Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #188
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Wednesday, August 12 1998    Volume 03 : Number 188

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:33:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Swingers and Offices

Just a bit of historical perspective on this.
The main reason Swingers are Officers is that Swingers predate Party
Chess. 
Party Hall was the first, and for a long time the only, Institution. When
I first proposed it I had a vague idea about it acting as some sub nomic
which defines the inter-part interaction and relations within nomic. But
then I thought of another idea which seemed more fun - Party Chess.
The Capital Swinger Offices were the first Capital Offices in acka - they
were introduced in order to open PartyChess to more players.
The maintenance of a Swinger's office always seemed to me something done
best as a cooperative effort, due to the potentially large expenses
involved.
It is interesting to note that in the current game of Party Chess there
were very few purchases. Swingers retain their pieces from previous games
- - the creation of each new Swinger's office adds five pieces at no expense
to the piece pool, and I don't think any office have been destroyed for a
long time.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:35:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal RFC (Office Simplification)

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> >> Overall I have to say I don't overly like this idea. What I wouldn't mind
> >> seeing though would be some of the political offices changed to functional.
> >> Justice should probably remainpolitical though since they are in the most a
> >> "fun" office, at least for those who wish to fillthem.
> >
> >They are Political, yet they are never elected.
> >How sensible is that exactly?
> 
> I don't see why it needs to make sense, it just needs to work. If it ain't
> broke don't fix is an old adage which would seem to apply here.

If it ain't broke don't fix it is the antithesis of Nomic.  The Initial
Ruleset is not "broke", so how come we ended up with all these other
rules?

- -- 
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, Clerk of the Court, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 05:11:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (L'homme a tete de choux)
Subject: Acka: AVPP

I've been very busy and have fallen behind a little, so if this subject has
already died, please forgive me...

>I'm going to vent here for a bit.  This entire AVPP thing is the height of
>petty and childish behavior.

Ouch.

I don't have anything to add on the subject except that I'm upset by the
accusation that the behaviour of AVPP supporters has been childish and petty.
To be honest, I was thinking of setting up a political party anyway, and the
anti-voting argument seemed to provide some kind of authentic mandate.

>Anti-voting existed in the rules for 2.5
>years (or so someone claimed recently).  It got repealed.  Why don't you
>just give it a chance without it for a while.

Of course I'll give it a chance, but I defend my right to play the game in the
way I find fitting. If I (and I presume to speak for the other AVPP members)
really felt as strongly about the matter as you seem to suggest, I'd probably
leave the game.

Ethelred

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 05:27:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Swingers and Offices

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> Just a bit of historical perspective on this.
> The main reason Swingers are Officers is that Swingers predate Party
> Chess. 
> Party Hall was the first, and for a long time the only, Institution. When
> I first proposed it I had a vague idea about it acting as some sub nomic
> which defines the inter-part interaction and relations within nomic. But
> then I thought of another idea which seemed more fun - Party Chess.
> The Capital Swinger Offices were the first Capital Offices in acka - they
> were introduced in order to open PartyChess to more players.
> The maintenance of a Swinger's office always seemed to me something done
> best as a cooperative effort, due to the potentially large expenses
> involved.

Fair enough.  I wouldn't want to see Swingers divorced from their Parties,
or anything like that.  However, there are a lot of restrictions which 
apply to Swingers, but don't affect any other officers.  There is the
Party affiliation, the fact that only the NAP Swinger is subject to an
election (and even that election has a special procedure), the limitation
on the number of Capital Swinger offices being dependent upon the number
of existing Swingerships, yadda yadda yadda.

I was of the opinion that having Swingers defined as Offices was holding
up the process of Office reform, by introducing many exceptional cases.
Redefining Swingerships as a distinct class of entity would allow
the Offices rules to become more streamlined, and would also send a clear
message that Swingerships are not like other kinds of Offices (a message
which at the moment may be slightly garbled).

> It is interesting to note that in the current game of Party Chess there
> were very few purchases. Swingers retain their pieces from previous games
> - the creation of each new Swinger's office adds five pieces at no expense
> to the piece pool, and I don't think any office have been destroyed for a
> long time.

The last Office in Party Chess which disappeared was that of the
Party (None Yet), otherwise known as Munchkin Haven.  That disappearance
happened, IIRC, in November 1997, not that long after I took over the
Office of Chess-Umpire.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
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, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Clerk of the Court

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 07:13:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3411

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 3411
> Say What You Mean
> Attila the Pun (Micah Smukler)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> Amend Rule 550 ("Honor System Rule Suite") by replacing the text "a
> range of -1000000 to 1000000" with the following Q-delimited text:
> Q
> a range encompassing all integers [i.e. from "negative infinity"
> to "positive infinity"]"
> Q

The term "encompassing" makes this ambiguous.  It does not state that it
is restricted to the integers, only that it must include the integers.
The new definition suggested would allow for characteristics like pi, 
e, etc. depending on whether you read "encompassing" as inclusive
or exclusive.

I think "consisting of" would have been a better choice, as it is more
clear-cut.
- -- 
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, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Clerk of the Court

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:39:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Re: Voting "No" on 3370

Hose em down :)

K 2

JT wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:01:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3415

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote:
>Proposal 3415
>Spell - Charm Person
>Slakko (Duncan Richer)
>
>[This proposal creates the basic structure of enthrallments.  It sets up
>the definition of Thrall, the method of claiming Thrall through proposals,
>the Office of Thrallmaster, and the method of claiming a Win from Thrall.
>Other Thrall-related items are less central to the concept, and so better
>belong in separate proposals.]

Glad to see this being proposed.  I only saw one problem, and it's minor
enough that a CSR can fix it if the rule is accepted.

>Create a new Rule, numbered 750, titled "Thrall: Definition", with the
>following 1ST-delimited text:
>
>1ST
>Each Player has a Thrall Attribute.  At all times a Player's thrall
>attribute is either the name of a Player or the null string (i.e. "").
>If a Player (A) changes their name, then any players whose thrall
>attribute was the old name of Player (A), then their thrall attribute
>becomes the new name of Player (A).
>
>When a new player joins the game, their Thrall Attribute is set to "".
>
>When a Player (B) leaves the game, any Player whose Thrall Attribute is
>the name of Player (B) has their Thrall Attribute set to "".
>
>If Player (C) has Thrall Attribute which is the name of Player (D), then
>Player (C) may be referred to as Player (D)'s Overlord.

Shouldn't this be Player (D) may be referred to as Player (C)'s Overlord?
Since if your Thrall attribute is the name of a player then you are in
thrall TO that player :)

It also doesn't address cyclic thrallhood, but that's fine :)

Other than that, I didn't see any errors in it.

- --JT

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:01:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Pizolato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another idea

>>>And why use a new currency?  Just go with A$.  Lord knows there would be
>>>lots of opposition to creating a new currency, for whatever reason.

>>Scaling.  A$ are too valuable, we need a smaller currency (i.e. one
>>there's more of.)

Can A$ be divided? Can I use A$5.55 if I want to? If so, the problem is
solved by "Acka-cents," eh?

Piz

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:37:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3414

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote:
> Proposal 3414
> The Motherload
> K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
> 
> The map writer and recipient of the Treasure against which the Hostile
> Takeover was called are not permitted to vote in the Hostile Takeover.

Why not?  this seems contrary to lots of other hearings. 

rufus

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:10:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another idea

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Michael Pizolato wrote:

> >>>And why use a new currency?  Just go with A$.  Lord knows there would be
> >>>lots of opposition to creating a new currency, for whatever reason.
> 
> >>Scaling.  A$ are too valuable, we need a smaller currency (i.e. one
> >>there's more of.)
> 
> Can A$ be divided? Can I use A$5.55 if I want to? If so, the problem is
> solved by "Acka-cents," eh?
> 
> Piz
> 

No, the A$1 is Acka's smallest unit of currency.  Unless you count the old
100 Ackapennies trinket (value, A$1).

So far as this word buying idea is concerned, I'm begining to think it
isn't so great of an idea.  I still think its interesting, but the work
involved would probably outweigh the fun.  Outweigh it by a lot...  You'd
need someonme to track the new currency, track word purchases and sales,
etc.  And someone to run a check on any word someone was thinking about
buying, to see how much it would cost.  And as Slakko (or somebody)
pointed out, you could always get around paying through the use of
some creative wording.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:15:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal RFC (Office Simplification)

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:
> 
> > >> Overall I have to say I don't overly like this idea. What I wouldn't mind
> > >> seeing though would be some of the political offices changed to functional.
> > >> Justice should probably remainpolitical though since they are in the most a
> > >> "fun" office, at least for those who wish to fillthem.
> > >
> > >They are Political, yet they are never elected.
> > >How sensible is that exactly?
> > 
> > I don't see why it needs to make sense, it just needs to work. If it ain't
> > broke don't fix is an old adage which would seem to apply here.
> 
> If it ain't broke don't fix it is the antithesis of Nomic.  The Initial
> Ruleset is not "broke", so how come we ended up with all these other
> rules?
> 

I agree with Slakko, so far as not fixing things that aren't broken is
concerned.  The thing is, in this case I feel it is more a case of "If it
ain't broke, don't break it."

Vynd

[email-masked]

> -- 
> 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, Clerk of the Court, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer
> 

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:16:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3414

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 3414
> The Motherload
> K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
> 
> This is a Modest Proposal.
> 
> {{[Not _another_ hearing <graon> :) ]}}
> 
> Insert as a new Section after Section III of rule 1217 (Buried
> Treasure!) the following text (--- delimited):
> ---
> IV.
> 
> If a player believes that a particular treasure map, for a treasure
> which was discovered within the previous three days, is not in keeping
> with the spirit of treasure hunting e may call for a Hostile Takeover.
> 
> A Hostile Takeover is a Hearing for which the valid responses are:
> "Right up there with the Jukkasjarvi Treasure" and "the accumulation of
> money is a great evil and a burden to the soul" [Terry Pratchett,
> Witches Abroad]. The player who called it is the Hearing Harfer for it
> and is called the Gold Digger while it is in session. For the purposes
> of this section those entities which were buried in the treasure and any
> entities created from them since the discovery of the treasure are
> referred to as The Motherload.
> 
> The map writer and recipient of the Treasure against which the Hostile
> Takeover was called are not permitted to vote in the Hostile Takeover.
> 
> In the event that the verdict of the Hostile Takeover is "Right up there
> with the Jukkasjarvi Treasure", the Gold Digger shall transfer The 
> Standard Harfer Fee to the map writer.
> 
> In the event that the verdict is "the accumulation of money is a great
> evil and a burden to the soul" [Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad], then
> all entities in The Motherload, which are of types normally accepted by
> the Museum, are transferred to the North Wing of the Museum with the map
> writer as beneficiary. Any entities in the Motherload which were not 
> transferred to the Museum's North wing by the previous sentence are 
> transferred to the Treasury. Additionally the map writer shall pay The 
> Standard Harfer Fee to the Gold Digger.
> ---
> 

I like this, actually.  It seems like a reasonable way to deal with the
many (many) times people have tried to get around losing money by burrying
things.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:37:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ambassadorness

Duncan Richer wrote:

> I find it intriguing that a game which was created as a direct result of
> the failure of a Nomic MUD should wish to enclose itself in a MUD-like
> environment.
>
> (Agora was founded directly as a result of the collapse of Nomic World.)

Moving the discussion to Research...I'm not familiar with that background;
however, I would like to note that I find MUDs, generally, to be tedious.
Barring evidence that an Acka-MUD would be different, I'll tend to hope it
doesn't happen.  :(

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:25:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

You could pull a <gasp> conditional maneuver.
If I'm not a member of any political party I join....

K 2

Eric Plumb wrote:

> According to the Org Harfer, I was never named Tom Walmsley, and
> therefore the party was formed with Bob Dylan Boy as a member in lieu of
> myself.  According to the Registrar, I was once in possession of that
> Ackanomic moniker, and therefore am a member.
>
> Draw your own conclusions, I suppose.
>
> - 867-5309

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:26:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Tabula Stuff

Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Next off is the great debunk. Essentially, nothing happened here because
> not enough people voted. If people want all the gory details then I'll go
> and try to find them.

I guess it needed more PR.

Not to be difficult, I would like the details, so I can heckel the non-voters
;)

K 2

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:26:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Proposal 3406

Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> I have had certain ideas along this line myself, but I think that it might
> be a good idea to keep the CSRR Office around for one reason: to assign
> numbers to CSRs.  E might even want to serve as a sort of Promoter for
> them.  But if each player has to try to keep track of which CSR number
> they're on, let alone whether three days have passed and it's been
> accepted...

This was an attempt to "repeal" an office amoung other things, I supose it
would be good to have someone track CSR numbers tho - Count tabula maybe?Self
tracking of the time was incorperated since it would put that duty in the
hands of the player most interested in the change rather than an officer.

K 2

>
>
> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ )
> Current Album--Alanis Morisette:Jagged Little Pill
> Current Book--Sheri S. Tepper:Shadow's End
> If you are what you eat, then I'm dead meat.

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:26:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The Book

The following is a List of thoses players Blessed with a Holy Book and
the depth to which they have read from It.
13,4 - Guy Fawkes
6 - ThinMan
13 - Rex Mundi
5 - Fortunato
1 - Koxvolio
9 - JT
2 - else...if
2 - K 2
1 - /dev/joe
[Next Page]

I have no record of Ayla receiving an Otzma Card for reading page four,
I would ask the Speaker to verify this from the e-mail archive and
perform a determination as necessary.
[30 May 1998 12:32:22 Ayla reads page four]

I would also note that Rex Mundi recieved an otzma card for eir tenth
reading but since this was more than 2 weeks ago - who cares :)

The following is a log of events involving The Most Holy of Books:

18 Feb 1997 08:41:28 Malenkai(Wizard) starts to build
22 Feb 1997 10:19:16 Malenaki Auctions
25 Feb 1997 18:43:36 Malenaki retains it for A$0
13 Apr 1997 23:14:23 Malenaki reads page one
13 Apr 1997 20:33:32 Malenkai receives OFMG
14 Apr 1997 00:27:40 Malenkai reads page two
13 Apr 1997 21:33:08 Malenkai receievs OFF
27 Apr 1997 09:26:44 Malenaki Sells to Guy Fawkes for A$ 500
28 Apr 1997 15:38:24 Guy Fawkes reads page three
28 Apr 1997 19:22:15 Guy Fawkes recieves a OPT
5 Jun 1997 12:48:06  Guy Fawkes reads page four
6 Jun 1997 19:20:13  Guy Fawkes receives a OGF
6 Jun 1997 23:31:29  Mohammed(Inventor) Starts to build
18 Jun 1997 16:55:06 Guy Fawkes reads page five
20 Jun 1997 00:55:10 Guy Fawkes receives an EBS
25 Jun 1997 12:58:52 Guy Fawkes reads page six
25 Jun 1997 18:48:20 Guy Fawkes receives a OPT
30 Jun 1997 16:46:02 Guy Fawkes reads page seven
7 Jul 1997 13:02:54  Guy Fawkes reads page eight
7 Jul 1997 17:09:20  Guy Fawkes receives a OTR
7 Jul 1997 17:11:44  Guy Fawkes receives a OFMG
16 Jul 1997 17:23:42 Guy Fawkes reads page nine
17 Jul 1997 01:30:48 Guy Fawkes receives a OGF
31 Jul 1997 10:57:07 Vulcan Action starts
31 Jul 1997 15:48:16 Guy Fawkes reads page ten
31 Jul 1997 15:48:16 Guy Fawkes gives to GF Mini-storage Inc
31 Jul 1997 15:48:16 GF Mini-storage Inc Action Approved
31 Jul 1997 15:48:16 Guy Fawkes reads page one
31 Jul 1997 15:48:16 Guy Fawkes gives to GF Mini-storage Inc
01 Aug 1997 23:26:10 Guy Fawkes receives a OSME
11 Aug 1997 15:34:39 Vulcan starts to give to Malenkai
11 Aug 1997 23:23:30 Vulcan Transfers to Malenaki
14 Aug 1997 17:33:42 Guy Fawkes reads page two
14 Aug 1997 17:33:42 Guy Fawkes reads page eleven
16 Aug 1997 08:43:37 Malenaki reads page one
16 Aug 1997 06:00:42 Guy Fawkes receives a OAT
16 Aug 1997 06:01:12 Guy Fawkes recieves a OS4D
16 Aug 1997 06:01:42 Malenkai recieves a OMS
25 Aug 1997 08:57:12 Guy Fawkes reads page three
25 Aug 1997 08:57:12 Guy Fawkes reads page twelve
26 Aug 1997 18:24:02 Malenaki reads page two
26 Aug 1997 20:35:37 Guy Fawkes receives a OAT
26 Aug 1997 20:38:30 Guy Fawkes receives a OAT
26 Aug 1997 20:40:44 Malenkai receives a OMS
29 Sep 1997 12:19:17 Malenkai trades to /dev/joe for a OSME
29 Sep 1997 12:19:17 /dev/joe reads page three
30 Sep 1997 00:12:56 /dev/joe recieves a OFF
8 Oct 1997 21:06:32  /dev/joe reads page four
11 Oct 1997 06:43:59 /dev/joe recieves a OAT
13 Oct 1997 09:35:18 /dev/joe reads page five
16 Oct 1997 01:32:37 /dev/joe recieves an Automatic Sculpture
11 Nov 1997 12:03:21 The Matress starts building
14 Nov 1997 14:17:02 The Matress gives to ThinMan
14 Nov 1997 15:13:37 ThinMan reads page one
17 Nov 1997 18:41:27 ThinMan receives a OMS
17 Nov 1997 21:34:28 /dev/joe reads page six
18 Nov 1997 20:19:06 /dev/joe receives a OSMI
21 Nov 1997 10:37:46 ThinMan reads page two
22 Nov 1997 08:08:13 ThinMan recieves OUT
23 Nov 1997 01:35:15 /dev/joe reads page seven with the shades of chorg
- - OTR
25 Nov 1997 16:30:45 ThinMan reads page three
25 Nov 1997 20:25:42 ThinMan receives a OTS
4 Dec 1997 14:20:58 ThinMan reads page four
4 Dec 1997 15:33:06 ThinMan received a OFMG
6 Dec 1997 22:35:44 /dev/joe read page eight with the shades of chorg -
OPT
8 Dec 1997 08:39:48 /dev/joe gave the shades of chorg to ThinMan
8 Dec 1997 11:21:11 ThinMan read page five with the shades of chorg -
SoC
8 Dec 1997 11:30:49 ThinMan gave the shades of chorg to /dev/joe
10 Dec 1997 08:01:30 Pumpkin Patch Nomic starts building
13 Dec 1997 10:47:55 Pumpkin Patch Nomic gives to Malenkai
23 Dec 1997 10:20:00 Malenkai gives to Vulcan
17 Jan 1998 20:10:38 /dev/joe read page nine with the shades of chorg -
OTR
23 Jan 1998 12:14:41 /dev/joe read page ten with the shades of chorg -
EBS
26 Jan 1998 16:49:05 The Moral Kiosk starts building
30 Jan 1998 13:21:56 The Moral Kiosk starts to transfer
30 Jan 1998 14:46:26 Rex Mundi Reads Page One
30 Jan 1998 09:29:10 Rex Mundi receives a OSK
01 Feb 1998 16:10:37 Rex Muni reads page two
01 Feb 1998 16:10:37 Rex Mundi transferes to Rex Bank
02 Feb 1998 16:22:29 Rex Mundi receives a OUT
06 Feb 1998 12:11:17 The Moral Kiosk starts to build
09 Feb 1998 13:06:28 The Moral Kiosk transfers to Fortunato
09 Feb 1998 13:28:54 Fortunato reads page one
10 Feb 1998 03:19:13 Fortunato receives a OFMG
10 Feb 1998 19:03:00 Rex Mundi reads page three
11 Feb 1998 00:06:48 Rex Mundi receives a OTS
15 Feb 1998 17:46:15 Rex Mundi reads page four
16 Feb 1998 17:50:48 Rex Mundi receives a OTS
17 Feb 1998 15:30:55 Fortunato reads page two
18 Feb 1998 17:40:03 Fortunato recieves a OSYI
23 Feb 1998 11:08:22 Rex Mundi reads page five
23 Feb 1998 12:10:40 Rex Mundi recieves a BV-addon
01 Mar 1998 12:54:49 Rex Mundi reads page six
01 Mar 1998 13:49:49 Rex Mundi recieves a OGF
08 Mar 1998 20:16:38 Rex Mundi reads page seven
09 Mar 1998 10:21:42 Fortunato reads page three
09 Mar 1998 21:55:31 Rex Mundi recieves a OUT
09 Mar 1998 21:58:12 Fortunato receives a OUT
16 Mar 1998 10:22:30 Rex Mundi reads page eight
22 Mar 1998 21:40:41 Rex Mundi receives a OSME/OGR
29 Mar 1998 12:03:26 Rex Mundi reads page nine
29 Mar 1998 13:56:10 Rex Mundi receives a Butler
12 Apr 1998 19:40:10 Rex Mundi reads page ten
12 Apr 1998 22:31:54 Rex Mundi receives a OAT
15 Apr 1998 01:11:24 /dev/joe read page eleven with the shades of chorg
- - OGF
20 Apr 1998 14:31:13 Rex Mundi reads page eleven
21 Apr 1998 22:57:04 Rex Mundi receives a OS4D
22 Apr 1998 10:43:15 Vulcan starts to transfer to Vynd
29 Apr 1998 23:02:37 Order of the Razor Boomerangs starts to build for
Hubert(Jenny)
04 May 1998 18:25:37 Hubert(Jenny) read page one
04 May 1998 18:25:37 Hubert(Jenny) gave to the order of the razor
boomerang
05 May 1998 18:33:52 at 1:16 Vynd and /dev/joe were burnt
05 May 1998 22:20:48 Hubert(Jenny) received a OSYI
05 May 1998 23:38:56 The order of the razor boomerang transfers to JJ
14 May 1998 21:50:21 Joe Java read page two
14 May 1998 22:03:08 Joe Java gives to JT
15 May 1998 20:54:34 Joe Java receives a OST
15 May 1998 20:31:58 JT gives to Ayla
17 May 1998 01:39:30 Vulcan starts to build for /dev/joe
20 May 1998 00:24:29 Ayla gives to The order of the razor boomerang
21 May 1998 17:55:30 The order of the razor boomerang give to JT
22 May 1998 01:43:51 JT reads page three
22 May 1998 09:56:21 JT receives a OSME
22 May 1998 14:12:20 JT Gives to Ayla
30 May 1998 12:32:22 Ayla reads page four
30 May 1998 12:32:22 Ayla receives ???? - I have no record of this
determination
01 Jun 1998 23:06:53 Ayla gives to Jenny
24 May 1998 13:27:45 Rex Mundi gives to Koxvolio
28 May 1998 21:20:31 Koxvolio gives to Rex Mundi
03 Jun 1998 13:49:18 Fortunato reads page four
03 Jun 1998 22:13:49 Fortunato receives page a OPT
08 Jun 1998 22:51:49 Jenny gave to /dev/joe
08 Jun 1998 22:51:49 /dev/joe read page five with shades of chorg -
Silver Spaceship
08 Jun 1998 23:15:44 /dev/joe gives to Jenny
04 Jul 1998 20:16:39 Rex Mundi reads page tweleve
04 Jul 1998 20:20:27 Rex Mundi receives OFB
14 Jul 1998 03:14:04 Jenny gives to JT
14 Jul 1998 03:14:04 JT reads page six
15 Jul 1998 20:15:25 JT receives OGR
26 Jul 1998 18:21:51 The Moral Kiosk starts building for Koxvolio
26 Jul 1998 00:38:07 The Church of the book of chorg starts building for
Atilla the Pun
03 Aug 1998 07:35:30 The Church of the book of chorg starts building for
K 2
03 Aug 1998 12:10:42 JT gives to /dev/joe
03 Aug 1998 12:10:42 /dev/joe reads page seven with shades of chorg -
OLO
03 Aug 1998 12:35:02 /dev/joe gives to JT
04 Aug 1998 15:41:19 Atilla The Pun reads page one
04 Aug 1998 17:24:07 Attila the Pun gives to else...if
06 Aug 1998 17:20:22 Attila the Pun receives OAI
12 Aug 1998 02:23:21 JT reads page eight
12 Aug 1998 02:35:41 JT receives OSME

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:36:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enquiry

> Does anyone (esp. breadbox) know what happened to the Highlander's
> Sword blueprint?  JT and the others seem to be acting as if it's
> been Qualified, but I don't see it in the Rules.

Well, you're right. It's not in the rules. I'm not sure what happened
there. Does the inventor have a (dated) copy of the Discovery? If not,
I can find it in the archives, but I thought I'd ask first....

breadbox
coming and going

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:38:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3414

David Scheidt wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote:
> > Proposal 3414
> > The Motherload
> > K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
> >
> > The map writer and recipient of the Treasure against which the Hostile
> > Takeover was called are not permitted to vote in the Hostile Takeover.
>
> Why not?  this seems contrary to lots of other hearings.

Hearing apathy. cf Great Debunk.Since the invoved players are almost certain
to vote and two players (w EBS) with an interest in the treasure (which
could conflict with eir judgement as to weather the map was a "scam") could
tip the result if voter turn out is low.

IMVUHO :)

K 2

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:43:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AVPP

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, K2 wrote:

> You could pull a <gasp> conditional maneuver.

a) That's a Sin.

> If I'm not a member of any political party I join....

b) I _am_ a member of a political party.  And *that*'s a Crime. :-)

- - 867-5309, wondering if this | counts as prescience...
                              v
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do. 

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:46:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3406

>> {{[I fail to see why CSR needs to limited to a few players. The inbuilt
>> properties of a CSR doesn't lend itself to a scam. Furthermore many
>> CSRable changes now days go the proposal route anyway. This proposal
>> repeals the CSRR and CSR restrictions and introduces a standard harfer
>> fee penalty for rejected CSRs.]}}
> 
> I have had certain ideas along this line myself, but I think that it
> might be a good idea to keep the CSRR Office around for one reason:
> to assign numbers to CSRs.

Yes indeed. In fact, I would say that the current system of CSRs is
flawed for exactly this reason. Most all other official documents in
the game have to funneled through a single Officer, who sees to it
that they are numbered consistently. This is no longer true of CSRs,
ever since they were "deprivatized", but they are the ONLY document
that the rules *require* to be numbered sequentially. How much sense
does that make?

But I also disagree that CSRs should be made more generally available;
in fact, I would prefer to see them return to being more restricted.
The statement that CSRs don't lend themselves to a scam is not true.
CSRs are a major vehicle for scamming; what keeps them safe is their
relative infrequency. If CSRs start flying around left and right, it's
becomes more likely that a scam can slip through without its full
ramifications being noticed.

> E might even want to serve as a sort of Promoter for them.

You know, this is pretty much what CSRs were in the very beginning.
There was exactly one person who could produce CSRs, and every player
was encouraged to submit material to em. The latter is still the case;
maybe we should return to the former as well.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:48:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3414

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, K2 wrote:

> > > The map writer and recipient of the Treasure against which the Hostile
> > > Takeover was called are not permitted to vote in the Hostile Takeover.
> >
> > Why not?  this seems contrary to lots of other hearings.
> 
> Hearing apathy. cf Great Debunk.Since the invoved players are almost certain
> to vote and two players (w EBS) with an interest in the treasure (which
> could conflict with eir judgement as to weather the map was a "scam") could
> tip the result if voter turn out is low.
> 
So?  Why is this bad?  If other people can't be bothered to stop it, they
must be assumed to be for it.

rufus

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:53:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Book

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, K2 wrote:
>I have no record of Ayla receiving an Otzma Card for reading page four,
>I would ask the Speaker to verify this from the e-mail archive and
>perform a determination as necessary.
>[30 May 1998 12:32:22 Ayla reads page four]

I cannot find such a determination having been made either.  However, I
think this error also falls under the pragmatism clause for a similar
reason to Rex recieving an OC instead of a Gadget.  Ayla just recieved
nothing instead of an OC.

- --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: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:46:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3415

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, JT wrote:

> Glad to see this being proposed.  I only saw one problem, and it's minor
> enough that a CSR can fix it if the rule is accepted.
> 
> >If Player (C) has Thrall Attribute which is the name of Player (D), then
> >Player (C) may be referred to as Player (D)'s Overlord.
> 
> Shouldn't this be Player (D) may be referred to as Player (C)'s Overlord?
> Since if your Thrall attribute is the name of a player then you are in
> thrall TO that player :)

Yes, you're right.  CSR material.

> 
> It also doesn't address cyclic thrallhood, but that's fine :)

I don't think it really needs to - it isn't actually a problem if we just
leave it alone.  Like I said, this proposal sets up the framework for
Thrall - other proposals can complicate it later.

> 
> Other than that, I didn't see any errors in it.

Great.
- -- 
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, Clerk of the Court, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:55:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3406

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > I have had certain ideas along this line myself, but I think that it
> > might be a good idea to keep the CSRR Office around for one reason:
> > to assign numbers to CSRs.
> 
> Yes indeed. In fact, I would say that the current system of CSRs is
> flawed for exactly this reason. Most all other official documents in
> the game have to funneled through a single Officer, who sees to it
> that they are numbered consistently. This is no longer true of CSRs,
> ever since they were "deprivatized", but they are the ONLY document
> that the rules *require* to be numbered sequentially. How much sense
> does that make?

Not much.  Or maybe too much.  I'm not sure.

> 
> But I also disagree that CSRs should be made more generally available;
> in fact, I would prefer to see them return to being more restricted.
> The statement that CSRs don't lend themselves to a scam is not true.
> CSRs are a major vehicle for scamming; what keeps them safe is their
> relative infrequency. If CSRs start flying around left and right, it's
> becomes more likely that a scam can slip through without its full
> ramifications being noticed.
> 
> > E might even want to serve as a sort of Promoter for them.
> 
> You know, this is pretty much what CSRs were in the very beginning.
> There was exactly one person who could produce CSRs, and every player
> was encouraged to submit material to em. The latter is still the case;
> maybe we should return to the former as well.
> 
> breadbox
> 

The recent trend towards "privatization" of CSRs started while I was the
CSRR (or,if you prefer, CSSR), so I feel partly responsible.  Sorry if I
didn't make all those changes you folks forwarded to me as quickly as you
would have liked (although, in the end, I did make all of them that I felt
were appropriate for inclusion in a CSR, I might add).

I voted against the early attempts to give other officers CSR power, at
least so far as I can recall (what, me go check? Nah...).  I saw CSRs as
something to be used fairly infrequently, to patch the sorts of minor
mistakes that weren't even worth a proposal.  I was surprised that other
people wanted to use them more often (I don't think there were more than 3
or 4 during the year or so before I took over), but upon reflection, it
does make some sense to spread the ability around some.  It was good for
the Speaker, and later the Rule Harfer or Promoter or whichever one of
that unholy trinity of offices breadbox holds, to be able to renumber
rules.  And it makes sense for the ChessUmpire to be able to change the
Chess rules, since he's probably the only person who even tries to
understand them all.

But I think we've already gone far enough with the CSRs. Anti-voting is
gone now, so you can't say necessary changes are going to be voted down
for the sake of points.  And while they may be useful for such purposes,
when was the last time a CSR was really used to deal with an urgent
problem, something that couldn't wait for a proposal?  I say keep things
as they are, or even roll back CSRs into one office.  Perhaps allow
players to submit say, one CSR a month to the CSRR, and the CSRR himself
to author as many as he chooses, incorporating other's suggestions while
giving proper credit.  And the general public can concentrate on writing
proposals.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:36:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enquiry

>Well, you're right. It's not in the rules. I'm not sure what happened
>there. Does the inventor have a (dated) copy of the Discovery? If not,
>I can find it in the archives, but I thought I'd ask first....

I don't unfortunately, no, although I'd guess that someone somewhere will.
I also made a discovery for a gadget "Guardian Anngel" at about the same
time which wasn't in the rules last time I looked so that probably needs
putting up too.

MTM, Inventor.

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:36:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal RFC (Office Simplification)

>> > I don't see why it needs to make sense, it just needs to work. If it
ain't
>> > broke don't fix is an old adage which would seem to apply here.
>> 
>> If it ain't broke don't fix it is the antithesis of Nomic.  The Initial
>> Ruleset is not "broke", so how come we ended up with all these other
>> rules?
>> 
>
>I agree with Slakko, so far as not fixing things that aren't broken is
>concerned.  The thing is, in this case I feel it is more a case of "If it
>ain't broke, don't break it."

That's probably what I meant as well. Change is great so long as it doesn't
detract from the game. The office structure is a functional part of the
rules rather than a funn part so there's not much point in messing with it
unless absolutely necessary.

Mr. Tambourine Man.

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:44:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another idea

>So far as this word buying idea is concerned, I'm begining to think it
>isn't so great of an idea.  I still think its interesting, but the work
>involved would probably outweigh the fun.  Outweigh it by a lot...  You'd
>need someonme to track the new currency, track word purchases and sales,
>etc.  And someone to run a check on any word someone was thinking about
>buying, to see how much it would cost.  And as Slakko (or somebody)
>pointed out, you could always get around paying through the use of
>some creative wording.
	The new currency isn't such a big idea.  We could use Acka cents to
make the scaling work.  Words would just be normal tradeable objects, and
the owner would be responsible for tracking usage.  I don't think this
would be any more work for the financier than any other tradeable object.
K2 or anyone else who's been financier, am I right?  As for checking words,
I was envisioning a simple cgi script on the website where you type a word
into a form, click a button, and it says how many times the word is used.
This is not a difficult program.  breadbox, would you object to putting
such a program on your website to keep it together with the proposal
archives?  In response to what Slakko said, it could just be changed so
that you pay whenever a proposal creates a rule containing the word.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and
enjoy it.
		-Logan Pearsall Smith

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #188
***********************************