Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #106
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest       Tuesday, May 19 1998       Volume 03 : Number 106

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 01:04:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Cortex Fixup

When I went through the Justice/CFJ/Praetor rules with intent to clean
them up, I found less redundancy than I thought there was.  However, I
think some of these rules would be easier to read with some sub-headers.
At least, this will help to point out the distinctions between similar
rule sections.

Some more could be done, but this is all I could find that really needed
to be done.  Having the Justice eligibility refer to the Praetor rule
instead of vice versa seems backward now, but might still be the easiest
way to write the conditions we now have.

Amend rule 217, "Overturning Judgements", as follows:

1. Before the first paragraph, insert the heading
   "I. Sending CFJs to the Supreme Court".

2. Before the fourth paragraph, insert the heading
   "II. How the Supreme Court judges a CFJ".

3. Before the fifth paragraph, insert the heading
   "III. Effects upon a judgement of an appeal by the Supreme Court".

4. Before the ninth paragraph, insert the heading
   "IV. Appeal limits".

5. Delete the eighth paragraph. 
{{[It read: If a case reached the Supreme Court through submission by the
Praetor, a player may still appeal the Court's decision, but the case
shall be treated as if it had already been appealed once.]}}

6. In the last paragraph, change "e.g., a second appeal verdict" to
"e.g., a second appeal verdict, or a verdict on an appeal of a CFJ
originally submitted to the Supreme Court by the Praetor".

7. Delete the first sentence of the last paragraph, and make a new
paragraph containing that sentence between the second and third
paragraphs.

Amend rule 416, "Supreme Court", as follows:

1. Before the first four paragraphs, insert the following four
double-quote-delimited headings, respectively:
"I. Becoming a Justice"
"II. Justice Eligibility"
"III. Filling in when there are fewer than two Justices"
"IV. Filling in for Vacationing Justices"

2. Then move the last paragraph to the end of section III.

Amend Rule 417, "Justices Rock", by removing the text "Justices Rock" that
appears at the beginning of the body of the rule.

Amend Rule 425, "Praetor", by deleting section II and renumbering each
later section to the roman numeral one less than it is currently
numbered. [This is the one which used to define how to supply Acting
Justices for Vacationing Justices, supplanted by what I am calling
section IV of R416.]

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 04:23:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : P3085

>Proposal 3085 - Mon 18 May 1998 09:56 EDT 
>Something special 
>J. M. Bear (Frank Schmidt) 

>Amend Rule 1230.5 by removing the string ", provided that the orthogonal
>direction taken is only 45 degrees rotated from the diagonal direction
>taken (e.g. you can move up-left then left, but not up-left then right)". 
>[This isn't needed, since the moves excluded are already moves allowed as
>standard or special moves.] 

These ar enot the same thingm because of the requirement that all squares
through which the Rook moves be unoccupied. The rule as it stands allows
up-left, then right, and not up-left then left (contrary to what the
proposal note says, if there is at SQ1 on any orthogonal direction, the
rook is unable to make a special Move through that square. this amendment
would give a lot more power to those Special Moves.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 08:49:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : P3085

Uri Bruck schrieb:

> >Proposal 3085 - Mon 18 May 1998 09:56 EDT
> >Something special
> >J. M. Bear (Frank Schmidt)
>
> >Amend Rule 1230.5 by removing the string ", provided that the orthogonal
> >direction taken is only 45 degrees rotated from the diagonal direction
> >taken (e.g. you can move up-left then left, but not up-left then right)".
> >[This isn't needed, since the moves excluded are already moves allowed as
> >standard or special moves.]
>
> These ar enot the same thingm because of the requirement that all squares
> through which the Rook moves be unoccupied. The rule as it stands allows
> up-left, then right, and not up-left then left (contrary to what the
> proposal note says, if there is at SQ1 on any orthogonal direction, the
> rook is unable to make a special Move through that square. this amendment
> would give a lot more power to those Special Moves.
>
> Niccolo Flychuck

Now you see why I proposed it - the current still could be misunderstood.JMB

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 09:50:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomic coat of arms

> The left side of the shield is black.  The right side is alternating
> wavy stripes of orange and purple.  The other stuff is on top of it,
> all in gold.
>
> Actually, there is some ambiguity in the description.  Firstly, I can't
> remember what the default arrangement of three objects where one is
> considered to be "between" the other two is--whether they're in a
> vertical line, diagonal, horizontal, or what.  Also, there are two forms
> for a life-glider(well, four, really):
>
>                  *
> **     **  ***  **
> * *   **   *    * *
> *       *   *
>
> So which is it?  What is the heraldic definition of a life-glider?  :-)
>

In answer to both the Hearld and the non-Hearld...

Ah... Baytan.

K 2

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 09:50:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stock Stuff & Related Transactions

Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > > Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Absolutely Brimming over with wrongability! :)
>
> > [Red Dwarf, Confidence and Paranoia, Rimmer].
>
> > Never quote anything from Red Dwarf if you don't expect me to lit-cite it. I
> > must admit, I did have to think about the episode for a few seconds with this
> > one though.
>
> Okay, well how about
>
> "I'd go with Betty, but I'd be thinkin' of Wilma."  One of my favourite
> lines from the series...:-)

[Red Dwarf, Backwards, Cat]Do I win?

K 2

> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
> Song In My Head--The Cat:Tongue Tied
> Current Book--Michael Coney:Cat Karina
> The sum is smaller than each of the parts.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 10:08:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomic coat of arms

On Tue, 19 May 1998, K2 wrote:
>In answer to both the Hearld and the non-Hearld...
>
>Ah... Baytan.

*confused* look.  I don't get the joke.

- --JT, (who doesn't got most jokes at 7:00 AM)

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

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:03:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stock Stuff & Related Transactions

> > > > Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Absolutely Brimming over with wrongability! :)
> >
> > > [Red Dwarf, Confidence and Paranoia, Rimmer].
> >
> > > Never quote anything from Red Dwarf if you don't expect me to lit-cite
it. I
> > > must admit, I did have to think about the episode for a few seconds
with this
> > > one though.
> >
> > Okay, well how about
> >
> > "I'd go with Betty, but I'd be thinkin' of Wilma."  One of my favourite
> > lines from the series...:-)
> 
> [Red Dwarf, Backwards, Cat]Do I win?

What are we talking about? She'd never leave Fred and we know it!

TGW, ashamed to say that e couldn't remember the episode.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 14:05:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : P3085

On Tue, 19 May 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> >Proposal 3085 - Mon 18 May 1998 09:56 EDT 
> >Something special 
> >J. M. Bear (Frank Schmidt) 
> 
> >Amend Rule 1230.5 by removing the string ", provided that the orthogonal
> >direction taken is only 45 degrees rotated from the diagonal direction
> >taken (e.g. you can move up-left then left, but not up-left then right)". 
> >[This isn't needed, since the moves excluded are already moves allowed as
> >standard or special moves.] 
> 
> These ar enot the same thingm because of the requirement that all squares
> through which the Rook moves be unoccupied. The rule as it stands allows
> up-left, then right, and not up-left then left (contrary to what the
> proposal note says, if there is at SQ1 on any orthogonal direction, the
> rook is unable to make a special Move through that square. this amendment
> would give a lot more power to those Special Moves.

Hang on Uri.  The rule is that the directions have to be 45 degrees apart.

Up left
 _
|\
  \
   \

Right  ------>

That's an angle of 135 degrees, not 45 degrees.
It allows up-left followed by left or up, but not by right or down.
That's why I wrote it the way I did.

i.e. if the piece is facing in the direction it moves, then it only needs
to rotate by 45 degrees in the middle of its move.  You've got it confused
with the angle made between the two lines, which is actually 180 - the
angle between the _directions_.  The directions are vectors, not just the
lines the pieces make on the board.

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: Tue, 19 May 1998 15:32:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Attempt

> On Mon, 18 May 1998, JT wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 May 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
> > >On Mon, 18 May 1998, JT wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 18 May 1998, John Bollinger wrote:
> > >> >JT wrote:
> > >> >>On Mon, 18 May 1998, K2 wrote:
> > >> >>>Jonathan David Amery wrote:

I don't want to be critical folks (okay then, I do :-) but is all this really
necessary? And were the seven layers of quoted text really necessary either?
Please try not to do this again. Thank you.

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 18:29:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Attempt

On Tue, 19 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > On Mon, 18 May 1998, JT wrote:
> > > On Mon, 18 May 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
> > > >On Mon, 18 May 1998, JT wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 18 May 1998, John Bollinger wrote:
> > > >> >JT wrote:
> > > >> >>On Mon, 18 May 1998, K2 wrote:
> > > >> >>>Jonathan David Amery wrote:
> 
> I don't want to be critical folks (okay then, I do :-) but is all this really
> necessary? And were the seven layers of quoted text really necessary either?
> Please try not to do this again. Thank you.
> 
> TGW.
I was refering to the text at the top level, so I guess so....

 H*bert.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 20:38:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3035 rejected

On Tue, 19 May 1998, nomicbot wrote:

>Results of Proposal 3035
>
>19/27 votes: Quorum achieved
>7/14 YES votes: Proposal rejected
>
>    NO:
>breadbox
>IdiotBoy
>Vynd                 (Vulcan)
>Alfvaen              (MetaMorph)
>rufus
>Hubert               (Boomerangs)
>Slakko               (SPAM)
>
>> Proposal 3035 - Tue 12 May 1998 18:41 EDT
>> Heraldic Tinctures
>> JT (JT Traub)

I'm curious as to what the objectors of this objected to?

- --JT

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

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 22:00:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3078

> I'm against this.  I don't think that the Registrar should have any
> control over what people's names are.  The purpose of the office is to
> track players and their states, not police the game state.  If we are
> going to give the Registrar powers like this, why not give the Promoter
> the power to reject proposal he feels are only intended as a scam?

I promise to only use my powers for good, not for evil.  (And yes, I know
that's not binding on possible future holders of the Office of Registrar...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Bob Geldof:The Vegetarians of Love
Current Book--Michael Coney:Cat Karina
"CAUTION: Knife is very sharp. Keep out of children"

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 23:28:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3037 rejected

On Tue, 19 May 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Results of Proposal 3037
> 
> 19/27 votes: Quorum achieved
> 10/20 YES votes: Proposal rejected
> 
> 
> > Proposal 3037 - Tue 12 May 1998 18:43 EDT
> > Medium Rare
> > K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
> > 
> > This is a Modest Proposal.
> > 
> > Create a rule numbered 920, titled "Outcast, and Rightly So!", with the
> > text:
> > 
> > When a streak of nine proposals is followed by a rejected proposal all hell
> > will break lose, the sky shall rain fire, and earth shall be rent with
> > gigantic chasms.

Ohhhh.. Too bad!  Can anyone think of a good excuse to get "and the earth
shall be rent with gigantic chasms" into the rules somehow?

                                 - Vynd, loves that one

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 23:29:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3035 rejected

> >> Proposal 3035 - Tue 12 May 1998 18:41 EDT
> >> Heraldic Tinctures
> >> JT (JT Traub)

> I'm curious as to what the objectors of this objected to?

Firstly, I didn't want to see Automatic Sculptures ending up described
"It is counter-potent."  My "Colours" and "Heraldry" proposals were
always intended to be totally different.

Secondly, I didn't really want to see Heraldry codified in the Rules.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Spice Girls:Spiceworld
Current Book--Michael Coney:Cat Karina
O my love, you are worth your weight in subway tokens.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 23:40:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3037 rejected

> > > When a streak of nine proposals is followed by a rejected proposal all hell
> > > will break lose, the sky shall rain fire, and earth shall be rent with
> > > gigantic chasms.

> Ohhhh.. Too bad!  Can anyone think of a good excuse to get "and the earth
> shall be rent with gigantic chasms" into the rules somehow?

What, you want to bring back Rental?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Spice Girls:Spiceworld
Current Book--Michael Coney:Cat Karina
Linda Lovelace and Jim Henson in: I'VE GOT A FROG IN MY THROAT.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #106
***********************************