Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #204
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Saturday, August 29 1998     Volume 03 : Number 204

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 13:33:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 648 (K 2 / Rig R. Mortis)

The following is my reasoning/verdict for CFJ 648:

I rule this CFJ True for two reasons:
1 - its in my own best interests and 2 -

rule 709:
- ---
This rule has precedence over all other rules, except where this rule
explicitly defers to other rules.
...
A player may not leave the Gaol except by the application of a Rule
which
explicitly defines a procedure or condition for the player to be
released or
removed from the Gaol.
...
A player is released from the Gaol if and when their sentence expires.
Other
rules may specify other conditions under which a
player is released.
- ---

rule 812:
- ---
They are all placed in gaol for one day.
- ---

One day was up when JT changed locations - eir sentence had expired
therefore
e was released as per rule 709.

Did I just judge the CFJ or will/did Rig R. Mortis?

rule 810:
- ---
5) If a player leaves or is removed from, any Location, and it is
unspecified
to which Location that they go, they go to their Home, if it exists.
- ---

Released interpreted in a common english manner would indicate removal
from
the gaol; If it were said in RL that a prisoner had been "released" the
general public would at least know e was outside the gaol - I believe
this to
be the current case. By section 5 of rule 810 I was At Home when I was
selected by the CotC for this CFJ - thus I AM the judge and JT is/was At
Home.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 13:33:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Offices: Bad Rhyme

Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, K2 wrote:
>
> > I set JT's house on fire in such away that it may never be extinguished except
> > by application of a rule which _specifically_ allows for a house fire to be
> > extinguished.
> >
> > I ask the map harfer to note this fact.
>
> I ask the Financier to note the fact that I have created 2000
> non-entities, each with a distinct name consisting of a 10 digit prime
> number.
>

Its a deal.

K 2

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 13:53:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Probabilistic Boon of the Ancients

> > It is stated that the Gnome arrives at noon, exactly.  Hence, when the
> > Gnome did the present run, Rex had not yet been at the AIGR for 3 days.
> 
> I agree with Slakko, oddly enough.  It doesn't matter when the random
> determination occurs, but when Rule 975 was applied, and that was at
> noon.

I was the one who pointed out to JT (from memory) that some of the presents
are unique and require a random determination, so some of the presents might
not be given until he made the random selections, and that he should consult
the rules.  I believe the various comments are right, though, that since
no random determination was necessary for Rex Mundi, he was not at the AIoGR
for 3 days when the Gnome stopped by, so he instead got a pair of dress pants.

(Actually, I think none of the random determinations in the rule happened
this time -- that requires, at a minimum, that two players with blue cross
bonuses and the maximum number of bonus votes are in their homes, and those
homes have towers, which admittedly isn't too farfetched a possibility).

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 13:54:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Thralls, Caste, Council, and Jihad

Whew.  That was long.  Not quite as long as my huge Land reform RFCs, I
don't think, but long enough so that I didn't read all of it.  What I did
read, sounded good. :)  I would suggest that, if submitted as proposal,
you dump the extended quotes of text from the Games and Contest Suite.

One thing that I noticed that did seem problematic was Grey COuncil Bonus
Votes.  You need 5 regular bonus votes to make one, and under current
rules no one can have that many bonus votes.  On the other hand, I'm not
sure if there is anything stopping players from converting bonus votes
they don't own themselves, not under the rule as you wrote it.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 13:59:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3465 rejected

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> >> Weishaupt                               [Weishaupt is no longer pending]
> > 
> > Question: "Weishaupt" or "Wieshaupt"?
> 
> Well, JT spelled it Weishaupt three times and Wieshaput once, so I
> figured it was the former. (Also it sounds like an Anglicization of
> German for "white chief" or something like that.)
> 
> breadbox
> 

I think that somebody-or-other Weishaupt was the founder of the Bavarian
Illuminati.  Or so they would like us to believe...

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 14:09:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Thralls, Caste, Council, and Jihad

I'm going to preface this with saying that it's a very ambitious proposal.
I think there are some technical issues which make it less than good, and
that some of the problems would keep me from voting for it.

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Mueller wrote:
>This tromps on some current proposals, but before I update it I wanted to
>see if I should even bother:

You should do your best to take into account proposals which currently are
in the queue which modify the same areas that you are, you can do this by
placing text like 'If proposal XXXX passed then perform the following'
followed by changes to make your rule compatible with that proposal.

>Council to consider the Grey Proposal unless it is already considering one,
>in which case the post is ignored.  Members of the Grey Council may vote
>with any string of text they desire that has fewer than 1025 characters, by
>publicly posting it. They may not change eir vote. The effects of a Grey
>Proposal occur when the required number of appropriate votes have been
>made, but the voting is not considered over until 72 whole hours have
>elapsed since consideration began.
>
>Valid Grey Proposals include and may be resolved in the following
>circumstances:
>
>a) If a member of the Grey Council makes a Grey Proposal that Ackanomic
>enter the state of Jihad and six members vote "Kill the heretics!" then
>Ackanomic enters or stays in the state of Jihad, otherwise the game enters
>or stays in its normal, non-Jihad state.
>
>b) If a member of the Religious Caste makes a Grey Proposal that a new rule
>be added to the Cultural Conduct Rule Suite and three members vote "Yes,
>traditional values of Harf must be preserved!" then the proposal is added
>to the Cultural Conduct Rule Suite as proposed.
>
>c) If a member of the Grey Council makes a Grey Proposal to strike a rule
>from the Cultural Conduct Rule Suite and seven members vote "Those crazy
>Harf priests are at it again!" then the noted rule is repealed from the
>Cultural Conduct Rule Suite.

I would do these as 3 types of hearings with 2 responses each.  Allowing
the Grey Council or holders of Grey Bonus Votes to be the only people
allowed to vote on the hearing (ie, excluding EBS :)

>(i) Five Bonus Votes may be converted into a Grey Bonus Vote, a tradable
>entity of which only one may be owned by any player.  If more than one
>would be owned by a single player, all but one are destroyed.

I would specify some way for these 5 to be chosen (otherwise you have a
hubert situation), and preferably, I would not have any of the existing
bonus votes converted, and just define them.

>(ii) Using a Grey Bonus Vote causes the destruction of the Grey Bonus Vote
>and causes a player to become a Temporary Grey Council Member for their
>caste until such time as one vote has been completed with this player as a
>Temporary Grey Council Member.
>
>(iii) Only one Temporary Grey Council Member may exist at a time. Grey
>Bonus Votes used while a Temporary Grey Council Member exists, or used by a
>normal member of the Grey Council result only in the destruction of the
>Grey Bonus Vote.

Why limit it.  If the players who have the Grey votes want to use them,
let them.  Keep the part about normal council members not being able to
use them.

You also didn't provide any way for new votes to be created/gotten when
they are destroyed, nor did you prevent more than 5 grey votes from
existing.

>If the Duel will be a Caste Duel and the Challenger is a member of the
>Warrior Caste then the Challenger has their Dueling Advantage reduced by
>two (2) until the Duel has been resolved.

In general, I don't like this concept of 'Duel Advantage'.  Players should
win duels by their skill alone, not through external number manipulation.

>a. The Speaker, President, or Senate may declare an instance of a game an
>"exhibition" as a public action, even while it is in progress. In this
>case, no points or currency shall be awarded or transferred to, or among,
>the participants (but Trophies shall be, as appropriate). If the game
>instance is also a Caste Duel, then no Thrall Attributes may be changed as
>a result of the game.  This declaration is discouraged, and should do so
>only under conditions of abuse or other problems. This section 

There is nothing stopping the speaker, president or senate from making
every instance of a Caste Duel into an exhibition you realize.

>Also, each participant's Dueling Advantage is added to eir limerick's vote
>total.

This isn't so bad.

>This game is Caste Compatible.
>
>If the game is a Duel then the referee shall determine the difference in
>the participants' Dueling Advantages. The game shall proceed as follows:
>(i) If the difference is zero (0) then turn order shall operate as if the
>game was not a Caste Duel [see the second paragraph].
>(ii) If the difference is one (1) then the player with the higher Dueling
>Advantage chooses who will go first and then the turns will alternate for
>the rest of the game.
>(ii) If the difference is greater than one (1) then the player with the
>higher Dueling advantage will be the first to take a turn.  This player
>will take as many turns as the difference between the players scores before
>passing the turn to eir opponent and continuing the game by alternating turns.

This is a problem.  A Challenger Warrior during a Jihad has 4 Duel
Advantage points..   Assuming he challenges a non-warrior, that's a
difference of 4.  He choses a 5 letter word where either the first or last
4 letters are not a word, and given those 4 letters, there is exactly one
letter that makes a valid word and that 5 letter word isn't contained in
any other word.  I haven't checked that such a word exists, but I'm fairly
sure at least one does :) Now he gets the first 4 plays, and wins
the duel under every circumstance by challenging that the 5 letter (played
by his opponent) either is a word (if he choses the correct letter) or is
not in a word if he choses any other.

>III. Limits on Members of the Cultural Conduct Rule Suite
>
>1) No Cultural Conduct Rule shall create a standard which applies to
>certain players, but not others.  All standards must apply to everyone
>regardless of Caste, Score, Wealth, Entity Ownership, or other
>individuating criteria.
>2) No Cultural Conduct Rule shall create a standard to be applied to a Newbie.

These two are in conflict.  If I obey 1, then it must be applied to a
newbie, but since it cannot be applied to a newbie (by 2) it conflicts
with 1. 

>3) No Cultural Conduct Rule shall create a standard which is impossible to
>meet due to a game state which will remain in effect unless the rules are
>changed.

I'm not sure I understand what this means.

>All public statements (those posted to [email-masked]) which
>refer to any member of the Religious Caste by eir Player Name must do so
>following the format “NAME, respects,” where “NAME” is the Player Name of
>the member of the Religious Caste being referred to and “respects” is a
>string of not more than four words, not previously used to comply with this
>rule, which demonstrate the greatness of the referred to Religious Caste
>member.

Umm.. now you're going to require me (as the speaker I have to track all
game state not explicitly tracked elsewhere) to track the words of respect
used to refer to any religious person?  That's an insane amount of work
you realize, for anyone, not just me.

>Any Active Player may make a CSR which the name of one or more unique
>entities to Section 2 of this rule.  Any unique entities listed in Section
>2 must be referred to in all public statements (those posted to
>[email-masked]) only in CAPS.  Mention must also be made to the
>effect that the entities continue to be Harfy.
>
>Section 2
>
>Chartreuse Goose
>Tammany

I just don't like this one at all :)

Anyway, there are my comments.

- --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: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 14:24:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3465 rejected

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:
>>> Weishaupt                               [Weishaupt is no longer pending]
>> 
>> Question: "Weishaupt" or "Wieshaupt"?
>
>Well, JT spelled it Weishaupt three times and Wieshaput once, so I
>figured it was the former. (Also it sounds like an Anglicization of
>German for "white chief" or something like that.)

In the mail he sent me, it is 'Weishaupt', if I spelled it otherwise, I
blame my errant fingers which sometimes get ahead of my brain.

- --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: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 14:25:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3498

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote:
>Proposal 3498
>Can you say scam, boys and girls?
>rufus (David Scheidt)
>
>Repeal rule 975.

Having just applied this, I don't really see a scam there, maybe you can
explain it Rufus?

- --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: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 14:28:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 648 (K 2 / Rig R. Mortis)

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, K2 wrote:
>The following is my reasoning/verdict for CFJ 648:

This CFJ was retracted by me :)

- --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: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 16:37:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Thralls, Caste, Council, and Jihad

On Sat, 29 August 1998 (later that day), JT wrote:
>
>On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Mueller wrote:
>>Valid Grey Proposals include and may be resolved in the following
>>circumstances:
>I would do these as 3 types of hearings with 2 responses each.  Allowing
>the Grey Council or holders of Grey Bonus Votes to be the only people
>allowed to vote on the hearing (ie, excluding EBS :)

Don't see a difference, but if it helps get a vote then the change is made.

>>(i) Five Bonus Votes 

This was my typo.

>>(iii) Only one Temporary Grey Council Member may exist at a time. Grey
>>Bonus Votes used while a Temporary Grey Council Member exists, or used by a
>>normal member of the Grey Council result only in the destruction of the
>>Grey Bonus Vote.
>
>Why limit it.  If the players who have the Grey votes want to use them,
>let them.  Keep the part about normal council members not being able to
>use them.

I figured it would be best to keep it close to the original and change it
later (when we had a better idea on how this worked in practice).

> nor did you prevent more than 5 grey votes from existing.

Didn't seem necessary when only one Temp Member could exist at a time.

>>If the Duel will be a Caste Duel and the Challenger is a member of the
>>Warrior Caste then the Challenger has their Dueling Advantage reduced by
>>two (2) until the Duel has been resolved.
>
>In general, I don't like this concept of 'Duel Advantage'.  Players should
>win duels by their skill alone, not through external number manipulation.

I was trying to create a situation where Jihad would be preferred by the
"military-industrial complex" such that Warriors would need Jihad to make
up for the 2 advantage hit they took by undertaking Caste Duels.  Also it
seemed thematically apropriate for Warriors to get some minor benefit here
that wouldn't fundamentally alter things, but might tip a close game.

>>This game is Caste Compatible.
>>
>>If the game is a Duel then the referee shall determine the difference in
>>the participants' Dueling Advantages. The game shall proceed as follows:
>>(i) If the difference is zero (0) then turn order shall operate as if the
>>game was not a Caste Duel [see the second paragraph].
>>(ii) If the difference is one (1) then the player with the higher Dueling
>>Advantage chooses who will go first and then the turns will alternate for
>>the rest of the game.
>>(ii) If the difference is greater than one (1) then the player with the
>>higher Dueling advantage will be the first to take a turn.  This player
>>will take as many turns as the difference between the players scores before
>>passing the turn to eir opponent and continuing the game by alternating
turns.
>
>This is a problem.  A Challenger Warrior during a Jihad has 4 Duel
>Advantage points..   Assuming he challenges a non-warrior, that's a
>difference of 4.  

As my proposal currently stands, during Jihad a Warrior has an advantage of
two and if e goes for a Thrall by making it a Caste Duel, he drops to zero
where everyone else is naturally.  Outside of Jihad e has a _negative_
advantage of 1 in Caste Duels.  I left the wording such that rules could be
added later to modify Dueling Advantage without restructuring the system
(Otzma Cards or whatever).

In the opening to the Games & Contest Rule suite I added requiremtents that
the game cannot have a foregone conclusion (I guess as determined by a CSR)
unless the difference in their Dueling Advantages is equal to or greater
than four. On the assumption that this would require several tricks to
effect, in which case, the tricky player would deserve a Thrall (though
some games still wouldn't give it to them probably).

However, if anyone can think of a better system for Warrior's to gain
Thrall I'd go for it.

>>1) No Cultural Conduct Rule shall create a standard which applies to
>>certain players, but not others.  All standards must apply to everyone
>>regardless of Caste, Score, Wealth, Entity Ownership, or other
>>individuating criteria.
>>2) No Cultural Conduct Rule shall create a standard to be applied to a
Newbie.
>
>These two are in conflict.  If I obey 1, then it must be applied to a
>newbie, but since it cannot be applied to a newbie (by 2) it conflicts
>with 1. 

My understanding of precednce initally lead me to believe that lower
provisions would create exceptions to higher ones.  Forgot that it was an
inclusive list that did not preclude impossibility in case of
contradiction.  Thanks.

>>3) No Cultural Conduct Rule shall create a standard which is impossible to
>>meet due to a game state which will remain in effect unless the rules are
>>changed.
>
>I'm not sure I understand what this means.

Perhaps a better wording is simply "No Cultural Conduct Rule shall create a
standard which is impossible to meet in the current state of the game."

>>the member of the Religious Caste being referred to and >>“respects” is a
>>string of not more than four words, not previously used to comply with this
>>rule, 
>
>That's an insane amount of work you realize, for anyone, not just me.

I hadn't, consider it gone.

>>Any unique entities listed in Section 2 must be referred to 
>>in all public statements (those posted to
>>[email-masked]) only in CAPS.  Mention must also
>>be made to the effect that the entities continue to be 
>>Harfy.
>
>I just don't like this one at all :)

Is the Cultural Conduct Suite/Punishment for Thrall system bad or just
these rules...  I had a hard time coming up with an apropriate mechanism
that was roughly equivalent to Duels and Purchases.  Any Suggestions anyone?

Studge

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 16:47:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Get out of Jail

Brian Raiter wrote:

> Rather, if Slakko wishes to press the point, I would invoke Rule 810,
> which says:
>
>   If a player leaves or is removed from, any Location, and it is
>   unspecified to which Location that they go, they go to their Home,
>   if it exists.
>
> and in fact this may be the way that being released from the Gaol has
> been harfed in the past.

and the reasoning used in my recent CFJ - Great minds and all that :)

K 2

>
>
> breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 16:47:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Get out of Jail

JT wrote:

> I retract the CFJ which I submitted on 8/27/1998 (I do not recall the
> number off hand)  Since I only submitted one CFJ today, I believe this
> would be unambiguous.

Just a little too slow :/

K 2

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 16:48:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3471 accepted

Ohhh another nulll one:)

K 2

nomicbot wrote:

> Results of Proposal 3471
>
> 18/27 votes: Quorum achieved
> 11/16 YES votes: Proposal accepted
>
> > Proposal 3471 - Sat 22 Aug 1998 03:40 EDT
> > Just my Finger
> > K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
> >
> > This is a Modest Proposal.
> > Debunk Rule 594.24 (Blueprint: Finger of Justice).

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 16:48:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Web-Harfery

I have my own confession:
org pages are now at:
http://home.connexus.net.au/~kii/finance/orgs.html

The treasure pages have been updated (finally :)

K 2

Duncan Richer wrote:

> I have now, due to reader comment, included links directly to the acka
> mailing list archives on both of the main pages, i.e.
>
> http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/Acka/
> and
> http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/Acka/altindex.html
>
> These will hopefully work straight away.  Feel free to notify me of any
> difficulties not due to muppetlabs.
>
> --
> 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, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 16:48:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Probabilistic Boon of the Ancients

At the time the gnome vistied Rex Mundi had not been at the AIGR 3 days - there
is no need to randomly deterimine this.

> /dev/joe and I were discussing this on IRC this morning.  I believed as
> you claim above.  /dev/joe thought the boon might have been awarded
> because that action is a random event and thus doesn't occur until it's
> announced, and therefore Rex might have gotten the boon.  Since I was
> unsure, I decided to give the benefit of the doubt to Rex mundi and
> /dev/joe.  (if he didn't actually get a Boon, he recieved a pair of dress
> pants.).
>
> --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: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 16:48:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3472

Mueller wrote:

> I think I see a potential scam.
>
> Nomicbot wrote:
> >Proposal 3472
> >Net Worth it?
> >K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
> >
> >Replace the first four paragraphs of Rule 506 (Trinkets) with:
> >"
> >A class of gift entities known as Trinkets exist. The Net Worth of a
> >Trinket may only be changed as specified by the rules.
>
> and then the other four paragraphs continue, but compare vs the current
> first paragraph:
>
> "Rule 506/12 (Trinkets)
>
> A class of gift entities known as Trinkets exist. Trinkets always have a
> positive, integral value in A$; this takes precedence over
> all other rules. The value of a Trinket may only be changed as specified by
> the rules."
>
> If I read this correctly, then Trinkets could validly be created which had
> a negative value, effectively making money for the Trinket maker.  Says
> "Scam" to me.

  The point is moot now but near the top of the prop:
An Entity's Net Worth may take any positive integer.

negatives don't come into it - that scams been done before :)

K 2

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 16:48:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Characteristics

Dice server wrote:

> # Player: ThinMan
> # Wisdom
>
> 9

That doesn't seem right for a former justice.># Player: Mr. Tambourine Man># Charisma
>
>8

and for someone who owns a cheddar.....

Just when I thought the dice server was taking an active role in the game...

K 2

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 16:48:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Doom

Sent this before checking my mail - Slakko & EBS, Piz and memo voted
with JT -
not that it changes the result. (6:8)
K2 wrote:

> In the recent hearing :
>
> It is only a little hailstorm.
> JT & EBS
>
> The sky is falling!
> else...if & EBS
> rufus
> MTM
> ThinMan & EBS
> Studge
> Alfvaen
>
> which makes me Scaremonger :)
>
> You fools, you thought you had it bad before, now I shall bring a new
> name to terror!!! The sky is falling? hah that's nothing, just wait
> until tomorrow: You'll wish for the days when Plagues and pestilence
> were all you had to worry about. Really Bad Earth quakes shall be a fond
> memory - For I have been to the bottom of the library's catacombs, Yea
> even unto its most secret and locked places. I know how to crash the
> game. Have I not attempted it before? Next time I shall succeed, or the
> one who comes to take my place shall! The portents are there to be read.
> Has not Hoover 2300 ceased? Has not the 23 cycle commenced? DOoom
> DoooOOom DoooM! How can you deny the signs. The writing is on the wall.
> Its pointless Running weeping on your knees to The True prophet - e
> cannot help you. Nothing can save you. Its all going to END.
>
> I read from the book for chorg the page disappears and the game ends -
> so its a little hard for me to relate to you but it was probably a
> combination of Murrey & banna.
>
> K 2

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 16:51:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Actions

JT wrote:

> We were having a discussion on IRC this morning about boundary conditions.
> (related to the comment about negative points I made aboue else...if's
> points pool proposal)
>
> It seems to me that there is nothing in the rules preventing me from doing
> the following.
>
> I (halfway) don't expect the following to work, but hey, if it does, great
> :)
>
> I gift -3000 A$ to Guy Fawkes.
> I gift -700 A$ to Publius
> I gift -400 A$ to Tom Kitten
> I gift -500 A$ to Astro.

Surely -3000 A$ represents 3000 A$ you don't own?

K 2

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #204
***********************************