Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #107
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Wednesday, May 20 1998      Volume 03 : Number 107

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 04:07:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : P3085

On Tue, 19 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 
> 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.

I see.
> 
> 
> 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
                          ^^^^^^^^
Ah, this explains this, I'm an applied math man.

> Acka - President, Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 07:54:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3037 rejected

On Tue, 19 May 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> > > 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?

An amendment to the Cubical Earth Implementation Society rule?  Those
Pulse Lasers can be pretty devastating.

Yours,
Slakko
rotfling
- -- 
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: Wed, 20 May 1998 13:47:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3097

> Amend Rule 1230.16 by appending the following CRASH-delimited text:
> 
> CRASH
> 5. The Kamikaze has a Special Move, which consists of moving to any square
> on the board currently occupied by a piece of positive Material weight
> lower than that of the Kamikaze, moving over unoccupied squares in the
> path.  The Kamikaze is destroyed after this Special Move has occurred.
> CRASH

Wouldn't this allow the kamikaze to move onto a friendly piece? If so then
what in banna's name would happen then?

TGW.

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 13:47:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Attempt

> > 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.
> > 
> I was refering to the text at the top level, so I guess so....

Were you really? Would the meaning of your message have suffered at all if
you had only quoted one or two levels? By that stage I'm sure that we were
all aware of what had gone on previously in that thread so I would say that
the masses of quoted text were unnecessary. Maybe that's just me but I doubt
it.

TGW.

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 13:47:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
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...)

I'd prefer to think that we would never get anyone who would be willing to
use this for their own gain in the position of Registrar. And if we do then
we could always impeach them and no harm will be done.

TGW.

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 13:50:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Attempt

On Wed, 20 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Were you really? Would the meaning of your message have suffered at all if
> you had only quoted one or two levels? By that stage I'm sure that we were
> all aware of what had gone on previously in that thread so I would say that
> the masses of quoted text were unnecessary. Maybe that's just me but I doubt
> it.
> 
 Ah, but aren't there rules about creating trinkets and such like for
which I was using said details?

 H*bert.

 Point accpeted, in the general case however.

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 14:47:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3097

On Wed, 20 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > Amend Rule 1230.16 by appending the following CRASH-delimited text:
> > 
> > CRASH
> > 5. The Kamikaze has a Special Move, which consists of moving to any square
> > on the board currently occupied by a piece of positive Material weight
> > lower than that of the Kamikaze, moving over unoccupied squares in the
> > path.  The Kamikaze is destroyed after this Special Move has occurred.
> > CRASH
> 
> Wouldn't this allow the kamikaze to move onto a friendly piece? If so then
> what in banna's name would happen then?

As far as I can tell, the Kamikaze would just destroy itself, and so the
effect of the move would be to simply destroy the Kamikaze.  Nothing
dictates what happens to the friendly piece on that square as far as I can
tell, so nothing happens.

If you want to destroy your own Kamikaze, go ahead, fine by me :-)
- -- 
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: Wed, 20 May 1998 15:50:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Micah Smukler)
Subject: Acka: semi-RFC: Quantizing Time

How would people feel about adding language similar to the
following to the rules somewhere?

"
The second is the smallest unit of Acka time.  Any two
events which happened within the same second are considered
for all game purposes to have occurred simultaneously.  No
clause in the rules may execute more than once every second;
this sentence takes precedence over all rules.
"

In addition, we would want to replace "an infinitesimal
amount of time" with "1 second" wherever it appeared.

AtP

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 17:14:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Attempt

> > Were you really? Would the meaning of your message have suffered at all
if
> > you had only quoted one or two levels? By that stage I'm sure that we
were
> > all aware of what had gone on previously in that thread so I would say
that
> > the masses of quoted text were unnecessary. Maybe that's just me but I
doubt
> > it.
> > 
>  Ah, but aren't there rules about creating trinkets and such like for
> which I was using said details?

Ah, I see where you're coming from. I think that in this case though you're
actual message had no effect, merely serving to explain what you're intent
was.

>  Point accpeted, in the general case however.

So we agree?!?! Yippee!!

TGW.

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 17:14:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: semi-RFC: Quantizing Time

> How would people feel about adding language similar to the
> following to the rules somewhere?
> 
> "
> The second is the smallest unit of Acka time.  Any two
> events which happened within the same second are considered
> for all game purposes to have occurred simultaneously.  No
> clause in the rules may execute more than once every second;
> this sentence takes precedence over all rules.
> "
> 
> In addition, we would want to replace "an infinitesimal
> amount of time" with "1 second" wherever it appeared.

I don't like it. It seems too artificial to me. It also seems like the sort
of things that could lead to scamming to me. Don't ask why, I just think it
would.

TGW.

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:18:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: ITA

RFC on Internomic Trade Association compliance:

Amend rule 500.2 to read "
Named entities may own other ownable entities, or even own themselves.
(Nameless entities may not.)

Each entity is either unownable, nontradeable, or tradeable.  Tradeable
entities are either giftable or ackable, and are either protected or
exportable.  Tradeable entities are ackable and protected unless the Rules
specify otherwise.  An entity is nontradeable unless the Rules specify
otherwise. If an entity is nontradeable or tradeable then it is ownable.

	At any given time, each ownable entity is either owned by one or
more named entities, Somewhere Else (unowned), or exported. If the Rule(s)
defining an ownable entity do not explicitly state that it may have
multiple owners, then it can have at most one owner. Exportable entities
may never have more than one owner; this sentance takes precedence over any
rule claiming otherwise.

	When an ownable entity is created, it is unowned, unless the Rules
specify an initial owner for it. Entities may be transferred from one owner
to another only through methods specified by the Rules.
"

Amend Rule 501 to read as follows: "
	An Import is a tradeable, exportable entity.  Imports may only be
created or destroyed as specified in the rules.  All Imports have a noo
(nomic of origin), which is appended to the end of its name between curly
braces ('{','}').  If a rule would destroy an Import then it is instead
transfered to the Customs Office and offered to its noo; this sentence
takes precedence over any rule which would destroy an Import.

	The Customs Office is a branch of the Treasury, and a named,
unownable entity.

	The Customs Officer is an optional functional office, and is
Ackanomic's Customs Officer to the ITA if Ackanomic is a member of the ITA.
It is a duty of the Customs Officer to apply for ITA membership if Acka is
not a member of the ITA.  It is a duty of the Customs Officer to keep an
ITA-compliant log of all ITA trades involving Acka and an entity for which
Acka is the noo.  If the Customs Officer of another nomic makes an offer to
Ackanomic then it is the duty of the Customs Officer to determine which of
the following cases applies (higher ones take precedence), and inform the
ITA of Acka's decision to accept or refuse the offer:
	1) If a recipient is specified, but the recipient is not a named
entity which can legally own imports then the offer must be refused.
	2) If a recipient is specified and another rule specifies when that
entity accepts and refuses trades then that rule takes precedence.
	3) If a recipient is not specified and the offer is not conditional
then the offer is accepted and The Treasury becomes the Ackan-anchor.  The
CO must then publicly announce that this has happened.
	4) If a recipient is not specified and the offer is conditional
then the Customs Officer should publicly announce the offer.  If any player
or organization publicly accepts the offer, can legally accept trades, can
legally own Imports, and owns the conditional portion of the trade then
Acka accepts the offer.  The accepting entity becomes the Ackan-anchor. The
CO must then publicly announce that this has happened.
	5) If a recipient is specified then the CO should publicly announce
the offer.  If the recipient accepts the offer and has any objects the
offer is conditional upon then so does Acka, if the recipient refuses the
offer then so does Acka.  If the offer is accepted then the recipient
becomes the Ackan-anchor. The CO must then publicly announce that this has
happened.

	When Acka is involved in an accepted ITA trade offer, an Import is
created for each object which Acka recieves and for which Acka is not the
noo, and the newly created Imports are transfered to the Ackan-anchor.  All
entities Acka recieves for which Acka is the noo cease to be exported and
become owned by the Ackan-anchor.  All entities sent out of Acka by the
trade become exported, unless they are Imports, in which case they are
destroyed.

	If an Ackan wishes to trade with another nomic, they must publicly
post the trade they wish to make, including the destination.  If e owns
everything offered in the trade then it is a duty of the CO to make a trade
offer on behalf of Acka offering the entities and with whatever conditional
entities are required by the trade.  It is a duty of the CO to publicly
announce when the trade is accepted or refused.
"

Add the following to the end of "The Stock Market":"
	The Stock Market may be the target of an ITA trade.  The Stock
Market will refuse all ITA trades unless they involve Acka receiving a
number of A$ equal to a multiple of the stock market value at that time,
rounded up (after multiplying) plus 5% and involve Acka sending the
multiple number of shares, or involve Acka receiving a number of shares and
Acka sending that number of shares times the value of the stock market,
rounded down (after multiplying), minus 5%, in which case it will be
accepted.
"

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 19:41:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Attempt

On Wed, 20 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Ah, I see where you're coming from. I think that in this case though you're
> actual message had no effect, merely serving to explain what you're intent
> was.
> 
> >  Point accpeted, in the general case however.
> 
> So we agree?!?! Yippee!!
> 
> TGW.
> 

I'd just like to disgree for a moment.  Please leave some attribution
lines.  I have no idea who this was in response to, for example.

IB   

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 20:19:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: semi-RFC: Quantizing Time

On Wed, 20 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > How would people feel about adding language similar to the
> > following to the rules somewhere?
> > 
> > "
> > The second is the smallest unit of Acka time.  Any two
> > events which happened within the same second are considered
> > for all game purposes to have occurred simultaneously.  No
> > clause in the rules may execute more than once every second;
> > this sentence takes precedence over all rules.
> > "
> > 
> > In addition, we would want to replace "an infinitesimal
> > amount of time" with "1 second" wherever it appeared.
> 
> I don't like it. It seems too artificial to me. It also seems like the sort
> of things that could lead to scamming to me. Don't ask why, I just think it
> would.
> 
> TGW.
> 

I pretty much agree with TGW.  I don't think we need it.  And for some
reason it just feels like scambait to me.

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 20:21:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: semi-RFC: Quantizing Time

>> > How would people feel about adding language similar to the
>> > following to the rules somewhere?
>> >
>> > "
>> > The second is the smallest unit of Acka time.  Any two
>> > events which happened within the same second are considered
>> > for all game purposes to have occurred simultaneously.  No
>> > clause in the rules may execute more than once every second;
>> > this sentence takes precedence over all rules.
>> > "
>> >
>> > In addition, we would want to replace "an infinitesimal
>> > amount of time" with "1 second" wherever it appeared.

	At the risk of beating a dead horse, I don't like it either.  It's
interesting, but I'm not sure it's useful, and it does seem risky.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #107
***********************************