Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #98
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest       Monday, May 11 1998       Volume 03 : Number 098

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 03:57:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Feuds

On Sun, 10 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Sun, 10 May 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I wasn't here when the voting period on that ended, so I was just curious
> > as to why, and by how much it failed. The concept, the implementation?
> 
> The implementation - there was a potential paradox problem when a Duel
> happened between two people both in both organisations - who does it count
> for?  If this had been cleared up, I would have voted for it.

Yeah, I saw this commented on somewhere. And there was also one place when
I used the word Duel instead of Feud. I think I'll resubmit it with
corrections. As to the specific case you mentioned. I think such a Duel
should not count as part of the Feud at all.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 04:00:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Feuds

On Mon, 11 May 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> Yeah, I saw this commented on somewhere. And there was also one place when
> I used the word Duel instead of Feud. I think I'll resubmit it with
> corrections. As to the specific case you mentioned. I think such a Duel
> should not count as part of the Feud at all.

That was the solution I thought of too.
Have you switched back to voting yet?  I can't recall seeing such a
message.
- -- 
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, 11 May 1998 05:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2973 accepted

Once again, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of pointing
out that we have voted for a buggy proposal.

I cannot recommend too highly that if you intend to vote in favor of a
proposal, you take a moment to see if it actually has the effect that
you think it does. I didn't vote in favor of this proposal, myself, so
I didn't proofread it.

> Proposal 2973 - Sat 02 May 1998 20:47 EDT
> Treasured Actions
> K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
> 
> [...]
> 
> {{[A bit of related tidying]}}
> 
> Amend the first sentence of the second last paragraph of Rule 1217 (Buried
> Treasure!)
> {{[An Organization which is able to transfer Entities (e.g. a Church, or an
> Organization with a Trade License) may bury Treasure as a public
> auction.]}} to read:
> An Organization which is able to transfer Entities (e.g. a Church, or an
> Organization with an Excavation Permit) may bury Treasure as a public
> auction.

Okay, "second last paragraph" clearly means "second to last
paragraph", so there's no problem there. But it so happens that the
sentence in brackets is from the second to last paragraph of *section
one* of Rule 1217.

The actual first sentence of the second to last paragraph of Rule 1217
is: "If, on the other hand, at the time of the Expedition there are
more Expedition members than Historical Artefacts, then the
Archaeologist shall randomly determine one expedition member to be
assigned to each Historical Artefact." Or, rather, it was.

(As an aside: If the intended sentence had been directly quoted,
instead of being in notes brackets, it would have been an ambiguous or
meaningless change. It still wouldn't have had the intended effect, of
course, but at least the damage would have been minimized.)

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 05:39:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2979 accepted

This stuff always seems to come in groups....

> Proposal 2979 - Sat 02 May 1998 21:06 EDT
> small otzma reorg
> JT (JT Traub)
> 
> Renumber rule 2887 to 1240.X where X is the lowest positive unused integer
> in the otzma card rule suite
> Renumber rule 2888 to 1240.Z where Z is the lowest positive unused integer
> in the otzma card rule suite

There is no Rule 2888. (And yes, I failed to catch this one, too.)

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 06:17:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3025

> Proposal 3025
> Le traffic warden est encore mort, vive le traffic/
> Attila the Pun (Micah Smulker)
> 
> warden
> 

"Oops".

AtP: You wanted a *backward* slash there, not a forward slash. Sorry.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 06:32:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3028

> {{[I have submitted a few proposals recently that really were meant to
> be modest.  Rather than retract them from the voting queue and resubmit
> I'd like a way to make them modest post-fact.

This will not work: Rule 104 prohibits the altering of a proposal's
text after it has been distributed.

As for the idea ... an adopted proposal "must guide play in the form
in which it was voted on", to quote from the initial ruleset, and I
feel that this is a good sentiment. It's a bit unfair to alter a
proposal after some players have already cast their votes on it, even
with a case as tame as this.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 06:41:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3030

> {{[If you can recieve a Boon for guessing the Truth of the Machine,
> you should be able to recieve one for producing an unguessable Truth,
> especially since nobody has yet seemed to be able to do so. This
> proposal attempts to cause that to happen, as well as tidying up
> just what happens when the Machine goes *ping* for the thirtieth
> time.]}}

I have to disagree here. It is all too easy to produce an unguessable
truth. (For example, "if and only if today is listed on the piece of
paper in the Scholar's desk drawer".) The reason it's never happened
is because it wouldn't be fun.

If anything, it should be more like Eleusis - the Scholar should be
rewarded for producing a truth that was challenging but not *too*
difficult. However, I am actually satisfied with the Machine as it is
- - i.e., an opportunity to pose riddles for each other. (Your last one
was very good, by the way.)

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 06:52:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another Bracket Pedantry Hearing

Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > > Ahem. Despite what the player/entity page may or may not say I have in
> fact
> > > learned my lesson. Check the BPH logs if you don't believe me.
> >
> > Sorry, does this include having lost your "learned eir lesson" status after
> > the failed BPH on February 23rd?  Because that's why it's not on the PE
> > page.
>
> I learned my lesson, then un-learned it, and then learned it again if I
> recall correctly. I think Slakko has a list of all bracket pedantry hearings
> on the web page so you (or K 2)can check that out.
>
> TGW.

The BPH page supports this - TGW has learned eir lesson (tho not too well it
would appear ;) - so the hearing was impossible to call.

I note, however, that this did not stp hubert from learning eir lesson twice in a
row - (a bad entity apparently :)

(: K 2 :)
d: :p

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 10:48:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: P2920

> Why should VSOs not be able to own anything?
> They can't use what they own until they cease being a VSO, but I see no
> reason to forbid that. Part of the point of having VSOs in the first place
> is to allow continutiy of ownership of entities. Otherwise one might as
> well disband the organizations all together when it drops below the three
> member limit.

What would happen if a VSO disbanded? All eir possessions would be lost.
Having a VSO own nothing means that the members have an easy way of recovering
the orgs possessions without having to sequester the support of multiple third
parties before the org disbands...

K 2

>
>
> Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 10:48:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Odo on the Wormhole.

Odo has fewer than four members (one of the critiria for cultness) so it is a
cult either Slakko or Robert Sevin will need to approve.

Uri Bruck wrote:

> If Odo is a Church then I accept H*bert as a member.
> If Odo is a Cult then I suggest it accepts H*bert as a member and approve
> of the suggestion.
>
> Niccolo Flychuck
>
> On Sun, 10 May 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>
> > In case this has been lost in the various events...
> >
> > I apply to join the Cult/Church of Odo on the Wormhole.
> >
> > H*bert, known as Wild Card list time he asked this...
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 10:48:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2973 accepted

> Once again, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of pointing
> out that we have voted for a buggy proposal.

I apply to the senate for the unregulated title of "Expert in buggy proposals"

Credentials:
Self amending proposals
Proposals that amend the wrong paragraph
Incapacity to distinguish homonyms form each other
Missing Verbs
Etc.

> I cannot recommend too highly that if you intend to vote in favor of a
> proposal, you take a moment to see if it actually has the effect that
> you think it does. I didn't vote in favor of this proposal, myself, so
> I didn't proofread it.

This could mean that no one ever votes on my props again ;)

> > Proposal 2973 - Sat 02 May 1998 20:47 EDT
> > Treasured Actions
> > K 2 (Kelly Kelly)

My heart skip a beat when I saw that you were going to pick on me;)

> (As an aside: If the intended sentence had been directly quoted,
> instead of being in notes brackets, it would have been an ambiguous or
> meaningless change. It still wouldn't have had the intended effect, of
> course, but at least the damage would have been minimized.)

I your going to bungle a proposal bungle it BIG :)

K 2

>
>
> breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 12:30:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2973 accepted

On Mon, 11 May 1998, K2 wrote:

> > Once again, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of pointing
> > out that we have voted for a buggy proposal.
> 
> I apply to the senate for the unregulated title of "Expert in buggy proposals"
> 
> Credentials:
> Self amending proposals
> Proposals that amend the wrong paragraph
> Incapacity to distinguish homonyms form each other
> Missing Verbs
> Etc.
> 
> 

Sorry K 2, but your achievements in this area are far from unique.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 12:51:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2973 accepted

Vynd wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 1998, K2 wrote:
> > I apply to the senate for the unregulated title of "Expert in buggy
> > proposals"
> > 
> > Credentials:
> > Self amending proposals
> > Proposals that amend the wrong paragraph
> > Incapacity to distinguish homonyms form each other
> > Missing Verbs
> > Etc.

> Sorry K 2, but your achievements in this area are far from unique.

snowgod has his share of buggy proposals, but Niccolo Flychuck might be
the real master of buggy proposals.  How do you think he ended up
retracting 46 proposals?  (I was surprised myself to find out it was
only 46. :-} )  He has had a good number of proposals which passed which
had some vital word missing, and a couple instances of amending the
wrong thing.  He's good with homonyms, but has trouble spelling amend,
refer, announce, and a couple other words.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 13:00:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3025

> > Le traffic warden est encore mort, vive le traffic/

<SNIP>

> AtP: You wanted a *backward* slash there, not a forward slash. Sorry.

Can someone please explain to me why / is a forward slash and \ a backslash?
It would seem logical to me that forward was going to the right and backwards
was going to the left. Since western cultures read and write from the top
then surely / goes backwards? Why is this?

TGW, curious.

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 13:00:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2973 accepted

> I apply to the senate for the unregulated title of "Expert in buggy
proposals"

No, I should get that! I'm the one that's best on buggy proposals! Let's see,
what have I done? Have magic radishes worth an odd number of A$, forget to
change "and" to "or" in my weasel slayer proposal, attempt to modify rule
34o, forgetting to number admissions policies an le grand fromage, regularly
forgetting end delimiters, not thinking through what I'm doing properly (my
first attempt at modifying literature) or having rules that repeal themselves
before they do what I mean them to. And that's just off the top of my head.
Are you convinced yet?

TGW, who joined on the same day as K 2 for any interested newbies.

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 13:17:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3025

TGW asked:
> Can someone please explain to me why / is a forward slash and \ a backslash?
> It would seem logical to me that forward was going to the right and backwards
> was going to the left. Since western cultures read and write from the top
> then surely / goes backwards? Why is this?

I think / is a "forward slash" because it was the traditional slash
character, having been used to write fractions (i.e., 1/1000) for
a long time, while the backslash \ has no such history.

Now, you ask, why did we write fractions that way?  Clearly, it is
because we typically read fractions starting with the numerator
(from the top, again) and the / allows the first number (left to right)
to be "above" the fraction bar.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 13:42:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2973 accepted

> >
> > I apply to the senate for the unregulated title of "Expert in buggy proposals"
> >
> > Credentials:
> > Self amending proposals
>

No one else has done this ^

> Sorry K 2, but your achievements in this area are far from unique.
>
>                                   - Vynd
>
> [email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:15:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: (Orgs)

I ask everybody to check their org status is correct on appropriate org
pages:
http://home.connexus.net.au/~kii/parties.html
http://home.connexus.net.au/~kii/churches.html
http://home.connexus.net.au/~kii/miscorgs.html

wrt Odo I've just sorted out what happened....

IdiotBoy became a member of odo on 19 Apr 1998 04:03:37 when 2/3 of the
active/non-vactioning members approved.
H*bert (then Wild Card) failed to became a member when only 1/3 of all
active/non-vactioning members approved.

This brought the population of Odo up to four (IB,NF,Sla,GF), however,
it
will require an org action to convert to a church.

Suggestions on the table for odo:
H*bert's admmitance
NF approved

I note that this was from _before_ I was org harfer :)

I ask everybody to check their org status is correct on appropriate org
pages:
http://home.connexus.net.au/~kii/parties.html
http://home.connexus.net.au/~kii/churches.html
http://home.connexus.net.au/~kii/miscorgs.html

K 2

Uri Bruck wrote:

> If Odo is a Church then I accept H*bert as a member.
> If Odo is a Cult then I suggest it accepts H*bert as a member and approve
> of the suggestion.
>
> Niccolo Flychuck
>
> On Sun, 10 May 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>
> > In case this has been lost in the various events...
> >
> > I apply to join the Cult/Church of Odo on the Wormhole.
> >
> > H*bert, known as Wild Card list time he asked this...
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:24:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3031

On Mon, 11 May 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> TINCTURES
> A Coat of Arms may only be use colours which are defined as Tinctures by
> rule 1160.1, and should abide (if possible) by the Heraldic Rule of Tincture
> which states that:  Metal may not be placed on Metal nor Color upon Color.
> A Fur may take the place of either a Color or Metal and is considered to be
> either Color or Metal depending upon it's predominant Tincture.
> TINCTURES

 STOP!

 Wait!

 1) Furs are a seperate third catogory, and none of the *three* can be
placed on one of the same.

 Anyway, your definition leads to problems with potent and vair.... 50/50

 H*bert.

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:25:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: (Orgs)

On Mon, 11 May 1998, K2 wrote:

> IdiotBoy became a member of odo on 19 Apr 1998 04:03:37 when 2/3 of the
> active/non-vactioning members approved.

Yay me!

> H*bert (then Wild Card) failed to became a member when only 1/3 of all
> active/non-vactioning members approved.
> 

Bad me!

> This brought the population of Odo up to four (IB,NF,Sla,GF), however,
> it
> will require an org action to convert to a church.
> 

Me suggest!

> Suggestions on the table for odo:
> H*bert's admmitance
> NF approved
> 

Me approve!

Ime

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:26:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: (Orgs)

> I ask everybody to check their org status is correct on appropriate org
> pages:
> http://home.connexus.net.au/~kii/parties.html
> http://home.connexus.net.au/~kii/churches.html
> http://home.connexus.net.au/~kii/miscorgs.html

I thought I joined TMBSG back in March.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 16:21:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: (Orgs)

> I thought I joined TMBSG back in March.
> 
> /dev/joe

IIRC, you applied but they didn't manage to waken themselves up enough for
everyone to approve.

TGW.

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 18:07:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: (Orgs)

On Mon, 11 May 1998, Matt Miller wrote:

> On Mon, 11 May 1998, K2 wrote:
> 
> > This brought the population of Odo up to four (IB,NF,Sla,GF), however,
> > it
> > will require an org action to convert to a church.
> Me suggest!

I would like to lend my support to the suggestion voiced by my learned
colleague.
> 
> > Suggestions on the table for odo:
> > H*bert's admmitance
> > NF approved
> > 
> 
> Me approve!
I also approve this worthy action.

- -- 
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, 11 May 1998 22:50:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3031

On Mon, 11 May 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>> TINCTURES
>> A Coat of Arms may only be use colours which are defined as Tinctures by
>> rule 1160.1, and should abide (if possible) by the Heraldic Rule of Tincture
>> which states that:  Metal may not be placed on Metal nor Color upon Color.
>> A Fur may take the place of either a Color or Metal and is considered to be
>> either Color or Metal depending upon it's predominant Tincture.
>> TINCTURES

> 1) Furs are a seperate third catogory, and none of the *three* can be
>placed on one of the same.
>
> Anyway, your definition leads to problems with potent and vair.... 50/50

Actually, furs *can* take the place of either color or metal, and I have
seen fur on fur (although it would be frowned upon).  At least one of my
sources treats them the way I did above.  In the case of vair and potent
however, I'd say that since it was equal parts metal and color, than
either could be placed on it without violating the rule rather than
neither.  (I'll see if I can find the source for the above -- furs being
treated as either metal or color dependant on their predominant shade)

- --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, 11 May 1998 23:35:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2976 accepted

>     PRESENT:
> Alfvaen              (MetaMorph)

>     BAA!:
> Vynd                 (Vulcan)
> rufus
> Attila the Pun
> Pandora

(Let's see...n=1, p=4, n-p = -3, and I'm Shepherd so p*(n-p) = -12...)

I'd just like to say one thing here.

I didn't understand the rules!  You keep changing the rules!  You never
told me about that rule!

Thank you.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--REM:Automatic For The People
Current Book--Elizabeth Ann Scarborough:The Healer's War
O is for Olive, run through with an awl, P is for Prue, trampled flat in a brawl

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 23:45:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3031

> > 1) Furs are a seperate third catogory, and none of the *three* can be
> >placed on one of the same.

> > Anyway, your definition leads to problems with potent and vair.... 50/50

> Actually, furs *can* take the place of either color or metal, and I have
> seen fur on fur (although it would be frowned upon).  At least one of my
> sources treats them the way I did above.  In the case of vair and potent
> however, I'd say that since it was equal parts metal and color, than
> either could be placed on it without violating the rule rather than
> neither.  (I'll see if I can find the source for the above -- furs being
> treated as either metal or color dependant on their predominant shade)

Actually, I've seen erminois on pean and ermines on ermine(and vice
versa), and it's not too bad, sort of like semy of ermine spots
counterchanged(and I've seen other semys counterchanged, IIRC).

And I always considered Pean and Ermines more like colours because of
their being predominately Sable, and similarly Ermine and Erminois
like metals because of their being predominantly Argent and Or,
respectively.  (I can't imagine an Ermine charge on Argent, for
instance.)

I'd rather see it unregulated and left up to the Herald.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--REM:Automatic For The People
Current Book--Elizabeth Ann Scarborough:The Healer's War
Monsters don't live in dark lakes; they like to see their prey.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #98
**********************************