Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #131
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest       Monday, June 15 1998       Volume 03 : Number 131

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 00:25:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I was

On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, JT wrote:

> Err actually, it wouldn't unless we all approved, however, you could just
> gift it to the order, which surprisingly enough is allowed even though we
> are on Titan and the order isn't :)

Hmm.  I thought one of the results of the recent CFJ on the subject was
that transfer of entities to and from the Founder was kosher without the
approval of the rest of the flock, but that organizational actions (such
as moving to the Wilds) are not.  I tend to disagree with the logic in
that CFJ, for much the same reasons voiced recently by K 2, with the added
weight of game custom thrown in, but it's too late to appeal anyway.

So, would someone (K 2, preferably, since as Financier and Org-Harfer eir
opinion is the most relevant) please tell me what exactly Church Policy
can effect?  I see no reason why, especially in the OotRB where all
members are priests, the Founder's approval shouldn't be all that's
required.  I know rufus and JT think differently, but would appreciate
some resolution one way or another on the matter.  

For instance, if the Organizational Actions need to be approved by the
entire congregation before taking effect, the Order never joined the
Political Party Razor Boomerangs because its petition to join was never
approved by the rest of its members.  Hence, the Razor Boomerangs' actions
on K 2's Treasure about a month ago did not fail for want of the OotRB's
approval.  Any number of other messes might fall inside the 14-day limit
on this one.

- - 867-5309

Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately, it kills all its students. 

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 00:27:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Illuminatus

On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:
>> >Hopefully the Illuminatus page should be up to date now, with the recent
>> >hat-wearing changes etc.  If not, then let me know, preferably before the
>> >end of the Cycle.
>> 
>> Just that I'm wearing Hat 7 since I intend to keep it.
>
>And that if e's wearing Hat 21 as well then Hat 7 is FALSE.

Since I only have one head, I can only be wearing one hat, and that was
Hat 7 :)

- --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: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 00:42:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Illuminatus

> Alfvaen, do you (or anyone) happen to know if my claim to have previously
> revealed and worn Hat 25 is true?  I seem to remember it quite clearly,
> but I could very probably have been dreaming/hallucinating/deluded.  It
> certainly matters to the Hat's truth value, because if I had, then hats
> which became true during Cycle 19 would count for it, as well as those
> which will do so during number 20.

It happened shortly after the hats were distributed--May 17, 18:37:59 EDT.
If I didn't have it so listed on my web page, then I apologize.  I don't
remember whether I did or not.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--The Only Ones:The Immortal Story
Current Book--Truddi Chase:When Rabbit Howls
Kiss them for me; I may be delayed

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 00:54:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Hat 25

I'm curious about the phrasing of Hat 25's condition.  (Or Hat C25's,
as I'll refer to them now since there will be another round of
submissions soon.)  It refers to it being "publicly knowable" that
the conditions of five different agenda hats became true.  Now, it
there was an agenda hat whose condition was independent of its owner
(i.e. "The Speaker has committed Zuriti'ili"), then would it be
publicly knowable that it was true once that condition was satisfied,
_even if the owner of that hat had not revealed it_?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--The Only Ones:The Immortal Story
Current Book--Truddi Chase:When Rabbit Howls
Mr. Jock, TV quiz Ph.D., bags few lynx.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 04:04:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Hat 25

On Sun, 14 Jun 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> I'm curious about the phrasing of Hat 25's condition.  (Or Hat C25's,
> as I'll refer to them now since there will be another round of
> submissions soon.)  It refers to it being "publicly knowable" that
> the conditions of five different agenda hats became true.  Now, it
> there was an agenda hat whose condition was independent of its owner
> (i.e. "The Speaker has committed Zuriti'ili"), then would it be
> publicly knowable that it was true once that condition was satisfied,
> _even if the owner of that hat had not revealed it_?

Obviously - as the set of Agenda Conditions currently in existence is
known, due to the bidding.

- -- 
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: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 18:41:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 611 (TRUE)

On Sun, 14 Jun 1998, JT wrote:

> I am appealing this CFJ with the following reasoning.

[ reasoning deleted ]

Not to mention that the events which allowed Larry to be expelled didn't
happen until 23:57 Acka time on the date listed in the CFCJs.  Alfvaen and
saaremaa would have had to be quick indeed to get their messages through
muppetlabs (which has about a five-minute turnaround time for me, but that
could just be the fact that they have to swim through three thousand-odd
miles of ocean) on the same day.

- - 867-5309

Televangelists: The Pro Wrestlers of religion. 

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 18:46:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Hat 25

On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> I'm curious about the phrasing of Hat 25's condition.  (Or Hat C25's,
> as I'll refer to them now since there will be another round of
> submissions soon.)  It refers to it being "publicly knowable" that
> the conditions of five different agenda hats became true.  Now, it
> there was an agenda hat whose condition was independent of its owner
> (i.e. "The Speaker has committed Zuriti'ili"), then would it be
> publicly knowable that it was true once that condition was satisfied,
> _even if the owner of that hat had not revealed it_?

I think this is a valid interpretation.  We know the condition exists on
some Hat; even if it's not Visible, we know whether or not it's become
true, and therefore it counts.

- - 867-5309

Televangelists: The Pro Wrestlers of religion. 

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 19:18:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Chess Cards RFC

OK, here's another one of those ideas that bubbles off my brain at random
moments: I recently picked up the Knightmare Chess game from Steve Jackson
Games.  For those of you unfamiliar, it's a set of cards to be played
along with regular Western Imperialist Oppressor-style chess, with effects
(e.g. "One of your Pawns blows up, capturing all pieces adjacent to it")
pertaining to the game as it goes along.  It's based on a French game
whose name I don't recall but I bet Niccolo Flychuck does.

Not that that has anything to do with what follows, really.  I just
thought it would be kind of neat if we had a separate system of cards to
deal with Party Chess.  Paratroop and Tactical Retreat could be moved in
there, and they could be created in a style similar to Games & Contests or
Sin Submissions, with only Swingers or primarily Swingers voting on them.

The advantages, as I see them, are that the separation from Otzma Cards
would leave the two areas of specialization more distinct and possibly
encourage the creation of more chess-related cards, as they would no
longer clutter up the OC Rule Suite.

Disadvantages would be basically an increased workload on the Harfers,
particularly the Rule-Harfer and the Chess-Umpire.

I know that RFCs don't tend to get much of a response around here, but I
would like to know what other players, Swingers or no, think of this.
Just so I know if it's worth the effort to go and whip up a Proposal on
the subject.

Thanks in advance,

- - 867-5309, crossing eir fingers

Jack Kevorkian for White House Physician 

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #131
***********************************