Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #113
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest       Tuesday, June 9 1998       Volume 03 : Number 113

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 00:02:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Blueprint RFC

An idea I've been tossing around for a while as a possible use for my
Scientist for a Day Otzma Card was a blatant plagiarism of the Monocle of
Clarity from Wizards of the Coast's vampiric CCG Jyhad (now, I believe,
simply known as Vampire).  There was a bit of discussion of this during
round 1 of Fictionary when Vynd and JT both used it as their inspiration
for correctly guessing the meaning of Slakko's Ing word, "gangrel."

In any case, the Monocle of Clarity allowed the user to ask any other
player a single question (which I believe was restricted to yes-or-no
questions) which the other player had to answer as truthfully as e knew
how.  If it was later determined that e was lying, or if e did not adhere
to any constraints placed on em by the question, (e.g. "Will you play a
card of type X next turn?" "No." would prohibit the asked player from
playing a card of that type on that turn) e paid some horrific penalty.

My question is, would you beings care to see something similar implemented
in Acka?  I believe it would have quite a bit of potential for fun, but
also for misuse.  Somehow the case of "Are you ever going to win a Cycle?"
(if you say Yes, you have to win one before you leave; if you say No, you
can never do so) would have to be addressed.  It could be solved by not
making such answers legally binding, but that would take quite a bit of
the fun out of it IMHO.

But in any case, I'd like to hear the response on this.  If you have any
suggestions for improving this, or if you intend to object should I submit
this as a Blueprint, please let me know what your suggestions and
objections are, and I'll take them into serious consideration.  If you
don't intend to respond at all, and I'm just a lonely voice crying out
into the void, please let me know that as well.

- - 867-5309

What's another word for thesaurus?

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 04:17:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ian K." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blueprint RFC

> In any case, the Monocle of Clarity allowed the user to ask any other
> player a single question (which I believe was restricted to yes-or-no
> questions) which the other player had to answer as truthfully as e knew
> how.  If it was later determined that e was lying, or if e did not adhere
> to any constraints placed on em by the question, (e.g. "Will you play a
> card of type X next turn?" "No." would prohibit the asked player from
> playing a card of that type on that turn) e paid some horrific penalty.
> 
> My question is, would you beings care to see something similar implemented
> in Acka?  I believe it would have quite a bit of potential for fun, but
> also for misuse.  Somehow the case of "Are you ever going to win a Cycle?"
> (if you say Yes, you have to win one before you leave; if you say No, you
> can never do so) would have to be addressed.  It could be solved by not
> making such answers legally binding, but that would take quite a bit of
> the fun out of it IMHO.
> 
> But in any case, I'd like to hear the response on this.  If you have any
> suggestions for improving this, or if you intend to object should I submit
> this as a Blueprint, please let me know what your suggestions and
> objections are, and I'll take them into serious consideration.  If you
> don't intend to respond at all, and I'm just a lonely voice crying out
> into the void, please let me know that as well.

I like it... also the 'Are you ever going to get a winning condition' has
an obvious answer - Yes! If you don't have one when you leave, then, well,
you've gone, and you *still* might return and get one later. All such
'ever' questions should be answered yes and then you can act as you want
with the response "I'll do it sometime later" if anyone complains.

Alternatively, if you really wanted, you could make the answer legally
binding for a fortnight, or a month. That way it could be used well, but
not totally abused (it would be a bit harsh if someone accidentally
answered 'No' to the winning condition question.

Koxvolio

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 15:36:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3170 accepted

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, nomicbot wrote:

>Results of Proposal 3170
>
>19/24 votes: Quorum achieved
>16/20 YES votes: Proposal accepted
>
>    YES:
>Dennis and Edna      (Vulcan)
>K 2                  (MetaMorph)
>else...if            (Klingon)
>Wild Card            (SPAM)
>Rex Mundi            (Klingon)
>Alfvaen              (MetaMorph)
>JT                   (Boomerangs)
>Koxvolio             (Harf)
>Attila the Pun
>Joe Java             (Boomerangs)
>Fortunato
>Slakko               (SPAM)
>867-5309             (Boomerangs)
>J. M. Bear           (MetaMorph)

Thank you to all of you who voted for this.  I will have the Honour Roll
page up within a day or two.

- --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: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 15:44:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3178 accepted

Should there have been a MetaMorph unity vote?
(not that it would change the outcome...)
JMB

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 17:20:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: several messages

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> 20/24 votes: Quorum achieved
> 5/19 YES votes: Proposal rejected

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Results of Proposal 3168
> 
> 20/24 votes: Quorum achieved
> 8/18 YES votes: Proposal rejected

 IAMFI but, why the NO-votes in either case?

 Wild Card.

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 17:22:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: several messages

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote something to both a-res
and a-voting.

 Oops!  Dunno how that happened...

 Wild Card.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #113
***********************************