Subject: acka-research Digest V4 #97
From: [email-masked]
To: acka-research digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:00 EDT

acka-research Digest	Thursday, June 10 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 097

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

From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4196
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:56:43 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 [email-masked] wrote:

> {{[This consititues the games which I've never seen played and are not in
> the dueling grid.  Pretty much everything else is what I'd consider a
> cherished part of Acka and can be dealt with in a more controversial
> proposal if we really want to get serious about cleaning up the ruleset.]}}
> 

 We played Single Capture Go - I won.

 Burn the Witch!

-- 
Jonathan D. Amery, http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html     #####
Wild Card of Acka, member of SPAM, wearing Silly Agenda Hats.     o__#######
Holding the Silver Key to the Vault.                               \'#######
Standing between the light and the dark, the candle and the flame.

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

From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4196
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 06:31:52 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 [email-masked] wrote:

> Proposal 4196
> More Cleaning
> Studge
> Due: Thu Jun 17 05:17:57 1999
> Sphere: Anti-Canada Kamikaze Alliance
> 
> Repeal Rule 12-3-7 Single Capture Go

Single Capture Go has been played before.  I like it, and I'd rather like
to play in a game of it.  I've played it as a duel once, and refereed a
three-player game of it.

Yours,
Duncan (15k Cambridge)
-- 
Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/    Ackanomic     | U. of Cambridge
Web-Harfer, Clerk of the Court, Map-Harfer, Justice | 2nd Year PhD(PMa)

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

From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4196
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:44:05 -0400 (EDT)

>> Repeal Rule 12-3-7 Single Capture Go

>Single Capture Go has been played before.  I like it, and I'd rather like
>to play in a game of it.  I've played it as a duel once, and refereed a
>three-player game of it.

I seem to recall it was decided that it was an inappropriate Duel game when
it ended up in a draw...

--
--Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/)
Song In My Head--Prince:Do U Lie
Current Book--Glen Cook:A Matter of Time
EMERGENCY INFORMATION: How to breathe.  1.  Inhale.

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

From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4196
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:40:09 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> >> Repeal Rule 12-3-7 Single Capture Go
> 
> >Single Capture Go has been played before.  I like it, and I'd rather like
> >to play in a game of it.  I've played it as a duel once, and refereed a
> >three-player game of it.
> 
> I seem to recall it was decided that it was an inappropriate Duel game when
> it ended up in a draw...

Yes - I set that up on one occasion and then realised the Duel rules did
not specify that anything special was to happen in the event of a draw.
I still think SCG is a good game, and would like to see a larger number
of players this time to make the game quite interesting.
(2 players only yields a 5x5 board, but 6 players gives a 9x9, and 
7 or 8 players a 10x10).

Yours,
Duncan

-- 
Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/
Queens' College Cambridge, 2nd Year Ph.D. (Pure Maths) - Graph Theory
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, Map-Harfer, Justice

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4191
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:00:32 -0400 (EDT)

John Bollinger wrote:

> >Proposal 4191

> >The following rules are Elderly:
> >Repeal all rule designated Elderly by this proposal
>
> *Puts on his Brooklyn Dodgers cap*

Months have gone by with The Magic Potato languishing in the cupboard of
indeterminate ownership. Not once did anyone throw open the door and rub off
the little green shoots that infested its surface. The Magic potato is getting
soft, its time we took The Magic Frying Oil made some Magic Chips (aka Fry).

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Name Change, Trinket Creation, Treasure, etc.
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:00:38 -0400 (EDT)

Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:

> I create 3 trinkets, worth A$1 each

which fails cause they are worth less than A$5 - see Rule 7-5.

As for the Treasure attempt - I liked it, creative and too annoying, but -
Organisations are not wholly undefined in the rules; the org-harfer is required
to track membership etc.... When they are, however, I intend interpreting the
map using the natural english meaning - basically this means that two or more
players will need to gang together and go through an unregulated I suggest I
approve routine. At the moment only the commission d-arts and Vulcan are
eligible....

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4195
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:23:25 -0400 (EDT)

[email-masked] wrote:

> Proposal 4195
> amend rule 10-2 by
>
> 1) inserting the following TELEPORT-delimited text between the second and
> third paragraphs
>
> TELEPORT
> In order to offer or accept a trade, or to gift any entities, the donator
> and the recipient must be in the same region.  This does not apply to any
> rule-mandated payments (CFCJ punishments, for example), or to any
> transaction between the treasury and another entity.
> TELEPORT

Sorry for having to point this out but this will be a NIGHTMARE to harf -
Enforcing the moon rule is hard enough but having to check player locations
before every transfer would be a real PAIN. I could modify the code of my bot to
do it & give the Map harfer access permissions on rob (aka my harfing script) -
after the initial set-up that wouldn't cause too much extra work; provided we
don't have a location thread split and the information is up to date and I don't
issue a transfer order before the map harfer issues a location change which
would effect the transfer etc.... Ultimately I'm not sure the extra harfing
effort is worth it, its not like there are any real restrictions on movement, so
all this will do is force players to know where they and the intended recipient
are (where is the Treasure anyway) or worse the appearance of phrases like 'I go
to the location of <player's name>' and CFJ alleging that is an ambiguous
location change and a location thread split :-)

K 2
who knows someone is still on the moon but can't remember who so will have to
look it up

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4195
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:27:31 -0400 (EDT)

K 2 wrote:

> are (where is the Treasure anyway) or worse the appearance of phrases like 'I go

Smacks emself with the staff of poor spelling... (where is the Treasury anyway?)

K 2

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4195
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:15:45 -0400 (EDT)

>Ultimately I'm not sure the extra harfing
>effort is worth it, its not like there are any real restrictions on
movement, so

Well, this is just a first step.  If this proposal was accepted, I meant to
put some sort of restriction on travelling between the Town and the City:
Either you pay the SHF to travel the King's Highway or you risk being
attacked by Bandits/Wild Creatures.  But I knew it would probably excite
enough controversy and negative feeling without that.   

>K 2
>who knows someone is still on the moon but can't remember who so will have to
>look it up
> 
-- T. T. Ren
DeeJay * Harfmeister * Wrangler

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4197
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:29:29 -0400 (EDT)

[email-masked] wrote:

> Repeal all rules numbered 1-7-x (paradigms are revealed, so individual
> paradigms should be)

IIRC the paradigm repeal repealed 1-7 _&_ its decendents

> If a player attempts to accept a trade, or gift an entity, to an entity in
> a different region, then the player first moves to the region of the entity
> on the other side of the transfer.

Could make location harfing interesting :-)

K 2

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

End of acka-research Digest V4 #97
**********************************