Subject: acka-research Digest V4 #181
From: [email-masked]
To: acka-research digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 00:00:04 -0400 (EDT)

acka-research Digest	Monday, October 04 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 181

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

From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Shrubbery
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 06:16:34 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> The problem, as far as I can tell, with the Fat-Acka game is that it
> may have, according to its rules, been reduced to Thin-Acka.  If it
> has, then the only solution which avoids Fat-Acka's disappearance
> is EAP's, of creating a game where this did not happen.  Thin-Acka
> has taken on a life of its own, as must be evident to us all by now,
> but Fat-Acka's lifeline is precarious.
> 
> Don't you all wish I'd voted against this as I would have had I been
> bothering with voting at the time?  It was sufficiently close that I
> think one more vote against would have pushed it under...

Yes, it would have.
The lack of an Evil Twins rule would also have seen it go under
(as would me and Quoth renouncing our evil twindom).

-- 
Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/
Queens' College Cambridge, 2nd Year Ph.D. (Pure Maths) - Graph Theory
Insert random funny line here.

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

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Facka: Candyland?
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 10:49:56 -0400 (EDT)

K 2 wrote:
>Randy Hall wrote:
>> one of which is playing chess, and one of which is
>> playing candyland, why don't you all vote, and _everyone_ play either
>> candyland or chess
>
>candyland?

What, is there something wrong with Candyland?  I'll have you know that it
is very popular with my four-year-old daughter, and thus I play it regularly.
More regularly than I play Chess, in fact.  Of course, that does seem to be
changing now that I have introduced her to Uno.  My eight-month-old seems
very interested in Candyland too, but that's another story.  :-)

John "ThinMan" Bollinger
Shrubbery

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

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Proposal 4386
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 10:56:57 -0400 (EDT)

K 2 wrote:

>Ackanomic acknowledges the existence of a game which believes that up
>until 24 Sep 1999 19:14:12, when differing opinion on the effect of
>Proposal 4371 caused its genesis, it was the same game as this one. That
>game is hence forth as Acka-Lite.
>
>The entire rule-set of Acka-Lite forms this rule's decedents.

[etc.]

Fascinating.  Amusing.  Harfy, even.  It would be even harfier, of course,
to do the same thing to Agora.

ThinShrubbery

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

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Facka: Must CFJ 730 be judged true? (was something else)
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 11:35:43 -0400 (EDT)

George wrote:
>rules.  In the old days (and perhaps even now), (F)Acka had a
>pretty bad hack (that I believe I wrote part of) that said 
>"Game custom is an external concept"; "CFJs become part of game
>custom".  Clearly either meaningless or has the effect of 
>actually internalizing game custom (which then does not exist
>and cannot be created in the FALSE "thread").

There once was a paradox-win CFJ based on the internalization of Game Custom,
which I suppose may have been part of the impetus for the hack described
above.  Let's see, who wrote that CFJ?  Oh yes, I remember....  :-)

One of the things I find very likable about Acka Lite is that it avoids
this problem entirely (I think).  Historically, fat Acka had a remarkable
ability to find ways around or out of crises (or at least ways to happily
ignore them).  Some of the most major ones have been metagame issues, like
the one at hand.  As I wax philosophical, I am reminded of the crisis
revolving around the first [what we now call] cycle win, when some of us
argued that the game had ended.  Hmmm... Malenkai -- err, George -- was
a prominent figure that crisis, too.  :-)  Anyway, the point was going to
be that whereas fat-Acka has the charm and lovability on old, much patched
and repaired and retrofitted, once top-of-the-line Buick, it also runs like
one.  Acka Lite has, IMO, a sturdier frame and a more modern engine and
suspension.

ThinShrubbery
younger

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

From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: Proposal 4386
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 14:57:49 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, John Bollinger wrote:

> >Ackanomic acknowledges the existence of a game which believes that up
> >until 24 Sep 1999 19:14:12, when differing opinion on the effect of
> >Proposal 4371 caused its genesis, it was the same game as this one. That
> >game is hence forth as Acka-Lite.
> >
> >The entire rule-set of Acka-Lite forms this rule's decedents.
> 
> Fascinating.  Amusing.  Harfy, even.  It would be even harfier, of course,
> to do the same thing to Agora.

Agora?  Think big, man.  Canada!

-Hubert, Canadian Shrubbery

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them, I have others. 

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

From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Facka: Must CFJ 730 be judged true? (was something else)
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 18:11:42 -0400 (EDT)

ThinShrubbery wrote:

> As I wax philosophical, I am reminded of the crisis
> revolving around the first [what we now call] cycle win, when some of us
> argued that the game had ended.  Hmmm... Malenkai -- err, George -- was
> a prominent figure that crisis, too.  :-)

Ah, the imfamous "grace period" hypothesis :-)  I certainly don't feel
comfortable now with some of the arguments I made then.  It seems possible
that cycles 2 thru 38 were a figment of our collective imaginations also ... 

George

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

End of acka-research Digest V4 #181
***********************************