Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #123
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Saturday, June 6 1998      Volume 03 : Number 123

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 00:58:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Auction that entity!

> > I'm all for this, as long as Jenny is me.  The word is out, the gig is up,
> > they've finally found me.  But whence Jenny?

> As I recall, the name of the song is 867-5309 (Jenny).  I might be wrong
> about this.  I would ask the local 80s pop guru, but he is incommunicondo
> in Argentina.

As somewhat of an 80's pop guru myself, I confirm this.  I thought
everyone knew that!  "867-5309 (Jenny)" by Tommy Tutone was a hit in the
early 80's, though I was never fond of it myself and it's not in my
collection anywhere.  It's not to be confused with Squeeze's "853-5937",
although it shares many of the same digits.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Stephen Fearing:Industrial Lullaby
Current Book--Mary Stewart:The Moon-Spinners
The centaur is a strange creature, torn in a paradox of ways.

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 06:30:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3185

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> 
Proposal 3185
> Getting Rid of More Rule Viruses
> /dev/joe (Joseph DeVincentis)
> 
> Amend Rule 850, "Museum", as described in the following list of numbered
> changes:
> 
> 4. Change the text of section VII to read:
> "Upon a benefactor's BV exceeding A$5000, if e is a voting player, all
> objects donated by that benefactor are transferred to the West Wing, and a
> big ceremony, which is a public gathering, is held.  If this appears to
> occur simultaneously with a player becoming a Member of the Museum,
> however, it will occur an infinitesimal time afterwards instead.  Then
> that benefactor becomes a Life Member of the Museum, and his name is added
> to the end of the list of names on the plaque in front of the West Wing,
> and the lighted sign in front of the West Wing stops displaying whatever
> it was displaying and begins displaying that benefactor's name, and the
> lighted sign in front of the North Wing starts displaying 'North'.  Then,
> if that is the first time that player has had a benefactor value exceeding
> A$5000, he achieves a Winning Condition.
> {{All players and undeads whose names or former names appear on the plaque
> in front of the West Wing become Life Members of the Museum once for each
> occurrence of their name or former name on that plaque, counting only
> full names written on the plaque (so that somebody can't name themselves
> 'alenkai' and hijack this rule).}}"

I like the way this is supposed to work, but I'm a bit worried about one
part of it - the timing.  The rule would say:

Then, if that is the first time that player has had a benefactor value
exceeding A$5000, he achieves a Winning Condition.

What time is "that time" - the time at which the sentence is applied?  If
so, the player's BV will be A$0, as all eir objects will have been
transferred to the West Wing, and hence will no longer count towards BV.
I think that this possible loophole would be better dealt with if the rule
explicitly stated that the Winning Condition was achieved _before_ the
objects are transferred to the West Wing.

- -- 
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: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 09:29:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3185

> > 4. Change the text of section VII to read:
> > "Upon a benefactor's BV exceeding A$5000, if e is a voting player, all
> > objects donated by that benefactor are transferred to the West Wing, and a
> > big ceremony, which is a public gathering, is held. [...] Then,
> > if that is the first time that player has had a benefactor value exceeding
> > A$5000, he achieves a Winning Condition.
> 
> I like the way this is supposed to work, but I'm a bit worried about one
> part of it - the timing.  The rule would say:
> 
> Then, if that is the first time that player has had a benefactor value
> exceeding A$5000, he achieves a Winning Condition.
> 
> What time is "that time" - the time at which the sentence is applied?  If
> so, the player's BV will be A$0, as all eir objects will have been
> transferred to the West Wing, and hence will no longer count towards BV.

I thought it was unambiguous that it refers to the time at the whole
series of effects -- it *is* the last in a series of effects which is
triggered on the player's benefactor value exceeding A$5000, after all.
If it said "this is the first time" then it might have your meaning, but
since it says "that", it refers to something a little more distant, and
there is one sensible choice.

> I think that this possible loophole would be better dealt with if the rule
> explicitly stated that the Winning Condition was achieved _before_ the
> objects are transferred to the West Wing.

I was going to say that if we do it this way, then the player will still
have a benefactor value exceeding A$5000 when the new cycle begins, but
I realize that we have this CWCFJ thing now, so that is no longer true.

BTW, the old version simply let the player win the cycle and put a
restriction that it doesn't happen if the player had ever won a cycle
this way before.  This changes it to "winning condition" phrasing AND
changes it to replace a possibly ambiguous specification of "this way"
(how many changes to the rule need to occur before it is a different way?)
Slakko is probably too young to remember when the text that gives new
players A$900 said it was given to anybody who had never received A$900
from "this rule" before, and it once got moved to a different rule, so
everybody in the game got another A$900.  The "this way" problem is
less severe in that it doesn't immediately cause trouble when the rule
is created (unless I or saaremaa makes some big donations to the museum
right now) but also in a way more severe, as it deals with cycle wins.

In any case, please vote for this proposal if this is your only objection.
If Slakko can find a better way to word it, given the above, let him do
so afterward in a separate modest proposal.  (I thought about merely
putting "that was" in there instead of "that is", but it sounds odd to
me since it is in an event applied an infinitesimal length of time after
the event it is referring to.)

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 16:54:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Auction that entity!

On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> As somewhat of an 80's pop guru myself, I confirm this.  I thought
> everyone knew that!  "867-5309 (Jenny)" by Tommy Tutone was a hit in the
> early 80's, though I was never fond of it myself and it's not in my
> collection anywhere.  It's not to be confused with Squeeze's "853-5937",
> although it shares many of the same digits.

But possibly with an obscure satirist's "3.14159," to the same tune.

- - 867-5309 (Roxanne)

Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word? 

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 17:45:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Retraction

> I retract Proposal 3181 (Preventative Quorum Medicine).
> 
> 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. 

I apologize if this has already been pointed out, but your proposal
failed to handle the case of a vacationing player, and, if I read
it correctly, would have had the effect of changing a vacationing 
player to non-voting, prolly not a great solution, so it is just as
well that it was retracted.  I intend to propose repealing quorum 
altogether ... tho this will prolly fail, the argument for doing so 
vis-a-vis the current or other proposed solutions cannot be intelligently
countered, IMO.

saaremaa

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 18:04:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3191

> Proposal 3191
> Retroactive Precedence
 
> JUMP
> [rule 103] takes precedence over all other rules.
> JUMP
> 
> {{[This rule could quite easily be overcome by a rule claiming precedence
> over all other rules, possibly even accidentally]}}

Actually intentionally.  The pragmatism clause (rule 701 or
thereabouts), does.  This proposal will break the pragmatism clause
if accepted.

saaremaa

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 23:29:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Forwarded message from Mr. Tambourine Man

> On the other hand, one can also argue that it was a private mail, sent
> only to the Registrar, and thus it was flatly not a public request to
> be on vacation, thus it failed.

But the registrar forwarded it and made it public....

>
>
> Feedback, anyone? (Sorry I'm not supplying anything more, but my
> brother is getting married in about 10 hours and my time is not my own
> right now.)
>
> breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 23:30:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fictionary

> Of course, it is probablyy my turn to forget to do something.  I leave
> fictionary.  I donate A$1 to the twits, and offer to serve as the official
> twits thwacker.

Apparently a double twit.... All of your Acka is owned by the Church of
banna as of 30/05/1998 10:52:55 :)

> ruufs

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #123
***********************************