Subject: acka-research Digest V4 #131
From: [email-masked]
To: acka-research digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:00:04 -0400 (EDT)

acka-research Digest	Monday, July 26 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 131

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

From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4261 accepted
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:54:10 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 [email-masked] wrote:

> Proposal 4261
> Votes to accept:
>   IdiotBoy              100         ==> 572

>  Amend Rule 12-3 (General Equipment) by replacing subsection a in section
>  III which reads:
>  "
>  a) The Official Scrabble Player's Dictionary (OSPD), as defined by the
>  URL: telnet://brauer.math.utoronto.ca:7777
>  "
>  with:
>  "
>  a) The Official Scrabble Player's Dictionary (OSPD), as defined by the
>  URL: telnet://moo.ackanomic.org
>  "

While I voted for this.. sigh.. the URL is wrong.  You won't get very far
connecting that way.  telnet://moo.ackanomic.org:7777 would be much more
useful.

Also.. if you happen to have a DICT client of your own.. you can merely
use the DICT server on brain.mics.net to do your checks.  A sample command
line might be:

dict -h brain.mics.net word

It might be better to say the DICT server on brain is the authority,
even.. I don't know how carefully we watch HOW people have looked up the
words.

The list on brian is the ENABLE wordlist from some 4-5 months ago.  I will
update it periodically, if I know that the ENABLE list has changed.

IB

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

From: Eric Wald <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4268
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 13:37:56 -0400 (EDT)

> Repeal Rule 1-1-1 (Gravity, a reprise)
> Repeal Rule 2-5 (WITH . . . A HERRING!)
> Rule 2-2-6-2 (Silly Phrases)
> Repeal Rule 2-1-3-1 (Substantially Safer Proposals)

Just out of curiosity, does this actually do anything to Rule 2-2-6-2?

and

from -> [email-masked]

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

From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4268
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 18:01:35 -0400 (EDT)

>> Repeal Rule 1-1-1 (Gravity, a reprise)
>> Repeal Rule 2-5 (WITH . . . A HERRING!)
>> Rule 2-2-6-2 (Silly Phrases)
>> Repeal Rule 2-1-3-1 (Substantially Safer Proposals)
>
>Just out of curiosity, does this actually do anything to Rule 2-2-6-2?

	Traditionally the "unambiguous mispelling" clause has been taken to
include things along those lines, although this is a relatively extreme
example.  I'd guess EAP will harf it like it said "repeal" unless people
object.
	[Plug for 4274: We could use Mutations when something like this
happens]

--
-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 4268
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 18:42:25 -0400 (EDT)

At 06:01 PM 7/26/99 -0400, Towsner wrote:
>>> Repeal Rule 1-1-1 (Gravity, a reprise)
>>> Repeal Rule 2-5 (WITH . . . A HERRING!)
>>> Rule 2-2-6-2 (Silly Phrases)
>>> Repeal Rule 2-1-3-1 (Substantially Safer Proposals)
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, does this actually do anything to Rule 2-2-6-2?
>
>	Traditionally the "unambiguous mispelling" clause has been taken to
>include things along those lines, although this is a relatively extreme
>example.  I'd guess EAP will harf it like it said "repeal" unless people
>object.
>	[Plug for 4274: We could use Mutations when something like this
>happens]
>

As rule-harfer, and harfmeister, and someone who happens to like rule
2-2-6-2, I will NOT harf this like it says repeal unless someone can give
me a compelling reason to.

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

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4258 accepted
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 18:48:06 -0400 (EDT)

At 12:39 AM 7/25/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Proposal 4258
>
>Subcommittee vote for: 180   against:0
>Subcommittee Acceptance Index: 180.0
>Passed subcommittee
>Total vote for: 585   Total vote against:-140
>Acceptance Index: 375.0: proposal accepted

> Repeal rule 17-2-1, "Declaration of War: Agora".
> 
> All Declarations of War cease to exist.
> 

Again I must protest!  THIS PROPOSAL WAS A TRAVESTY AGAINST NATURE!

If only our great Ackans of the past had been here to prevent this!

Slakko, with one noble stroke of his mighty voting pen, would have caused
this vile pro-Agora propagandistic trash to fail in subcommittee, had he
not been vacationing.

Mohammed would have invented the Chess Piece: Agoraphobe, whose move was to
throw viperous traitors to Ackanomic in gaol until they learned that Agora
was a crime against God and all nomic.

Hoover 2300 would have delivered an erudite, impassioned, articulate plea
to the sensibilities of Acka and its players, and averted this crisis with
his calm, clear thinking and good old fashioned know-how.

snowgod would have done SOMETHING harfy -- but HE was no traitor.  HE WOULD
NEVER SURRENDER!!!!  While one breath remained in his body, he would not
have given up the fight!

Robert Sevin would have changed his state to nonvoting...  Err...  Wait...
Heh... Never mind.

And if Malenkai were not on ice, if Elder saaremaa were here to fight our
wars, then Agora would be raised to the ground.  Their rule 1 would be:

'There is no nomic but Ackanomic, and their word is bond, and their rule
supreme and unchallenged, and all players of Agora do bow their heads in
solemn fealty to the might, the right, and to the vast omnipotent power of
Ackanomic.'

But alas, these mighty Ackans of the past are gone, and none stands against
the Agoran menace but me... Alas, you damned souls, alas...

O Ackans, I must protest, with all my heart and strength, this total
abandonment of the holy cause for which we have fought SO long.  Please,
please, remember this plea when Chancellor Michael calls forward the Agoran
armies to battle, when Ackans are ripped to shreds by the foul beasties of
Animalkeepor Chuck, when our proud Ackadollar bears the twisted, evil
visage of Treasuror Wes,  when in every facet of our lives, we must kowtow
to the Agorans.  Remember this impassioned plea, and seek me out.  I may be
in gaol, or I may be underground.  But Phoebe, the Brass Monkey, and I will
NEVER give up the fight.  We will pull the overlords down from rulership if
it takes a lifetime.  And if we fall, if we perish, the torch must be
passed.  The fight must go on!  ACKA MUST BE FREE!

Viva La Resistance!

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

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

From: Rachel L Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4268
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 18:54:20 -0400 (EDT)

Towsner wrote:
> 
> >> Repeal Rule 1-1-1 (Gravity, a reprise)
> >> Repeal Rule 2-5 (WITH . . . A HERRING!)
> >> Rule 2-2-6-2 (Silly Phrases)
> >> Repeal Rule 2-1-3-1 (Substantially Safer Proposals)
> >
> >Just out of curiosity, does this actually do anything to Rule 2-2-6-2?
> 
>         Traditionally the "unambiguous mispelling" clause has been taken to
> include things along those lines, although this is a relatively extreme
> example.  I'd guess EAP will harf it like it said "repeal" unless people
> object.

I believe there is sufficient precedent for this not to happen. IIRC K 2
submitted a proposal which was just a list of rules which was acceoted
and null. I could be wrong though.

>         [Plug for 4274: We could use Mutations when something like this
> happens]

I really don't see the point to that sort of thing. Proposals are fine
for anything. There is no need to rush things through. I for one will
object to anything that I disaprove of regardless of whether I think it
would pass as a prop or anything.

-- 
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: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4268
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:00:24 -0400 (EDT)

Rachel L Walmsley wrote:
> > >> Rule 2-2-6-2 (Silly Phrases)
> > >
> > >Just out of curiosity, does this actually do anything to Rule 2-2-6-2?
> >
> >         Traditionally the "unambiguous mispelling" clause has been taken to
> > include things along those lines, although this is a relatively extreme
> > example.  I'd guess EAP will harf it like it said "repeal" unless people
> > object.
> 
> I believe there is sufficient precedent for this not to happen. IIRC K 2
> submitted a proposal which was just a list of rules which was acceoted
> and null. I could be wrong though.

K 2
The Undisputed Champion of Null Proposals (with more null proposals than
all other players combined)

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Return
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:10:51 -0400 (EDT)

Joseph DeVincentis wrote:

> I growl at the ghost ... ref, who seem to have conspired to
> drag this game out long enough to cause me to be eliminated by vacation.

me? what I do? what I do? You could've assigned a substitute....

speaking of which Viruses and FFFM...

K 2

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

From: "Joshua Boehme" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4258 accepted
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:12:22 -0400 (EDT)

----- Original Message -----
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 1999 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4258 accepted

> O Ackans, I must protest, with all my heart and strength, this total
> abandonment of the holy cause for which we have fought SO long.  Please,
> please, remember this plea when Chancellor Michael calls forward the
Agoran
> armies to battle, when Ackans are ripped to shreds by the foul beasties of
> Animalkeepor Chuck, when our proud Ackadollar bears the twisted, evil
> visage of Treasuror Wes,  when in every facet of our lives, we must kowtow
> to the Agorans.  Remember this impassioned plea, and seek me out.  I may
be
> in gaol, or I may be underground.  But Phoebe, the Brass Monkey, and I
will
> NEVER give up the fight.  We will pull the overlords down from rulership
if
> it takes a lifetime.  And if we fall, if we perish, the torch must be
> passed.  The fight must go on!  ACKA MUST BE FREE!

Not to mention that I'll stamp Marvy on every Ackan shield. Puny Ackans!
Bwahahaha.

Elysion

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4269
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:18:21 -0400 (EDT)

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 4269
> PE cleanup

> All players cease to be Workers, Religious, and Warriors, if they have not
> already.
> All Black Marks are destroyed.
> All Players who have been martyred cease to have been martyred.
> All Puzzle Pieces are destroyed.
> All Repealed Otzma Cards are destroyed
> The Puzzler ceases to be the Puzzler.

These things are non-entity thingys which have no right to be on the pe
page anyway - ie I have been too lazy to identify them and remove them
:-)

> Append to rule 7-2-5 the following text:
> 
> When a title that was rule-defined is repealed, all players lose that title.

This stomps on the whole point of Rule 7-2-5. I'm a Giant Green Gorrilla
and proud of it!

> All Jade Grapefruit are destroyed.
> All Lyncanthropic players cease to be lyncanthropic.
> The True Prophet Ceases to be the True Prophet.
> The Indiana Jones Staff is destroyed.

IIRC these all still have meaning....

> The word zopzop occurs in this proposal.

and now it occours in this message as well.

K 2

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

Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4258 accepted
From: Joseph DeVincentis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:13:12 -0400 (EDT)

Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
> 
> At 12:39 AM 7/25/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >Proposal 4258
> >
> >Subcommittee vote for: 180   against:0
> >Subcommittee Acceptance Index: 180.0
> >Passed subcommittee
> >Total vote for: 585   Total vote against:-140
> >Acceptance Index: 375.0: proposal accepted
> 
> > Repeal rule 17-2-1, "Declaration of War: Agora".
> > 
> > All Declarations of War cease to exist.
> > 
> 
> Again I must protest!  THIS PROPOSAL WAS A TRAVESTY AGAINST NATURE!

I must respond to these scaremongering tactics, but I will try to keep
it short.

Re-read my last phoebe post.  I am not against the war with Agora, if
such really exists, but the existing rule was broken.  With the effects
of P4258, yes, it is possible for Agorans to infiltrate Ackanomic and
perhaps to seize control, but this takes time and hopefully will be
noticed if it is occurring.  As it was, Agora could subtly use the
loophole pointed out in that Phoebe post to take control of Ackanomic in
the time it takes them to pass a proposal in their game, instantly sending
all Ackans to Gaol, except one or more of their own infiltrators (which
would necessarily not be Agoran players at the time, but it's easy enough
for one player to quit Agora temporarily in order to pull this off, in the
case that they don't have one sympathizer here in Acka who would accept
dictatorship in exchange for treason.)  Even if they did not have an
Ackan insider working with them, they could have sent all Ackans to Gaol
permanently, which would pretty much end the game.

As I said, I am not against war with Agora, if there are players who
want to develop such a concept, but I am against huge loopholes in the
rules.  The irony of this rule, a purported protection from Agoran
infiltration which actually provided then with the means to take control
of Acka, was the largest I can recall seeing in over 3 years of Ackan
history.  The loophole I pointed out above, that an infiltrator can
join Acka at the mere expense of leaving Agora for as long as necessary,
is a severe hindrance to the working of that rule, even without the
other loophole.  If you want war, rewrite the rule so it works correctly.
I made one change that might close the big loophole (but not the small
one) in P4258, but it's not entirely clear that it actually does so, and
I really don't know how to fix the other.  Change "are registered players
of ... [rival nomic]" to "have been registered players of ... [rival nomic]
for at least 30 of the last 90 days", maybe?

The repeal of the declaration of war was necessary anyway, despite the
change, in case Agora was able to implement the situation I described
before P4258 passed, in order to release from Gaol anybody who might have
been unfairly imprisoned by the loophole.  If you fix the rule, and are
sure it is fixed, go ahead and declare war on Agora again, if the support
is there for it.  But be extremely careful about doing so, or about doing
anything that explicitly causes very significant parts of our game state
to depend on potentially-manipulable aspects of other nomics' game states.

/dev/joe

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

From: Eric Wald <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4258 accepted
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:35:55 -0400 (EDT)

> The repeal of the declaration of war was necessary anyway, despite the
> change, in case Agora was able to implement the situation I described
> before P4258 passed, in order to release from Gaol anybody who might have
> been unfairly imprisoned by the loophole.  If you fix the rule, and are
> sure it is fixed, go ahead and declare war on Agora again, if the support
> is there for it.  But be extremely careful about doing so, or about doing
> anything that explicitly causes very significant parts of our game state
> to depend on potentially-manipulable aspects of other nomics' game states.
> 
> /dev/joe

Do you have any opinions on 4277, then,
or was it proposed (again) while you were typing this response?
It fixes the rule and gives an entirely new definition to war.
It does require, on occasion, inspection of the rival nomic's ruleset
to determine whether an active player is able to perform a Strike Action,
but that inspection is within a CFCJ with a relatively minor sentence,
and it is never made until Acka first takes action.

-- and

from -> [email-masked]

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

From: Michael Slone <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4258 accepted
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:58:28 -0400 (EDT)

Emperor Ai! Pedrito! writes:
>                                                                  Please,
> please, remember this plea when Chancellor Michael calls forward the Agoran
> armies to battle, 

E's not *that* kind of Chancellor.  E maintains records on what Currencies
exist, and e sets the basic salary.  I don't think e's authorized to call 
the Agoran armies to battle. :)

-- harvel, unemployed Agoran, Ackan shrubbery

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

From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4258 accepted
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:01:28 -0400 (EDT)

>E's not *that* kind of Chancellor.  E maintains records on what Currencies
>exist, and e sets the basic salary.  I don't think e's authorized to call
>the Agoran armies to battle. :)

	Yet.

--
-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: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4258 accepted
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 22:39:48 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Joseph DeVincentis wrote:

> rules.  The irony of this rule, a purported protection from Agoran
> infiltration which actually provided then with the means to take control
> of Acka, was the largest I can recall seeing in over 3 years of Ackan
> history.  The loophole I pointed out above, that an infiltrator can

As the author of the proposal in question, I'm putting this quote on my
C.V.

IB

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: oops, I forgot
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:22:35 -0400 (EDT)

Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
> 
> The Twits are a throwback to an earlier age in Acka.  Generally, when a
> player made a stupid blunder, e would donate some small amount of money
> (A$1 for most errors up to maybe A$10 for something colossally stupid.
> When organizations were repealed, the twits went the way of the dodo.  I
> wish to revive em.
> 

The tradition evolved after a series of errors made by Laa Laa (prolly
TGW then), for which e berated emself publicly and underscored the point
by attempting to found "The Twits". Shortly after Alfvaen made afew
blunders and announced eir intent to join, each time donating a small
portion of the SHF to Laa laa to cover start-up costs (Payment of larger
sums to the founders of other orgs had recently come in vogue - the
founder of The Treasure Hunting League received upwards of A$40 by the
time e founded the org). Similarly when other players realised a blunder
they would donate money to cover start-up and ask to join. By the time
Laa Laa finally founded the org it had become traditional for
prospective members to donate a small sum of money to em. Since request
for membership invariably coincided with some act of stupidity,
donations for stupidity became established shifting from Laa Laa to the
org itself after it was founded.

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

End of acka-research Digest V4 #131
***********************************