Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #108
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Thursday, May 21 1998      Volume 03 : Number 108

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 00:21:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Micah Smukler)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3104

>AtP

D'oh!

AtP

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:06:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3104

> If a proposal submitted by the Mu-Cow passes, e shall upon its passage
> submit a CFJ on the statement "The Mu-Cow Hunter has achieved a Winning
> Condition on <date>."  The CFJ shall include no reasoning.
> 
> ZEN
> 
> AtP

Wouldn't it be best if <date> was defined?

TGW.

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:06:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Attempt

IdiotBoy wrote:

> 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.

Hmm, okay then we'll all aim for a happy medium. My problem is that when I
hit reply I get the hulking great four line MS InternetMail header, so to
give attributions I have to get rid of that and write it in myself. So I
usually forget. I will try harder though, really I will. :-)

TGW.

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 15:15:06 -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

Stop right there. Doesn't a king have a material value less than a kamikaze?
So couldn't you easily checkmate anyone with this? And you wouldn't actually
have to make the capture at all, would you? And you're the only one with an
on board kamikaze aren't you? Call me suspicious if you like, but was this
intended, or was this just an unfortunate by product of an otherwise well
meant proposal?

TGW.

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 15:16:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: WITCHHUNTS!

Slakko wrote:

> I went to all this trouble.  If no-one else did, then everyone got burned.
> Ha ha.

You would, wouldn't you Slakko? Curses.

TGW.

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 15:18:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Micah Smukler)
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
>
>Stop right there. Doesn't a king have a material value less than a kamikaze?
>So couldn't you easily checkmate anyone with this? And you wouldn't actually
>have to make the capture at all, would you? And you're the only one with an
>on board kamikaze aren't you? Call me suspicious if you like, but was this
>intended, or was this just an unfortunate by product of an otherwise well
>meant proposal?
>
>TGW.

IIRC the material weight of a king is 0. 0 is not a positive number.

AtP

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 15:39:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3097

On Thu, 21 May 1998, Micah Smukler 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
> >
> >Stop right there. Doesn't a king have a material value less than a kamikaze?
> >So couldn't you easily checkmate anyone with this? And you wouldn't actually
> >have to make the capture at all, would you? And you're the only one with an
> >on board kamikaze aren't you? Call me suspicious if you like, but was this
> >intended, or was this just an unfortunate by product of an otherwise well
> >meant proposal?
> >
> >TGW.
> 
> IIRC the material weight of a king is 0. 0 is not a positive number.

Exactly.  That is why the proposal says "positive".
Thank you Attila.
- -- 
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: Thu, 21 May 1998 15:47:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3097

> Exactly.  That is why the proposal says "positive".
> Thank you Attila.

Oops, my mistake. Sorry about that.

Memo to myself, do the dumb things I gotta do, read proposals before
commenting on them.

TGW.

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:21:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: WITCHHUNTS!

On Thu, 21 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Since there was more than one hearing in progress I believe that every player
> who responded would have had to individually state how they voted on each
> hearing for which you were the harfer, which I somehow doubt they did. So I
> don't think any of you got burned.

I, for one, stated that I was voting BURN THE WITCH! in *all hearings*
H*bert had called.  Including snowgod's Disease, etc.  I think that's more
than enough of an unambiguous identification.  And if not, Slakko voted on
each individually.  So try again.

- -Hubert

Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:43:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3061 accepted

On Thu, 21 May 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Results of Proposal 3061
> 
> 20/26 votes: Quorum achieved
> 19/21 YES votes: Proposal accepted

rufus is still a member of SPAM.  While it does not affect much for this
proposal, it could impact on future proposals.  I would therefore
request that rufus' membership in SPAM be noted for future occasions (it
is recorded on the Organisation pages, at least it was last time I
looked).

So the correct voting results should be 20/22 YES votes, with a SPAM Unity
Vote (Yay!)

>     YES:
> H*bert               (SPAM)
> rufus
> Slakko               (SPAM)

Yours,
Slakko
The SPAM Man
- -- 
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: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:47:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3058 accepted

> This Chess Hearing has, somewhat to my surprise, been called.  Reply
> privately to vote.  Valid responses are "Swingers should be allowed
> to escape check via Placements." and "Like they should."  (which
> should have been "Like <censored> they should." but I forgot about
> nomicbot's problems with HTML-like sequences.)

No, the vote is "Like <censored> they should". Any problems I have
with HTML do not change the fact that an adopted proposal is enacted
in the form in which it was received and distributed. Apologies for
the error, which has since been corrected in the Rules and the
Proposal archive.

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 18:03:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3061 accepted

>> Results of Proposal 3061
>> 
>> 20/26 votes: Quorum achieved
>> 19/21 YES votes: Proposal accepted
> 
> rufus is still a member of SPAM.  While it does not affect much for this
> proposal, it could impact on future proposals.  I would therefore
> request that rufus' membership in SPAM be noted for future occasions (it
> is recorded on the Organisation pages, at least it was last time I
> looked).

*sick look*

According to the archives, I stopped marking rufus as a member of SPAM
starting with Proposal 2959, whose results were published on the 9th.

That means almost a hundred proposals need to be rechecked.

Why the hell did I remove him from the roster? Did something happen
around that time to make me think he had left?

breadbox
praying nothing flip-flops

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 18:22:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3061 accepted

On Thu, 21 May 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> *sick look*
> 
> According to the archives, I stopped marking rufus as a member of SPAM
> starting with Proposal 2959, whose results were published on the 9th.
> 
> That means almost a hundred proposals need to be rechecked.
> 
> Why the hell did I remove him from the roster? Did something happen
> around that time to make me think he had left?
> 

 I /think/ this is the first occasion.  I vote BAA! too often for it to be
too likely, and he was on Vacation for much of this time...

 H*bert.

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 18:25:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3058 accepted

On Thu, 21 May 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> No, the vote is "Like <censored> they should". Any problems I have

I'll accept either.

> with HTML do not change the fact that an adopted proposal is enacted
> in the form in which it was received and distributed. Apologies for
> the error, which has since been corrected in the Rules and the
> Proposal archive.

And my apologies to breadbox.  Next time I'll submit &lt;censored&gt;.

Or just use parentheses like any normal human being would have..

- -Hubert

Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense. 

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 18:55:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3061 accepted

breadbox wrote:
> According to the archives, I stopped marking rufus as a member of SPAM
> starting with Proposal 2959, whose results were published on the 9th.
> 
> That means almost a hundred proposals need to be rechecked.
> 
> Why the hell did I remove him from the roster? Did something happen
> around that time to make me think he had left?

No idea; the only thing I could find that happened to rufus between the
results of the proposal before that, on May 5, and that one on May 9
was that he was found to have snowgod's disease.

I did a quick scan through the proposal results and I think I found a
dozen proposals that SPAM should have had a unity vote on, but that
vote alone wasn't enough to flip-flop any of them.  And that many
unity votes in about a hundred proposals is a record any party should
be proud of; I think Vulcan has had just one in that time.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 19:06:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3058 accepted

> And my apologies to breadbox.  Next time I'll submit &lt;censored&gt;.

Ack, please don't do *that*! I'd have to rewrite that as
"&amp;lt;censored&amp;gt;"!

breadbox

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #108
***********************************