove of this kind of thing.  And that's where we differ.
> It's just you and me and we just disagree.
>

Actually the each _recipient_ of Nyarlathotep gains a win. Pass it round (it is
tradable isn't it) and only the one left holding the bag doesn't win ;)

I note that Nyarlathotep could always be debunked. Intact FMs could be debunked
automatically after 1 week to reduce eir long term effects while still allowing
em to generate some weirdness.

K 2

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 06:06:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Nyarlathotep

On Sun, 3 May 1998, K2 wrote:

> Actually the each _recipient_ of Nyarlathotep gains a win. Pass it round (it is
> tradable isn't it) and only the one left holding the bag doesn't win ;)

I think it's only tradeable if its Blueprint says so.  Which I don't
believe it does.

> I note that Nyarlathotep could always be debunked. Intact FMs could be debunked
> automatically after 1 week to reduce eir long term effects while still allowing
> em to generate some weirdness.

True, but how?  As far as I can tell, only the Scientist submitting a
Blueprint is allowed to Debunk it.

- -Hubert

God is love. Love is blind. Therefore, Ray Charles is God. 

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 06:10:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Nyarlathotep

> True, but how?  As far as I can tell, only the Scientist submitting a
> Blueprint is allowed to Debunk it.
>

If the rule said it was debunked it would be. If a proposal passes saying it is
debunked it is...

K 2

> -Hubert
>
> God is love. Love is blind. Therefore, Ray Charles is God.

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 07:12:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2959

> > > 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).
> 
> I can't see that automation would necessarily make it more scam prone, esp
allowing
> any two players to object.

That may be so, but would you want to be financier tracking all these
automatic org actions? I know I wouldn't  (but then I wouldn't want to be
financier anyway).

TGW.

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 07:13:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Party Chess meets Viruses

I like it. The only change that I would make is to this bit:

> 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. ]}}

You might as well set this condition to something totally impossible. It is
possible for this condition to take place. I would prefer it if you changed
the condition to something along the lines of:

"The player purchasing the Virus has 0 swingpoints and 0 Ackadollars."

TGW.

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 07:50:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Party Chess meets Viruses

On Mon, 4 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> You might as well set this condition to something totally impossible. It is
> possible for this condition to take place. I would prefer it if you changed
> the condition to something along the lines of:
> 
> "The player purchasing the Virus has 0 swingpoints and 0 Ackadollars."

I thought about this, but decided that if a Swinger has a Score of a
million already, I really wouldn't worry about em purchasing a MV 1 piece.
I may change that for the proposal.  In the meantime, do you (any of you)
think it would be too hard to gain Viruses past your initial four?  After
that you'd have to Generate, having hopefully set up a pattern that gives
you maximal yield.  I was thinking, though, of giving the UberVirus the
ability to generate a single Virus piece in an unoccupied adjacent square
as a Capture move: it has to be the only move made by that Swinger that
turn, and you can't do it if there are no unoccupied squares adjacent to
the UberVirus.

Oh, and /dev/joe suggested I depict the Virus piece with '@', which is
such a great idea that I wonder why I didn't think of it first.

- -Hubert

God is love. Love is blind. Therefore, Ray Charles is God. 

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 08:02:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2942 rejected

On Mon, 4 May 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Results of Proposal 2942
> 
> 19/24 votes: Quorum achieved
> 6/13 YES votes: Proposal rejected

> > [You can currently have two moves followed by a placement, but not two
> > moves without a following placement. How stupid is that?]

Thank you to everyone who voted for stupid.
- -- 
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: Mon, 04 May 1998 08:33:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2947 rejected

What do people want to do with BAA! votes?

We voted them into existence, but both proposals that have tried to make
them different from Present votes have failed.
If you didn't like the Baa votes as something different, then why did you
vote for 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: Mon, 04 May 1998 08:41:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2946 accepted

> Results of Proposal 2946
> 
> 20/24 votes: Quorum achieved
> 12/20 YES votes: Proposal accepted
> 
>> Proposal 2946 - Sun 26 Apr 1998 10:44 EDT
>> Beldin's repeal
>> JT (JT Traub)

I have to say that I am a bit sorry to see this pass, even though I
quite intentionally voted in favor of it (and almost bribed Tammany to
vote in favor as well).

When the rule was first adopted, I was pretty sure a time would come
where its wording would be primed for scamming, and once there it
would be likely to stay in that formation, with further mendings only
changing the player(s) favored by it, and at that point it would
almost have to be repealed. I guess I was right, for a change.

It was lots of fun to watch it get to that point, though.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 08:46:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2947 rejected

> What do people want to do with BAA! votes?

I'd be happy to just have them replace PRESENT votes - i.e., remove
the PRESENT vote, and let BAA! serve in its place.

It also occurred to me that a BAA! vote doesn't count towards a
proposal being Boring. So they in fact already have a use.

> We voted them into existence, but both proposals that have tried to make
> them different from Present votes have failed.
> If you didn't like the Baa votes as something different, then why did you
> vote for them?

Because they're funny.

I just like the idea of voting "BAA!". I don't necessarily want to add
to my workload, or the Scorekeeper's, just because we feel they ought
to be differentiated from voting PRESENT.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 08:46:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ian K." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2947 rejected

> We voted them into existence, but both proposals that have tried to make
> them different from Present votes have failed.
> If you didn't like the Baa votes as something different, then why did you
> vote for them?

I didn't. Well, I don't think so...

Koxvolio

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 10:06:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2990

> Proposal 2990
> Mentoring minor fix
> JT (JT Traub)

> This is a Modest proposal

> Replace this OLD delimited sentance
> OLD
>   Any Acting player may place emself in the mentor pool or remove emself
>   therefrom.
> OLD

> with the following NEW delimited sentances

> NEW
>   Any Acting player may place emself in the mentor pool or remove emself
>   therefrom by notifying the Registrar.  This notification may be done
>   privately.
> NEW

I will not vote for this since it doesn't fix my typo of "Acting" for
"Active".  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Neil Young:Harvest Moon
Current Book--Dick Francis:Hot Money
Hot dog, jumping frog, Albuquerque

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 10:26:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2947 rejected

On Mon, 4 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> What do people want to do with BAA! votes?
> 
> We voted them into existence, but both proposals that have tried to make
> them different from Present votes have failed.
> If you didn't like the Baa votes as something different, then why did you
> vote for them?

I don't like the tone of this message.  In fact, I see a history of these
type of messages which bothers me.  The fact that someone votes against a
particular implementation of a change doesn't not imply that they are
against change in general.  I find it offensive that people believe that
because they have submitted an answer that it should be accepted as The
Answer. 

IB
whose votes on the last 20 or so proposals have apparently been lost.

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 11:32:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2947 rejected

On Mon, 4 May 1998, Matt Miller wrote:

> On Mon, 4 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > What do people want to do with BAA! votes?
> > 
> > We voted them into existence, but both proposals that have tried to make
> > them different from Present votes have failed.
> > If you didn't like the Baa votes as something different, then why did you
> > vote for them?
> 
> I don't like the tone of this message.  In fact, I see a history of these
> type of messages which bothers me.  The fact that someone votes against a
> particular implementation of a change doesn't not imply that they are
> against change in general.  I find it offensive that people believe that
> because they have submitted an answer that it should be accepted as The
> Answer. 

I'm sorry if the tone was too aggressive.  I did ask what people wanted to
do, if you will note - and was hoping to get some response for alternative
ways of dealing with it.

I didn't necessarily think I had _the_ answer, but there was some thorough
intra-society discussion on this matter, so it wasn't as if the idea I
came up with was submitted without thought.

Sorry for any inadvertent annoyances caused - I didn't mean to be
inflammatory as such, just to provoke some discussion as to what people
wanted to use BAA! votes for.   As it stands, the proposal passed on a
recount, and so this whole thing shouldn't have been started anyway.  I
apologise for that too.

- -- 
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: Mon, 04 May 1998 11:42:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2990

On Mon, 4 May 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
>I will not vote for this since it doesn't fix my typo of "Acting" for
>"Active".  :-)

I will retract and resubmit since I didn't even notice the typo and
it in fact SHOULD be fixed.

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to sieze the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 12:40:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Retraction of proposal 2978

> I hereby retract proposal 2978. (Sorry for the previous attempt)J. M.
> Bear

Your previous attempt was successful, actually. The only thing wrong
with it was that it left you open to get Hosed by me, the Postmaster.

Since you're still a relatively new player, I'm letting you off with a
warning this time.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 15:36:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2947 rejected

On Mon, 4 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> What do people want to do with BAA! votes?
> 
> We voted them into existence, but both proposals that have tried to make
> them different from Present votes have failed.
> If you didn't like the Baa votes as something different, then why did you
> vote for them?
> -- 

They're funny.  Honestly Slakko, what is with this obsession you have with
rules doing things?

                                    - 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: Mon, 04 May 1998 20:34:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Good Ballot Stuffer

On Mon, 4 May 1998, Gavin M. Doig wrote:

> >A$101.  C'mon, other GBSers!  Help me out!
> >
> I bid 200 A$.

Isn't it some kind of heresy under the Church of the [censored] for a
Priest of that Church to covet a holy Good Ballot Stuffer?  It sure is
as far as the Right Church is concerned.

- -Hubert

Charlie was a Chemist, but Charlie is no more. 
What Charlie thought was H20 was H2SO4. 

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 20:57:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ian K." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Good Ballot Stuffer

> Isn't it some kind of heresy under the Church of the [censored] for a
> Priest of that Church to covet a holy Good Ballot Stuffer?  It sure is
> as far as the Right Church is concerned.

On the contrary. It is the duty of every good priest to prevent the
fiendish legions of the themselves-heretical Church of the Good Ballot
Stuffer getting their hands on such a device.

After all... Good Ballot Stuffers need to be operated to be of benefit to
those who wish to interfere in the Holy Worship of Stuffing Ballots.

Nice One, Rex Mundi!

Koxvolio

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 21:00:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Good Ballot Stuffer

On Mon, 4 May 1998, Ian K. wrote:

> On the contrary. It is the duty of every good priest to prevent the
> fiendish legions of the themselves-heretical Church of the Good Ballot
> Stuffer getting their hands on such a device.
> 
> After all... Good Ballot Stuffers need to be operated to be of benefit to
> those who wish to interfere in the Holy Worship of Stuffing Ballots.

Oh, you're just scared of us.

- -Hubert

Charlie was a Chemist, but Charlie is no more. 
What Charlie thought was H20 was H2SO4. 

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 22:02:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2989

> Proposal 2989
> Those pesky non-ASCII characters
> breadbox (Brian Raiter)

> This is a Modest Proposal.

> {{[Sorry if you feel killing this bit of harf is heartless on my
> part. But it's never been used in its time here, and, to be honest, it
> would be a pain if someone did.]}}

Although it was one of my first accepted Proposals(not to mention the
first Acid Rain Dance Proposal, P1999), it never did really catch on, did
it?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--They Might Be Giants:Then
Current Book--Barb Galler-Smith & Josh Langton:Druids
Jaded zombies acted quaintly but kept driving their oxen forward.

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 22:02:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2983

> Proposal 2983
> No more Jabberwocky
> Attila the Pun (Micah Smulker)

> Amend rule 500.1 (Entity Names) as follows:

> 1. Replace the text "A name is a sequence of name characters." with
> the text "A name is a sequence of no more than seventy name characters.
> {{[probably more than we'll ever need.] Any entity whose name is more
> than seventy name characters loses that name and is considered not to
> have a name; however, it does not become a nameless entity.}}"

And who was it who once tried to name eir house "a string consisting of an
infinite number of q's"?  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--They Might Be Giants:Then
Current Book--Barb Galler-Smith & Josh Langton:Druids
"Your bag!  Suddenly!  Here!  Now--gone!"

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 22:18:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Salaries

On Mon, 4 May 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> The following salaries were paid out today at noon:
> 
> Let me know if I missed any...

You missed Nyarlathotep, if such is indeed an Office... :-)

- -Hubert

Quoth the Raven, "Eat my shorts." 

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #90
**********************************