Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #109
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest       Friday, May 22 1998       Volume 03 : Number 109

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:04:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Important actions

> > I suggest that the Order of Razor Boomerangs accept the spellbook from
> > Ayla.    (Hubert, you still need to approve this)
>
> I approve of this...
>
> -- JJ
>

Since Hubert is the found only e needs to approve. Odo was a special case
'cause it was a cult...

K 2

> That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
>
>      Joel Ricker [] [email-masked] [] ICQ# 6244364
>        http://www.Geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arena/1047/
>          Home of Eleusis Nomic -- Join Today!

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:04:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Infrequent Ackan Volume 1 Issue 23

> H*bert Makes His Mark
>
> The Witchfinder General business is, as always, hotting up! This week
> H*bert showed eir prowess as a Witchfinder by simultaneously having 7
> players burnt at the stake. In a surprising move, a large number of these
> were members of the Church H*bert is a member of, the Church to the Evil
> Ballot Stuffer. One can only wonder what kind of rigid Church Dogma can
> demand such effective purification by fire.

Could it be due to a certain Org Power Amendment? ;)

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:04:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: WITCHHUNTS!

> 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.
>
> TGW, Count Tabula.

I did :)

>I can't be bother typing this out repeatedly, suffice to say I vote "No! E said
>the earth is flat" all all hearing called by you for which it is legal to vote
>in that way.
>
>
>K 2

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:04:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Distributing some forehead and ...

Brian Raiter wrote:

> > Seven is violet pink murrey and grief.
> > Eight is described: "gum flavoured and tasty"
> > Next Nine is a score, that’s woefully brief
> > Ten’s greatly like a bloody big pasty
>
> With some trepidation I accept K 2's forehead no. 10.
>
> Also, I would like to point out that ABAB stanzas probably don't
> qualify as "rhymed couplets". Thus that post would have cost K 2 A$79,
> except that it was sent a couple of hours after his day of being Hosed
> had ended.
>
> breadbox

Yes well firstly I couldn't figure out the Byzantine poetry restrictions
;) attempted to write a sonnet :) - too many lines :/ and secondly for
some reason that message took 10 minutes to reach muppetlabs instead of
the usual 4...

K 2
Maybe next time

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:04:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: K 2 being Evil

JT wrote:

> On Thu, 21 May 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:
> >It did occur: I forced the OotRB to accept the offer soon after Ayla made
> >it.  I now suggest the Order of the Razor Boomerang give its Spell Book of
> >Chorg to JT, who was, I believe, next in line.  The offer happens, e now
> >must accept.
>
> I accept the spell book.  I then read the next page of it (page 3 I
> blieve). The page disappears in a puff of smoke, vert.
> I then offer the spell book to Ayla.
>

This didn't work, that book was read by Joe Java on 14 May 1998 21:50:21 your
attempt occoured at 21 May 1998 17:55:30

K 2the offer still stands tho :)

> >Since all Priests of the Church are now Enlightened, I suggest that the
> >Order of the Razor Boomerang begin construction of a The Really Big Blue
> >Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really, because I can't think of anything
> >else.  This does not happen automatically, but pends the other players'
> >approval.
>
> I will approve this suggestion, but think there's GOT to be something
> better we could be creating.
>
> --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: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:43:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: K 2 being Evil

On Fri, 22 May 1998, K2 wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 May 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:
>> >It did occur: I forced the OotRB to accept the offer soon after Ayla made
>> >it.  I now suggest the Order of the Razor Boomerang give its Spell Book of
>> >Chorg to JT, who was, I believe, next in line.  The offer happens, e now
>> >must accept.
>>
>> I accept the spell book.  I then read the next page of it (page 3 I
>> blieve). The page disappears in a puff of smoke, vert.
>> I then offer the spell book to Ayla.
>>
>This didn't work, that book was read by Joe Java on 14 May 1998 21:50:21 your
>attempt occoured at 21 May 1998 17:55:30

Drat.. damned timing.

I retract the offer since Ayla hasn't acked it yet.
I now read the next page (page 3 of the book).
The page disappears in a puff of smoke vert.
Now, I reoffer the book to Ayla.

>K 2the offer still stands tho :)
(well now it does again :-))

- --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: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:46:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3115

> If the Head of a Rule Suite is repealed, all rules in that Rule Suite are
> also repealed.

I would prefer if this wasn't in. As it stands it is always possible for the
head of a ruleset to get repealed accidentally, and we wouldn't want to lose
the entire game of party chess in one go for example. If someone wants to
repeal one then they will probably also specify deleting all members of the
rule suite.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:59:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3115

On Fri, 22 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:
>> If the Head of a Rule Suite is repealed, all rules in that Rule Suite are
>> also repealed.
>
>I would prefer if this wasn't in. As it stands it is always possible for the
>head of a ruleset to get repealed accidentally, and we wouldn't want to lose
>the entire game of party chess in one go for example. If someone wants to
>repeal one then they will probably also specify deleting all members of the
>rule suite.

It would seem that this sort of accident wouldn't be really likely to
happen, unless you are saying that a substantial majority of Ackanomic
players don't read the proposals?  Now granted, people have missed things
before, but an accident of that magnitude? And if it did occur, it could
surely be reinstantiated if needed.  The point of rule suites is a way of
organizing sub-rules.  Those sub rules make no sense without their
'master' rule, an in the case where the head of a rule suite got repealed
but the sub rules didn't, I could see a possible scam in ome of the cases
where the master rule defers precedence for the entire suite, but without
that rule they might attain precedence.  Thaat is the reason behind the
proposal.
- --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: Fri, 22 May 1998 13:06:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 3116

I would prefer not to see this added to the rules.  Maintaining a score of
0 in a game of fictionary is trivial.   I always submit a definition of ""
(note, this is identical to the default action, but I actually submitted
so I don't lose points), I then vote for osme obviously fake definition
(ie my own), and when it's my turn for the ing word, I propose something
like 'ing'.  Now, this might be an attempt at the MU-Cow, but if not,
please retract it.

Addendum to the above, should it be the case that "" and ing would
actually lose me points, well, there are a multitude of other incorrect
definitions and easily guessible words..

- --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: Fri, 22 May 1998 14:43:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: ITA

On Wed, 20 May 1998, Towsner wrote:

> RFC on Internomic Trade Association compliance:

Fine except for one minor quibble.
> 
> 	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.

This would stop things being in the Treasury - currently the
default location of unowned items is the Treasury, not Somewhere Else.
Things are only Somewhere Else when the rules have explicitly put them
there.

Other than that, fine.

- -- 
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: Fri, 22 May 1998 15:37:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3116

> I would prefer not to see this added to the rules.  Maintaining a score of
> 0 in a game of fictionary is trivial.   I always submit a definition of ""
> (note, this is identical to the default action, but I actually submitted
> so I don't lose points), I then vote for osme obviously fake definition
> (ie my own), and when it's my turn for the ing word, I propose something
> like 'ing'.  Now, this might be an attempt at the MU-Cow, but if not,
> please retract it.

I couldn't disagree more strongly (oops there I go again, I should have
learned by now that hyperbole is the worst possible thing anyone can do -
d'oh!).
If you were to vote for a definition " " then I think people might realise
you were going for 0 and vote for your ridiculous definitions which would
score you a point. The trick is to come up with definitions that are
believable enough to look like serious entries but not believable enough for
anyone to vote for. Next time we're in IRC we could do a brief playtest of
this and if there are about 5 people or so then I bet you can't get 0.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 15:54:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3116

On Fri, 22 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:
>I couldn't disagree more strongly (oops there I go again, I should have
>learned by now that hyperbole is the worst possible thing anyone can do -
>d'oh!).
>If you were to vote for a definition " " then I think people might realise
>you were going for 0 and vote for your ridiculous definitions which would
>score you a point. The trick is to come up with definitions that are
>believable enough to look like serious entries but not believable enough for
>anyone to vote for. Next time we're in IRC we could do a brief playtest of
>this and if there are about 5 people or so then I bet you can't get 0.

I'd be willing to playtest it if we could get enough people together for a
quick game, sure. (maybe sometime this weekend?)  The problem with this
declared playtest is how does someone try for 0 when everyone knows that
they are.  Perhaps there could be one 'disinterested' party who would pick
one player at the beginning (privately) and tell them to try for 0, so
that only the observer and the player knew?

I think it would be easier than you think, but am willing to be proven
wrong.  I'd still prefer if this were retracted until we could try this
playtest out.

- --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: Fri, 22 May 1998 18:09:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3111

On Thu, 21 May 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 3111
> Games on IRC
> saaremaa (Randy Hall)
> 
> {{[At this point I would add specific servers to section VI of rule
> 1250.3, and amend a few games to be playable on IRC.  These are separate
> issues, however, and should be accepted separately, since I would not
> propose adding someone else's IRC server to the rules, or risk the 
> proposal failing because people don't want spades to be played on IRC.
> 
> If you have an IRC server, adding it to section VI as a G&C submission
> with a little {{magic}} (as opposed to the default of adding it with
> a new roman numeral section) should not be too hard, if you want]}}

This last bit leaves an orphan after the removal of some text:

(as opposed to the default of adding it with
a new roman numeral section) should not be too hard, if you want]}}

Or does it?  This requires some interesting rule interpretation, as there
is nothing in the rules about whether or not these things nest these days.

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: Fri, 22 May 1998 18:58:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3111

Slakko wrote: 
 
> > If you have an IRC server, adding it to section VI as a G&C submission
> > with a little {{magic}} (as opposed to the default of adding it with
> > a new roman numeral section) should not be too hard, if you want]}}
> 
> This last bit leaves an orphan after the removal of some text:
> 
> (as opposed to the default of adding it with
> a new roman numeral section) should not be too hard, if you want]}}
> 
> Or does it?  This requires some interesting rule interpretation, as there
> is nothing in the rules about whether or not these things nest these days.

I don't think it does. The close double braces is in notes brackets and so
has no semantic meaning and don't serve as an end delimiter. That's my
interpretation of it anyway.

TGW.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #109
***********************************