Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #135
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest       Friday, June 19 1998       Volume 03 : Number 135

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

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 03:19:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3214 accepted

On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> >> Proposal 3214 - Tue 09 Jun 1998 16:50 EDT
> >> Phoebe and Her Seekers
> >> Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> >> 
> >> [Currently the rules allow the OiCoRT to give Phoebe a leave of
> >> absence if the last three people to find her have not posted her
> >> wisdom. What if someone wants to find Phoebe, but hasn't been
> >> selected? Is it fair that Phoebe should leave without imparting her
> >> wisdom?]
> >> 
> >> Amend Rule 939 by replacing the following OLDPHOEB-delimited text:
> 
> There is no Rule 939, and the title of the rule is not mentioned.
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm a little unsure of the game custom here. It's been
> so long since someone gave a wrong rule number that *didn't*
> correspond to an existing rule, that I've forgotten if this is
> normally considered an unambiguous spelling error or not. My instinct
> is that it's not, but I'm unsure. Anyone else's memory faring better
> than mine?

Rule 340.II says that it requires that it can be "determined beyond
reasonable doubt that a particular number is in error, and what the
intended number is."

The lack of a Rule 939 for some time now would indicate that the number is
in error.  The fact that only one rule, Rule 909, contained the text which
was supposed to be replaced, and that there is only a single textual error
in the rule number, would indicate that the intended number would be 909.
Seems pretty ironclad to me.

- -- 
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
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 09:50:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 610 (Slakko)

> > However, Alfvaen did not send his message to a relevant Officer.
> > There must be a point at which we draw the line, otherwise anyone could
> > send a message claiming to be on behalf of someone else and it would have
> > to be accepted.

> Nor did MTM.  Alfvaen as Speaker or Registrar or anything else has nothing to
> do with MTM going on vacation.  The line should prolly be drawn at 
> following the rules, otherwise, this sort of stuff starts to happen... :-)

Is it not the Registrar's Duty to keep track of player states?  If not, then
I don't believe it's any other Office's, so it must be the Speaker's...(well,
maybe the Web-Harfer's, but since I'm maintaining those pages as Assistant
Web-Harfer...)  I'm the only one who can place people on Vacation(by Rule 257),
and while that's unrelated...if I can't do it, then who else can?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--They Might Be Giants:Purple Toupee
Current Book--Nicole Luiken:Overdue
What would this sentence be like if it were not self-referential?

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

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 18:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 610 (Slakko)

> > Nor did MTM.  Alfvaen as Speaker or Registrar or anything else has nothing to
> > do with MTM going on vacation.  The line should prolly be drawn at
> > following the rules, otherwise, this sort of stuff starts to happen... :-)
> 
> Is it not the Registrar's Duty to keep track of player states?  If not, then
> I don't believe it's any other Office's, so it must be the Speaker's...(well,
> maybe the Web-Harfer's, but since I'm maintaining those pages as Assistant
> Web-Harfer...)  I'm the only one who can place people on Vacation(by Rule 257),
> and while that's unrelated...if I can't do it, then who else can?

To answer your question, the Postmaster and the rules (including rule 257)
may put players other than themselves on vacation.  I know of no way 
that Alfvaen can put a player on vacation if the Postmaster is an active
player.  MTM went on vacation via rules 255, 373, 101, and possibly 215 
and 371.

If wilma happens to log #ackanomic automatically, or JT had logging turned on
on his IRC client yesterday, you can possibly read a debate between JT and 
myself on this matter, otherwise there is nothing more I personally can add
to this discussion that has not already been said (bummer huh? :))  We know
we are bending the rules into a huge pretzel to make this happen; lets just
admit it, vote for P3239, and move on ;-)  Perhaps we need a duel on the
matter...

saaremaa
who am i to spit into the wind :-)

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

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 21:01:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Two questions

>1) I'm curious as to what people had against the space odysee proposal?
>Since planets and moons are regulated entites under the rules, noone could
>have achieved the condition yet, and it would have been incentive to add
>new moons/planets to the game)
	Personally, I think there are enough ways to win the game at the
moment.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 22:30:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Royal Frinkage

I saw that loop hole too.... unfortunately I'm no longer in a position
to
exploit it :/

K2

JT wrote:

> JT looks at Slakko, then looks at the rule.
> JT asks rufus to borrow his D'oh, or to at least thwack him solidly with
> it.
> JT donates A$1 to the TWITS and asks to become a member if he's not
> already.
>
> --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, 19 Jun 1998 23:02:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Royal Frinkage

On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, K2 wrote:

>I saw that loop hole too.... unfortunately I'm no longer in a position
>to exploit it :/

Well, suffice it to say that the loophole was entirely accidental and not
intended.

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #135
***********************************