Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #164
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Saturday, July 25 1998      Volume 03 : Number 164

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

Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 01:48:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3307 accepted

This is actually in reply to the message entitled "Re: Acka: CFJ 633 (K
2)"

K2 wrote:
> 
> Just as well I snowgod's disease didn't get repealed....
> 

and this quoted text is in fact an unambiguous misspelling of the entire
text of that message.

> K2 wrote:
> >
> > Stocks:

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

Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 09:50:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another Discovery

> [Highlander's Sword]
> 
> Thank you :)!
> I wasn't expecting this, but I'm pleased you did it.

I thought I may as well; it's not as if I'm going to make another three
discoveries before the end of the month, and you can never have too many
gadgets available (except for ones like bonus vote add ons and BWG laser
shotgun attachments that are much too powerful, and, of course, EBSs :-).

MTM, Inventor, Founder  of the Church of the Good Ballot Stuffer.

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

Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 23:00:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka - my first proposal - RFC

Discussion:  Not part of the draft proposal's text.  This draft attempts
to fix what appears to be a flaw in the CFJ system, by which a person
may have a CFJ rejected by the Clerk due to a lack of judges, and then
have it rejected AGAIN by a judge, if it is resubmitted it too soon --
even though the fact that the matter reached a judge indicates that
there are now sufficient judges.
============================================================================

This is a modest proposal.

Rule 211 is amended as follows:

After the phrase: “Any CFJ whose statement is substantially similar, or
whose negative is substantially similar, to the statement of another CFJ
submitted by the same player within the past week, in the judgement of
the judge, shall be judged Invalid. This applies even in the case that
the previously submitted CFJ was retracted by the player in question.”

Add the following JUSTICE delimited text:

JUSTICE
However, this provision shall not apply if the prior CFJ was declared
Invalid by the Clerk of Court due solely to a lack of eligible judges,
as provided in Rule 215.
JUSTICE

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #164
***********************************