Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #119
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Wednesday, June 3 1998      Volume 03 : Number 119

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:20:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3184

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > Proposal 3184
> > How about this instead
> > Vynd (John McCoy)
> 
> > {{I think it is about time we fixed the whole business about self-deleting
> > text in the self-deleting text rule not self-deleting.  Hehe.  This
> > exception has already led to a couple of paradox wins and now this whole
> > infinite points deal.  So lets just make self-deleting text apply even to
> > Rule 340, and put the example of it inside a note.}}
> 
> Anyone find it ironic that the above text is _not_ in a note?  Let's hope
> there's nothing in it that can be construed as a one-time effect...:-)
> 

Heh, well I find it more embarassing than ironic.  Does anyone think this
would cause a problem, or is it OK?  Do I need to retract it, in other
words?  It looks to me like it won't do anything, so I'd prefer to just
let it go.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

> 
> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
> Current Album--Five Guys Named Moe
> Current Book--Mary Stewart:The Moon-Spinners
> When the moon is in a sloppy house, and Jupiter spills beer on Mars...
> 

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 01:28:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Where were we (RFC)

About 5 months ago now I submitted an RFC that was intended to give Acka a
geography and regularize the rules on land.  Unfortunately, I ended up
getting too busy to keep up with even the simplest Acka activity over the
ensuing moths, and I never got around to reworking and proposing my RFC.
In the last few weeks I've been toying with it again though, and now I
want to share what I have so far with you folks.  The main difference
between this and my original RFC is the creation of regions, and the
development of a coordinate system for Kaas.  Things I am still working on
include:  How to handle the change from what we have now into this new
system.  Overhauling the Map-harfer office, including giving it the power
to rearrange the positions of land if necessary.

RFC: Geography

Renumber Rule 835 Locations to 810.
Renumber Rule 836 Down the River to 812.

Create a new Rule 801, entitled Geography, with the following MCNALLY
delimited text.

MCNALLY

The geography of Ackanomic is, for the most part, a mystery to its
inhabitants.  Few maps have survived from the time of the Ancients.
Frequent earthquakes and the treacherous Wilds of Ackanomic make
exploration and cartography difficult.  What little is known is described
in this and other Rules.

Ackanomic consists of many regions.  A region is a collection of locations
which are close to each other in Ackanomic.  No single location can be
found in more than one region.  Locations are all assumed to be in the
City, unless specified otherwise.  If it is clear from context that a
location is not in the City, but its exact region is unclear, then it is
in The Outer Territories.

The center of Ackanomic is The Lonely Mountain, which is a location that
owns itself.  The Lonely Mountain can be found on a Kaa of land in the
City, which it also owns.  No player may visit, own, or otherwise alter
The Lonely Mountain and its Kaa unless explictly permited to by the Rules.

The City is a region of Ackanomic located the area surrounding The Lonely
Mountain. It is where all  Kaas of Land and all Buildings are located,
unless otherwise specified by the Rules.

The Wilds of Ackanomic (wilds) are a region which surrounds the City.

Beyond the Wilds of Ackanomic is the region known only as the Outer
Territories.

{{[The basic purpose of this rule would be to establish the locations of
Locations.  I think the three regions I've introduced cover everything we
know about Acka thus far, except perhaps Moons and space, which I'd rather
leave alone simply because this is probably too big of a proposal
already.  For similiar reasons, I've left the definitions of the regions
vague and thus avoided having to rewrite another half dozen rules.]}}

MCNALLY

Create a new Rule 820, entitled Land, with the following
BLAH delimited text.

BLAH
Kaas of Land are tradeable entities.  A Kaa of Land is one Kaa in size.
Kaas of Land are all seperate Locations, located in the City.  Kaas of
Land are Common Locations unless specified otherwise.  Unowned Kaas of
Land are also known as common land.

Kaas of Land have positions relative to each other.  They are sqaure
in shape, and arranged in a grid pattern.  Thus every Kaa is bordered
on all 4 sides by another Kaa of land, or by another Location
specified by the Rules.

Since ancient times, the peoples of Acka have used The Lonely Mountain, at
the center of Ackanomic, as their reference for describing the positions
of Kaas.  Each Kaa can be refered to through the use of a coordinate
system with The Lonely Mountain at the center.  The coordinates of a Kaa
of land are how many kaas to the North, or South, the Kaa is from The
Lonely Mountain, prefaced by an N if it is North or an S if it is South.
This is followed by a second number, the number of kaas to the East or
West the Kaa is from The Lonely Mountain, prefaced by an E for East or W
for West.  Thus a Kaa which is 4 kaas North and 3 kaas West of The Lonely
Mountain has the coordinates of (N4 W3).  If a kaa is directly East or
West of The Lonely Mountain, then the first number of its coordinates is a
zero, prefaced by an N.  If a Kaa of Land is directly North or South of
The Lonely Mountain, then the second number of its coordiantes is zero,
prefaced by a W.  The Lonely Mountain's coordinates are always (N0 W0).

{{[I'm not especially fond of this part.  On the good side, this is the
first time land has ever been defined in one rule.  And it gives us a
coordinate system and position as well.  But I'd sure like to figure out a
clearer way of describing said system]}}

BLAH

Create a new Rule numbered 821, with the title Real Estate, with the
following $$$ delimited text.

$$$
A player may purchase an empty, unowned Kaa of Land for A$50.  He must 
specify the position of this Kaa, this position must be no more than three
kaas away from an owned Kaa.

A player may purchase an unowned Kaa of land with a building on it only if
that building is not mentioned in the Rules.  The cost of this land is
A$50 plus half the cost of the building (including the cost of any towers)
on that land. If purchasing a Kaa of land would cause the building on it
to be destroyed, then the player must instead pay A$50 plus the cost of
the destruction of the building to purchase the Kaa.
$$$

{{[This essentially replaces the Land Baroncy rule.  It eliminates Senate
approval of purchases, something I never saw any reason for.  It does
include a number of restrictions, most importantly one preventing people
from buying things like the Senate or the Hall of Elders.]}}

Amend Rule 839 Buildings by applying the following ARGH delimited changes.

ARGH
Renumber the Rule to 825.

Replace "A building is a class of entity in Ackanomic which can be of six
sizes:" with "Buildings are a class of entities, they are also locations.
When created, each building requires a number of Kaas which are not
occupied by another building (empty), and are contiguous, on which the
building is placed.  The number of Kaas depends on the size of the
building.  There are 6 possible sizes for buildings, listed below along
with the number of Kaas of space they take up:"

Insert a new paragraph between the paragraph ending with "extravagant (12
land units)" and the one begining with "A player may own" that reads:
Buildings are attached to the Kaas on which they have been built.  The
cannot be removed from them or otherwise altered except as specified in
the rules.

Delete the last sentence from the paragraph begining with: The Senate

{{[now part of a new rule]}}

Add the following text to the end of paragraph begining with "A player may
change the name":  A player may post a description of a building he owns
at any time.  This then becomes the description of that building, provided
that the description is in accordance with the Rules.  Giving a
description of a building which is not in accordance with the Rules is the
Crime of Acting Like a Realtor.

{{[This doesn't really change anything significant, but it does
consolidate to some extent the Rules on buildings.  The next set of
changes sets up a Rule dealing with building purchases.  I think the
prices should probably be changed, but I'll leave that for another
time.]}}

ARGH

Renumber Rule 846 Constructions and Architectual Aesthetic to 826, and
make the following GRANDE delimited changes to its text.

GRANDE
Delete the last three paragraphs and replace them with the following text:

When purchasing a new building, a player must unambiguously specify a Kaa
or Kaas of land on which the building will be placed.  He must also
specify the size of the building and pay the construction cost for a
building of said size.  Construction of a building is only successful if
the player purchasing the building specifies sufficient contiguous, empty
land, owned by himself, for the new building to fit. If he does not,
construction fails, and his A$ is returned.  If it succeeds, the building
is created in the specified location, owned by the purchasing player.

If a building is destroyed, it and any towers attached to it no longer
exist. If a building is damaged, it can be repaired by paying the
rebuilding cost.  For the cost of an upgrade, a player may increase the
size of a building he owns to the next largest size, provided that he owns
a sufficient number of empty Kaas of land that are contiguous to the
current location of the building. Extravagant buildings cannot be
upgraded.  No player may destroy, rebuild, or upgrade a building he does
not own.

GRANDE

Amend Rule 841 Towers by replacing the string "An Ostentatious Tower is a
tower that a player adds to a building they own" in section 1) with: An
Ostentatious Tower is a tower that a player adds to a building they own,
or builds as a stand-alone tower not attached to any building

Amend Rule 841 Towers by deleting the last sentence of section 3) and
replacing it with the following REALTALL delimited text:

REALTALL
Towers that are added to buildings are considered to be attached to those
buildings.  A tower may only be attached to one building.  Towers are
always owned by the owner of the land on which they are built, or the
owner of the building to which they are attached.  Towers cannot be
removed from buildings to which they are attached, or be attached to a
building after they have been built as a stand-alone.  Towers cannot be
attached to other towers.
REALTALL

Amend Rule 841 by adding the following PARROT delimited text to the end
of section 6):

PARROT
A stand-alone tower's size is small if it is less than 70 meters in
height, cosy if it is 140 to 559 meters in height, classy if it is 560 or
more meters in height.  Regardless of their size, stand-alone towers
require only 1 Kaa of land.  Towers attached to buildings do not effect
the size of the building in any way.
PARROT

{{[these two changes give towers a little more "connected-ness" with
buildings, and better defines free-standing towers.]}}

Repeal Rule 844 Land Baroncy {{[My original goal.]}}

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 10:00:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3183

I retract this proposal.

nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 3183
> D'oh!
> K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
>
> This is a modest proposal.
>
> {{[Some of my actions during my recent take over seem to have generated
> some unfortunate side effects. This proposal attempts to address them.
> Rule 1351 overwrote TGW/MTM's Mooning rule and doesn't have the
> precedence to make me a tradeable entity anyway... sigh]}}
>
> Create a rule numbered 1152 titled "Bonk" with the following BONK
> delimited text:
> BONK
> This rule has precedence over rule 1351.
> This rule is permitted to repeal rule 1351.
> At the moment this rule is created Repeal rule 1351 and then repeal this
> rule.
> BONK
>
> Create a rule numbered 1351 titled "Mooning" with the following OOPS
> delimited text:
> OOPS
> Ganymede and Titan are both moons of Ackanomic. If any player has been
> to both Ganymede and Titan and e posts a message
> containing the phrase: "To Ganymede and Titan, yes sir I've been around"
> [Lister, The End, Red Dwarf] then e will receive a
> random boon of the ancients. After e has received this boon e may not do
> so again until e has visited Ganymede and Titan again.
> OOPS
>
> Change the authorship of rule 1351 to The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley).
>
> Create a rule numbered 1151 titled "Former Emperor of Ackanomic" with
> the following HIYA delimited text:
> HIYA
> K 2 once ruled Ackanomic. The player who is legally able to assume the
> name "K 2" is a Former Emperor of Ackanomic.
> HIYA
>
> {{K 2 loses 5 points. The Mu-Cow Hunter gains 5 points}}

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 10:00:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3174

I retract this proposal.

K 2
Having a bad week :/

nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 3174
> The Financier Doesn't Have Enough Work To Do
> K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
>
> This is a Modest Proposal.
>
> Amend Rule 250 (Registered Players) to replace:
> Players are named, unownable entities.
> with:
> Players are named, tradeable entities.
>
> {{All Players own themselves}}
>
> {{[This was the whole point ot my previous proposal, everything else was
> just fluff]}}

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 12:30:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Where were we (RFC)

For the transition to the new system I'd like to see a
radical solution:
1) All descriptions which describe the location of a
public building are erased, and all public buildings
get coordinates on the new map.
2) All elders choose coordinates for their land on the
new map, with random tie breaking.
3) All other players choose coordinates for their land
on the new map, with random tie breaking.
4) The Map-Harfer chooses coordinates for land
which owners didn't choose coordinates themselves.
In steps 2-4 land that was adjacent on the old map
should be adjacent on the new map.

There should also be a rule that lets buildings retain
their shape when they are floating (not that a 4*3
buildings becomes 6*2 or the like), if floating remains
in the rules.

I think the city should have limited space. The land
in which the N/S or the E/W coordinate is greater
than 8, or the sum of both coordinates is greater
than 12, is woodland. A kaa of woodland that is
only adjacent to other kaas of woodland and/or
the Wilds of Ackanomia becomes part of the
Wilds of Ackanomia. (This makes the city without
woodland include 249 kaas. Currently 148 kaas
are owned, so there's still a lot of space. Replacing
8 and 12 with 7 and 10 would provide 185 kaas)

Woodland may become normal land by chopping
the trees. This costs the player who calls the
lumberjacks a number of A$ equal to the square
of the N/S coordinate plus the square of the E/W
coordinate, and e then owns the former woodland.
(In above idea, this makes A$81 the minimum cost,
for the 7-and-10 solution A$64)
[This allows enlarging the map, at a cost which
grows the further away you get. This is IMHO
better than being able to settle anywhere, if only
a kaa of owned land is 3 kaas or less distant]
Unowned empty land that is adjacent only to other
unowned empty land or woodland becomes
woodland again.

J. M. Bear

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 13:53:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Moon discussion

  This discussion reminds me (somewhat whimsically) of the game Cosmic
Encounter (if you haven't played it, you should.  It's a hoot.)
Basically, the landing on the moons causes a certain effect to happen,
some powerful, some not.  However, there are moons called "cheese moons"
which cause very silly effects to happn, such as the equivalent of every
Acka player being hosed for a week, and one that ends the game entirely.

Now if I can think of some good effects :)

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Frank Schmidt [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Wednesday, June 03, 1998 12:27 PM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Re: Acka: Actions
>
><snip>
>
>
>While I'm at it, shouldn't the southern hemisphere be a moon of Acka? :-)
>
>JMB
>
>

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 13:59:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Moon discussion

On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, AARON KEESLER wrote:

>  This discussion reminds me (somewhat whimsically) of the game Cosmic
>Encounter (if you haven't played it, you should.  It's a hoot.)
>Basically, the landing on the moons causes a certain effect to happen,
>some powerful, some not.  However, there are moons called "cheese moons"
>which cause very silly effects to happn, such as the equivalent of every
>Acka player being hosed for a week, and one that ends the game entirely.

I'm very much a fan of cosmic :)  However, half the fun of cosmic moons is
that you don't know what the moon is until you've been there, and I
completely disagree that ending the game entirely would be a good choice
for a moon.

- --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: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 14:15:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3175

> As I commented before. The Foreign Affairs Council I like, the reward for
> being a member of another nomic is way too abusable, IMO, and is reason
> enough for me to vote against this.

I concur entirely.

MTM.

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 14:15:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: DOWN BOY!

> Okay. Tell me why the game state at that time was such that it was
> "necessary" to retroactively forbid "any and all" negatively-valued
> trinket creations.

Well the phrasing was:

"The game state is adjusted, retroactively if necessary, as if proposal 2439
was not accepted."

Looking at it again maybe you're right, I don't know. To be perfectly honest
with you I can't be bothered trying to work things out. I concede defeat. For
now (anyone have a copy of the rules Dec 12 1997).

MTM.

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 14:15:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Where were we (RFC)

Mostly I like this there is however one little bit that needs changing.

> Renumber Rule 835 Locations to 810.
> Renumber Rule 836 Down the River to 812.

Near the end of rule 835 there is a reference to rule 836. This would need
changing if you're renumbering these.

MTM (who only remembers this because it was eir first accepted proposal).

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 14:36:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka:  Moon discussion

I hope that's not what you thought I meant :)  And effects
generated/powers granted by Moons could be just as random as they would
be in Cosmic...

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	JT [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Wednesday, June 03, 1998 12:59 PM
>To:	[email-masked]'
>Subject:	Re: Acka:  Moon discussion
>
>On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, AARON KEESLER wrote:
>
>I'm very much a fan of cosmic :)  However, half the fun of cosmic moons is
>that you don't know what the moon is until you've been there, and I
>completely disagree that ending the game entirely would be a good choice
>for a moon.
>
>--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: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 14:52:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Where were we (RFC)

On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Frank Schmidt wrote:

> For the transition to the new system I'd like to see a
> radical solution:
> 1) All descriptions which describe the location of a
> public building are erased, and all public buildings
> get coordinates on the new map.
> 2) All elders choose coordinates for their land on the
> new map, with random tie breaking.
> 3) All other players choose coordinates for their land
> on the new map, with random tie breaking.
> 4) The Map-Harfer chooses coordinates for land
> which owners didn't choose coordinates themselves.
> In steps 2-4 land that was adjacent on the old map
> should be adjacent on the new map.
> 

My thoughts on this are more along the lines of simply allowing the
Map-harfer to determine where everything is, within the constraints laid
down in the rules.  I'll give this some thought though.

> There should also be a rule that lets buildings retain
> their shape when they are floating (not that a 4*3
> buildings becomes 6*2 or the like), if floating remains
> in the rules.
> 

I guess this would be a good thing to have.  I'm not going to include it
in this proposal though, I don't think.

> I think the city should have limited space. The land
> in which the N/S or the E/W coordinate is greater
> than 8, or the sum of both coordinates is greater
> than 12, is woodland. A kaa of woodland that is
> only adjacent to other kaas of woodland and/or
> the Wilds of Ackanomia becomes part of the
> Wilds of Ackanomia. (This makes the city without
> woodland include 249 kaas. Currently 148 kaas
> are owned, so there's still a lot of space. Replacing
> 8 and 12 with 7 and 10 would provide 185 kaas)
> 
> Woodland may become normal land by chopping
> the trees. This costs the player who calls the
> lumberjacks a number of A$ equal to the square
> of the N/S coordinate plus the square of the E/W
> coordinate, and e then owns the former woodland.
> (In above idea, this makes A$81 the minimum cost,
> for the 7-and-10 solution A$64)
> [This allows enlarging the map, at a cost which
> grows the further away you get. This is IMHO
> better than being able to settle anywhere, if only
> a kaa of owned land is 3 kaas or less distant]
> Unowned empty land that is adjacent only to other
> unowned empty land or woodland becomes
> woodland again.
> 
> J. M. Bear
> 
> 

I don't think I'm going to run with this woodlands thing.  I don't want to
restrict the size that the city can reach, for one thing.  On the other
hand, I want it to remain managable for the Map-harfer, but since I intend
to give him the power to rearrange the amp this should be taken care of.
In fact, if we were to use a large, set number of Kaas map, it would
probably be more cumbersome for the Map-harfer since people would
immediately begin buying up land around the edges, rather than everything
remaining fairly close together.

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 15:58:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3184

>> Anyone find it ironic that the above text is _not_ in a note?  Let's hope
>> there's nothing in it that can be construed as a one-time effect...:-)
> 
> Heh, well I find it more embarassing than ironic.  Does anyone think this
> would cause a problem, or is it OK?  Do I need to retract it, in other
> words?  It looks to me like it won't do anything, so I'd prefer to just
> let it go.

I would really prefer that you retract it (though not on this list).

I am also of the opinion that the double-braced text inside the notes
brackets will still get deleted, which is also why I would like to see
it retracted. The identification of double braces is not a semantic
operation. It is purely lexical, and I don't think the notes brackets
will protect it. The Literature rule also gives precedent for the idea
that text inside of notes brackets, though devoid of semantic meaning,
is not completely ignored and can still affect the game state.

I would like to see the rule read: "Text in rules other than this
sentence, delimited by double curly braces {{e.g. this}}, is
self-deleting text." This is closer to what the original rule said,
and I don't know why Malenkai changed it when he created the
"Conventions" rule (unless he was planning a loophole surf similar to
Alfvaen's). I would prefer to still have an explicit example in the
rules, since people don't always use the terms "brackets" and "braces"
precisely, and newbies can get confused.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 16:00:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3184

On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Alfvaen's). I would prefer to still have an explicit example in the
> rules, since people don't always use the terms "brackets" and "braces"
> precisely, and newbies can get confused.

 That's probably at least partly because the two terms have different
meanings on the two sides of the Atlantic.

 Wild Card

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 16:02:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Where were we (RFC)

> My thoughts on this are more along the lines of simply allowing the
> Map-harfer to determine where everything is, within the constraints
> laid down in the rules.  I'll give this some thought though.

I thought we should have a fresh start, since the new ruling allowsfree choice
of land, while the old map got new kaas only on one
edge, splitted by the Vulcan Headquarters, at least lately.

> I don't think I'm going to run with this woodlands thing.  I don't want to
> restrict the size that the city can reach, for one thing.  On the other
> hand, I want it to remain managable for the Map-harfer, but since I intend
> to give him the power to rearrange the amp this should be taken care of.
> In fact, if we were to use a large, set number of Kaas map, it would
> probably be more cumbersome for the Map-harfer since people would
> immediately begin buying up land around the edges, rather than everything
> remaining fairly close together.
>                                    - Vynd

It may sound funny, but I thought my idea actually prevented the kaas
to be too far apart, while yours didn't.

My map is 17*17 (minus corners) and expandable at a cost. The current
map is 13*14, or 13*12 without wilds and river. Of course people might
try to make the Map-Harfer's life difficult, but I don't think e should keep
the power to do earthquakes whenever e likes, in a system that provides
other means of adding space to the map. What if Slakko doesn't have
any more time for map-harfing, and another player feels it is time to
reorganize the map, and does so destroying patterns carefully arranged
by the players, with maybe some of them on vacation?

Maybe that the Map-Harfer can deny some changes instead of putting
them on the map, but not rearrange the map too much. E should also be
able to move buildings one kaa to make room, and land even further, to
make room for public buildings. (To avoid a checkered pattern of
owned and unowned land prevent the placement of a new public
building)

Maybe when the land baroncy rule goes, it should still be prevented
that a player buys more than 12 kaas within four weeks, maybe not.

JMB

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 16:05:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3184

> I would like to see the rule read: "Text in rules other than this
> sentence, delimited by double curly braces {{e.g. this}}, is
> self-deleting text." This is closer to what the original rule said,
> and I don't know why Malenkai changed it when he created the
> "Conventions" rule (unless he was planning a loophole surf similar to
> Alfvaen's). 

My scam!! I know it failed and I know this is being really picky (exams make
me grouchy, sorry folks) but this was my scam, not Alfvaen's.

MTM, glory seeker. :-)

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 16:08:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Retraction

> I accept that it does not absolve the Harfers from more work - although it
> tries hard to, such a situation would be impossible.  However, I disagree
> with breadbox's assessment that the current situation regarding quorum is
> the best of the methods suggested.  By the time a quorum crisis occurs,
> someone's proposal has already failed due to lack of interest.  That's a
> game delay which could be avoided with preventative action, which I was
> trying to implement.

Yes, but how much of a loss is a one week delay on a proposal? That's far
preferable to creating extra harfing work.

MTM.

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 16:09:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: DOWN BOY!

>> Okay. Tell me why the game state at that time was such that it was
>> "necessary" to retroactively forbid "any and all" negatively-valued
>> trinket creations.
> 
> Well the phrasing was:
> 
> "The game state is adjusted, retroactively if necessary, as if proposal 2439
> was not accepted."
> 
> Looking at it again maybe you're right, I don't know. To be perfectly honest
> with you I can't be bothered trying to work things out. I concede defeat. For
> now (anyone have a copy of the rules Dec 12 1997).

How about December 18th?

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 16:11:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Prop

#submit proposal His Scam

Create a new Rule, numbered 1152 [i.e. in the History of the Game
subsection], titled "The Gingham Scam", with the following
ATTRIB-delimited text:

ATTRIB
[There was a time in early-to-mid 1998 when a scam was attempted involving
fiddling around with curly braces, designed to manipulate Rule 340,
Conventions.  Alfvaen was the intended beneficiary of the scam, but e did
not organise it.  People are often mistaken about these things.]

A Gingham Scam is one which involves amending a rule which specifies a
convention, taking advantage of text which excludes the convention from
applying to the rule which defines it.  [This includes Rule 340].  All
players must, whenever they mention the first instance of this scam in
1998, correctly attribute it to the player who, at the time the scam
occurred, was called The Gingham Wearer, if such a player exists.  Failure
to do so makes the public message mentioning the scam illegal.
ATTRIB

- -- 
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, 03 Jun 1998 16:12:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: DOWN BOY!

> > Looking at it again maybe you're right, I don't know. To be perfectly
honest
> > with you I can't be bothered trying to work things out. I concede defeat.
For
> > now (anyone have a copy of the rules Dec 12 1997).
> 
> How about December 18th?

No sorry, I specifically need Dec 12. :-). Seriously though, I was just
looking at the date the CRD was issued.

MTM.

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 16:14:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Prop

> #submit proposal His Scam
> 
> Create a new Rule, numbered 1152 [i.e. in the History of the Game
> subsection], titled "The Gingham Scam", with the following
> ATTRIB-delimited text:
> 
> ATTRIB
> [There was a time in early-to-mid 1998 when a scam was attempted involving
> fiddling around with curly braces, designed to manipulate Rule 340,
> Conventions.  Alfvaen was the intended beneficiary of the scam, but e did
> not organise it.  People are often mistaken about these things.]
> 
> A Gingham Scam is one which involves amending a rule which specifies a
> convention, taking advantage of text which excludes the convention from
> applying to the rule which defines it.  [This includes Rule 340].  All
> players must, whenever they mention the first instance of this scam in
> 1998, correctly attribute it to the player who, at the time the scam
> occurred, was called The Gingham Wearer, if such a player exists.  Failure
> to do so makes the public message mentioning the scam illegal.
> ATTRIB

You'd have to say what the crime was called :-).

MTM.

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 16:15:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Prop

On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > A Gingham Scam is one which involves amending a rule which specifies a
> > convention, taking advantage of text which excludes the convention from
> > applying to the rule which defines it.  [This includes Rule 340].  All
> > players must, whenever they mention the first instance of this scam in
> > 1998, correctly attribute it to the player who, at the time the scam
> > occurred, was called The Gingham Wearer, if such a player exists.  Failure
> > to do so makes the public message mentioning the scam illegal.
> > ATTRIB
> 
> You'd have to say what the crime was called :-).

No I wouldn't - I specified the action was illegal, therefore by Rule 701
it is the Crime of Illegal 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: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 16:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3184

>> I would like to see the rule read: "Text in rules other than this
>> sentence, delimited by double curly braces {{e.g. this}}, is
>> self-deleting text." This is closer to what the original rule said,
>> and I don't know why Malenkai changed it when he created the
>> "Conventions" rule (unless he was planning a loophole surf similar
>> to Alfvaen's).
> 
> My scam!! I know it failed and I know this is being really picky
> (exams make me grouchy, sorry folks) but this was my scam, not
> Alfvaen's.

Far be it from me to refuse to properly acknowledge the author of a
scam, particular one with as many similarities to my own failed
attempt! I offer my humblest apologies, and do publicly admit that I
spoke in error.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 16:32:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Retraction

> I accept that it does not absolve the Harfers from more work -
> although it tries hard to, such a situation would be impossible.
> However, I disagree with breadbox's assessment that the current
> situation regarding quorum is the best of the methods suggested.  By
> the time a quorum crisis occurs, someone's proposal has already
> failed due to lack of interest.  That's a game delay which could be
> avoided with preventative action, which I was trying to implement.

Well, that's where we differ. I just don't see that as being such a
tragedy. It's not common for a proposal that fails to meet quorum to
be particularly urgent, simply because the majority of proposals
aren't particularly urgent. The author rightfully doesn't get docked
any points for a proposal that failed quorum, and can even make it
foolish when e resubmits it.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 18:38:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3184

> > My scam!! I know it failed and I know this is being really picky
> > (exams make me grouchy, sorry folks) but this was my scam, not
> > Alfvaen's.
> 
> Far be it from me to refuse to properly acknowledge the author of a
> scam, particular one with as many similarities to my own failed
> attempt! I offer my humblest apologies, and do publicly admit that I
> spoke in error.

Yes, I have to say that Slakko's RFC did look rather familiar. Did I see a
very similar document in a nomicbot help file once, or am I just being
cynical?

Mr. Tambourine Man.

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 18:38:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Prop

> > You'd have to say what the crime was called :-).
> 
> No I wouldn't - I specified the action was illegal, therefore by Rule 701
> it is the Crime of Illegal Action.

Now Slakko, last time I asked you this you denied, but I refuse to believe
you. You really have memorised every rule, haven't you?

Mr. Tambourine Man.

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 19:26:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3184

>> Far be it from me to refuse to properly acknowledge the author of a
>> scam, particular one with as many similarities to my own failed
>> attempt! I offer my humblest apologies, and do publicly admit that
>> I spoke in error.
> 
> Yes, I have to say that Slakko's RFC did look rather familiar. Did I
> see a very similar document in a nomicbot help file once, or am I
> just being cynical?

Uh ... <breadbox fiddles with his Silver Moon award, which, though he
hasn't mentioned this fact before, he wears at all times and tries
hard not to look like he wants people to notice it> ... it was
probably just you being cynical.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 19:56:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Moon discussion

On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, AARON KEESLER wrote:

>   This discussion reminds me (somewhat whimsically) of the game Cosmic
> Encounter (if you haven't played it, you should.  It's a hoot.)
> Basically, the landing on the moons causes a certain effect to happen,
> some powerful, some not.  However, there are moons called "cheese moons"
> which cause very silly effects to happn, such as the equivalent of every
> Acka player being hosed for a week, and one that ends the game entirely.
> 
> Now if I can think of some good effects :)

Whence do you think the Politeness Moon came?

I agree wholeheartedly, Fortunato.  If you can come up with some ideas
based on that (or on the alien powers, perhaps) I'd vote them in.

Or, for that matter, Wild Cards...the AIGR doesn't have enough to do!

- - 867-5309, who wants to be the Sleeper

When I want your opinion, I'll read your entrails. 

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 20:38:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Where were we (RFC)

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> In the last few weeks I've been toying with it again though, and now I
> want to share what I have so far with you folks.  The main difference
> between this and my original RFC is the creation of regions, and the
> development of a coordinate system for Kaas.  Things I am still working on

I like it, Vynd.  It does seem to both make things simpler and allow for
newer additions later.  However...

> system.  Overhauling the Map-harfer office, including giving it the power
> to rearrange the positions of land if necessary.

This would not be necessary if there were no defined coordinates. :-)

I don't see why e shouldn't be allowed to move fixed-coordinate land,
though, subject perhaps to a Presidential or Senate veto.

- - 867-5309

Jurassic Park 2 is even scarier than the original: they bring back 
Richard Nixon. 

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #119
***********************************