Subject: acka-research Digest V4 #128
From: [email-masked]
To: acka-research digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:00:04 -0400 (EDT)

acka-research Digest	Friday, July 23 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 128

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

From: Rachel Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Rule-Harfer at Work
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:11:02 -0400 (EDT)

Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
> 
> The rules are updated (txt and zip files should be updated at the next 15
> minute mark) and I have finally put up a set of pages of rules by parent
> (only in html, with prop histories)
> 
> Is there any interest in any other specific rule file formats that anyone
> wants me to work on in my spare time?

I notice that you have removed players' real names from the revision
histories. Is there any reason for this, because I much prefered it as
it was previously. I also note that some of the revision histories are
looking somewhat odd. Rule 1 apparently has been (amongst other things):

Transmuted to Mutable and Amended by Rule 1539 on 16 Dec 1996 by
saaremaa 
Renumbered by Rule 99 on 29 Dec 1998 by Emperor Ai! Pedrito! 

I am practically certain that no players held those names on those
dates, with the name changes coming muc later. Was this intentional,
because, again, I prefered things as they were.

Laa Laa.

-- 
Tom "I am not a walrus" Walmsley. mailto:[email-masked]
http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html ICQ: 2925739
"Among wizards?" said Ridcully. "Mister Stibbons, unusual behaviour is
perfectly ordinary for wizards." - Terry Pratchett, The Last Continent

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Rule-Harfer at Work
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:21:59 -0400 (EDT)

>I notice that you have removed players' real names from the revision
>histories. Is there any reason for this, because I much prefered it as
>it was previously. I also note that some of the revision histories are
>looking somewhat odd. Rule 1 apparently has been (amongst other things):
>
>Transmuted to Mutable and Amended by Rule 1539 on 16 Dec 1996 by
>saaremaa 
>Renumbered by Rule 99 on 29 Dec 1998 by Emperor Ai! Pedrito! 
>
>I am practically certain that no players held those names on those
>dates, with the name changes coming muc later. Was this intentional,
>because, again, I prefered things as they were.
>
>

Both changes were intentional, with the first motivating the second.  When
you repealed true names, it seemed to me to be a repudiation of 'human'
involvement with our players.  If a player can be named 'Tom Walmsley' then
it is only confusing to have (Tom Walmsley) after eir props -- and further
complicating things is the fact that since true names are no longer
defined, we have no reason to use them in relation to new players, and thus
I can't really know what to put in the parentheses.  It may seem a petty
reason, but it made sense to me.  And given that attitude, it seemed most
logical to put down who made the change in the last of eir game names.  The
proposal histories still carry a version of the change that is completely
accurate, and these proposal histories convey a little more information
without forcing players to go to the registrar's page.  

I see where you're coming from, however.  Does anyone else have strong
opinions on the issue?  I'm willing to try to redo things, but I want to
hear other views on this first.
-- Emperor Ai! Pedrito!
 DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Harfmeister * Rule-Harfer * Wrangler
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Really Weird * Weird

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

Subject: Re: Acka: Rule-Harfer at Work
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 23:43:22 -0400 (EDT)

> Both changes were intentional, with the first motivating the second.  When
> you repealed true names, it seemed to me to be a repudiation of 'human'
> involvement with our players.  If a player can be named 'Tom Walmsley' then
> it is only confusing to have (Tom Walmsley) after eir props -- and further
> complicating things is the fact that since true names are no longer
> defined, we have no reason to use them in relation to new players, and thus
> I can't really know what to put in the parentheses.  It may seem a petty
> reason, but it made sense to me.  And given that attitude, it seemed most
> logical to put down who made the change in the last of eir game names.  The
> proposal histories still carry a version of the change that is completely
> accurate, and these proposal histories convey a little more information
> without forcing players to go to the registrar's page.  

I don't know whether the True Names rule was in effect when you joined, but
the tradition of listing rules and rule changes under the player's current
name at the time of Proposal was well-entrenched long before then.  I think
it gives a good sense of history to know players' earlier names.  And I
also think that any confusion caused by one player assuming another's True
Name(even unintentionally--what if someone whose True Name was "Robert Sevin"
joined?)would be minimal if it was clear from context which name was the
True Name and which the Ackanomic Name.

Repealing "True Names" was not a repudiation of human involvement, it
seemed to be, as much as an acknowledgement that the issue did not need
to be rule-enforced.

If it can be done easily, then I would encourage that it be done.

--
--Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Junkhouse:Birthday Boy
Current Book--Michelle West:The Broken Crown
This is an anonymous tagline, so I can't credit the author.

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

End of acka-research Digest V4 #128
***********************************