Subject: acka-research Digest V4 #122
From: [email-masked]
To: acka-research digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 00:00:03 -0400 (EDT)

acka-research Digest	Saturday, July 17 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 122

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Officers
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:31:01 -0400 (EDT)

JT wrote:

> Are there any treasures which I should be privy too as Treasure Harfer
> according to rule 6-4-16 section b)
>    b) To be the default Map Custodian for any Treasure Map whose Writer
>    requests it, as in Rule 12-9. The Treasure-Harfer is not excluded from
>    finding any Treasure for which e is not a Map Custodian.

I was only made custodian for one treasure, but I don't think you become
custodian for it unless/until the map writer requests it.

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Further clues for T240 & 248
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:49:58 -0400 (EDT)

I've found a few more errors in the yashmac treasure - T240.

P2: but I wanted to be really fair EEL.
P9: A kid and her salami. Milo eggplant inter-mug.

There are two other errors but they aren't important, they just result
in two spelling errors in the decoded clue.

---------
The following conversation between two subversive elements of the Acka
population was recorded on IRC recently - a transcript is provided for
your perusal.

<K3-SG> you managed it :-)
<EmpAiPed> managed what?
<K3-SG> to decode the first part of the clue by the sound of it
<EmpAiPed> first part of what clue?
<EmpAiPed> by the SOUND of it?
<K3-SG> no that wasn't a clue
<EmpAiPed> I didn't do ANYTHing
<K3-SG> oh
<EmpAiPed> <snip Partial solution>
<EmpAiPed> that's it
<EmpAiPed> i decoded that part
<K3-SG> The first part, the second part or both?
<EmpAiPed> what?
* EmpAiPed groans
<K3-SG> do you have the other half?
<EmpAiPed> nope
<K3-SG> ever wonder why the words I chose were soooo odd?
<EmpAiPed> yes :D
<K3-SG> could be because of the encoding restrictions
<EmpAiPed> yeah, i realized that too
<EmpAiPed> but that didn't help me
<EmpAiPed> :D
<K3-SG> how did you get the first part?
<EmpAiPed> <snip solution>
<K3-SG> ...and there are two parts
<K3-SG> 81 is a square number....

A similar conversation was recorded with /dev/joe creator of the
prosthetic forehead(TM) - substitute one for your real one today(R).

The following will only be of help if you've managed to decode the
original clue (see recent clues for help there)

treat the first all on its own,
romans roam all jumbled up.
now the second with the first...
things have changed - chaos rules.
make a copy of the third
now present it to the fourth

look, the second half should be
numerically familiar

-----
As for T248, there isn't much latitude to give out clues without giving
it away. Even so it can't be long...

4100AD-2000AD

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Trinket Creation, Treasure burial
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 16:15:32 -0400 (EDT)

Luc Tessier wrote:

> I bury it as a treasure and reveal the following:
>
> ..Ackanomic Rules are in peril.  Failure 45 of split bids with that trust...
>

I _actively_ smack EA!P! over the head with this treasure.

K 2-EMAEAP

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4243 accepted
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:35:22 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 [email-masked] wrote:
>  A player may create a nose-sack of whichever of these elements e breathes
>  as a public action.  If a player ever owns a nose-sack of an element e does
>  not breathe, it vanishes in a vile-smelling puff of smoke.

I repeat the following actions delimited by BREATING 10 times.
BREATHING
I create a nose-sack of Oxygium
BREATHING

--JT, wondering when people will learn to limit actions per time-slice.

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

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4243 accepted
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:46:29 -0400 (EDT)

At 06:35 PM 7/17/99 -0400, you wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 [email-masked] wrote:
>>  A player may create a nose-sack of whichever of these elements e breathes
>>  as a public action.  If a player ever owns a nose-sack of an element e
does
>>  not breathe, it vanishes in a vile-smelling puff of smoke.
>
>I repeat the following actions delimited by BREATING 10 times.
>BREATHING
>I create a nose-sack of Oxygium
>BREATHING

Did you want to do this off of research?

I didn't limit it per time-slice on purpose... 

1)We all breathe Oxygium, it had better be plentiful. 
2)If Ni!trogium was limited, it would effectively deny people the ability
to breathe it.  
3)There is ABSOLUTELY no advantage to be gained from 10 nose-sacks of
Oxygium.  

For these reasons, it is unlimited.  This was intentional... It reminds me
of JT increasing his element skills and gloating loudly about how broken
they were, when they did NOTHING.
-- Emperor Ai! Pedrito!
Butthead * Crazy French-Scotsman * DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Harfmeister *
Really Weird * Rule-Harfer * Weird * Wrangler

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4257
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:50:02 -0400 (EDT)

>
>	Create rule 1-2-6-1, "Timeslicing", with the following
>SAFERSMARTERANDFIXED delimited text.
>SAFERSMARTERANDFIXED
>	No player may perform the same public action more than once per
>day.  Two actions should be considered the same if they are defined by the
>same clause in a rule, even if some details are different.  This limit is
>known as the Standard Time Limitation (STL).  The following actions are not
>bound by the STL: proposing, voting, sending messages, submitting a CFJ,
>anything in a subgame, anything required by an office held by the player,
>and anything for which another rule places an alternate time limitation.
>This rule defers to all other rules.
>SAFERSMARTERANDFIXED
>{{[I think I got most of the important exceptions, but I probably missed a
>few.]}}
> 

that last part is for sure.  	Did any of you want to change location twice
a day?  Or compose or dissolve trinkets?  bury treasure?  bid in an
auction?  Because you don't seem to be able to do any of these more than
once a day with this prop.  

Acka:  Don't throw away your freedom.  Vote -60 on P4257!

-- Emperor Ai! Pedrito!
Butthead * Crazy French-Scotsman * DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Harfmeister *
Really Weird * Rule-Harfer * Weird * Wrangler

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

From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4257
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:55:23 -0400 (EDT)

>that last part is for sure.  	Did any of you want to change location twice
>a day?  Or compose or dissolve trinkets?  bury treasure?  bid in an
>auction?  Because you don't seem to be able to do any of these more than
>once a day with this prop.

	This sort of thing has been bothering me for a long time.  Lots of
people vote against proposals not because they object to the concept, but
because there's a minor problem in some section or another.  None of the
things EAP mentioned are vital.  At worst, we'll miss them for one week.
This is no reason to vote against 4257.  We need to start voting on
concepts, and be willing to fix rules up afterwords.

--
-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

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4257
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:45:08 -0400 (EDT)

At 07:55 PM 7/17/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>that last part is for sure.  	Did any of you want to change location twice
>>a day?  Or compose or dissolve trinkets?  bury treasure?  bid in an
>>auction?  Because you don't seem to be able to do any of these more than
>>once a day with this prop.
>
>	This sort of thing has been bothering me for a long time.  Lots of
>people vote against proposals not because they object to the concept, but
>because there's a minor problem in some section or another.  None of the
>things EAP mentioned are vital.  At worst, we'll miss them for one week.
>This is no reason to vote against 4257.  We need to start voting on
>concepts, and be willing to fix rules up afterwords.
>
>--

Well, I disagree with the concept.  What makes Acka different from, say,
Agora, is the freedom to do silly game actions with no effect, like playing
songs on the ASS or reciting poetry on the steps of town hall.  We are the
'harfy' nomic.  Restrictions like this are contrary to the spirit of the
game, IMHO.

In this case I feel the end of causing this proposal to fail justifies the
means of appealing to the voters on the basis of holes in the prop.

-- Emperor Ai! Pedrito!
Butthead * Crazy French-Scotsman * DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Harfmeister *
Really Weird * Rule-Harfer * Weird * Wrangler

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

End of acka-research Digest V4 #122
***********************************