Subject: acka-voting-digest V3 #48
From: [email-masked] (acka-voting-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-voting-digest      Saturday, April 18 1998      Volume 03 : Number 048

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

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 04:18:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2896

Proposal 2896
Toned Down Ineligibility
The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)

This is a modest proposal.

Modify rule 256 by renumbering section 6 to section 7 and inserting the
following text between section 5 and section 7.

"6) The player is removed from the CFJ ineligibility and the mentor pool if e
was in them."

Also amend section 3 to read:

"3) If the player was at any time Active, or Non-Voting for a period of at
least two weeks, the procedure continues."

Remove all none-players from the CFJ ineligibility list.

[Basically this makes my job easier since I don't have to track dead
players on the CFJ ineligibility list. It also makes sure a dead player can
never be selected as a mentor; I doubt that could happen anyway but you can't
be too careful in nomic. Finally it makes a slight correction to one of my
earlier changes (proposal 2597):-)]

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

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 04:19:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2897

Proposal 2897
To Stop Slakko doing it Again
The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)

This is a modest proposal.

Modify rule 213 by adding the following text to the end:

"Any judge may change eir mind on a verdict that e has sent to the Clerk of
the Court (CotC) but has not yet been distributed by the CotC by mailing the
CotC informing em of this fact. At this point the initial judgement will be
considered to have not been posted to the CotC."

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

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 04:20:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2898

Proposal 2898
Feuds
Niccolo Flychuck (Uri Bruck)

{{[I got the idea when I read the 'This is a Duel, not a Feud' proposal.
However the concept is quite different, and more of an extensions of
Duels.]}}

Create a new rule entitles 'Feuds' which contains the following text:

"
1. An Organization may declare a Feud on another Organization as an
Organizational Action provided that:
a. The Similarity between the Organizations is less than 50
b. Neither Organization is currently engaged in 3 or more Feuds.
c. The Organizations are not already Feuding each other.

2. Once such a Declaration has been made the two Organizations are said to
be engaged in a Feud with each other, or just Feuding each other.

3. A state of Feud is over when on of the following condition have been
met:
a. Every member of the two Organizations engaged in a Feud with each
other, fought a Duel with at least one member of the Organization it is
Feuding with, since the Feud begun.
b. For a period of two month no Duel was fought between a member of one
Organization and a member of the Organization it is Feuding with. In this
case the Organizations are said to have forgotten the cause of the Duel.
c. Either Organization has suggested a 'Sulkha' as an Organizational
Action, and the Organization it is Feuding with has accepted the 'Sulkha'
as an Organizational Action. In such a case it customary for members of
both Organizations to have a big celebration together, to which they are
free to invite other players as well. [Organization should be wary, that
many a Feud have started over which organization shall have the honor of
hosting such celebrations]

4. If a Feud is over as described in 3a. and members of one Organization
have won Duels than members of the other Organization it Feuding with.
Than each member of the former Organization receives 6 points, and each
member of the latter organization loses 6 points.

5. When Organization A is Feuding with Organization B, and a player from
Organization A is dueling with a player from ORganization B, it is
considered good form for the each player's Second to be a member of the
same organization that player is a member of. It is permissible for the
Second to be a member of neither Organization. It is impermissible for the
player to have a Second who is a member of the other Organizations.
However, if a player is a member of both ORganizations A and B, then it is
permissible for him to have a Second from Organizations A when he is
Dueling a player from Organization B, and vice versa.

6. Any single Duel may count towards more than Feud. No Duel may count
towards a Feud that started after the Duel ended.

7. If a player is a member of two Feuding Organizations A and B, then any
victory in a duel against a player from Organization A will count as a
victory by a member of Organization B, and any victory in a duel against a
player from organization B will count as a victory by a member of
Organization A.
"

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

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 04:21:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2899

Proposal 2899
Admiral Crunch
Alfvaen (Aaron Humphrey)

This is a Modest proposal.

Amend Rule 1250.23, "Eleusis", as follows:

Append to section 1) a) the text "If the deck runs out of cards during
a round, then the Referee(or Deus if there is none)may add another
shuffled deck of the same kind."

{{ Any current games of Eleusis shall use the newly modified Rules from here
on. }}

{{[ While I'm here, another thought I had which might make it easier to
phrase Rules... ]}}

Rename Rule 1250.6, "Description of a Eleusis Deck" to "Description of an
Eleusis Deck".  Also, append the following text(delimited by CUCKOO):

CUCKOO
Blue and green may be grouped together as cool colours, while red and
black are warm colours.  Red and green may be grouped as live colours,
and blue and black as dead colours.
CUCKOO

{{[ If anyone wants to come up with designations for the other
possible pairing of the four colours, go right ahead.  My imagination
failed me.  ]}}

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

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 04:22:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2900

Proposal 2900
Every Church Must Have a Leader
Ayla (Raquel Peres da Silva)

This is a Modest Proposal

[This proposal is supposed to prevent Churchs from becoming "Founderless",
and thus not being able to ordain Priests, to defrock Priests and to
Excommunicate any more.]

In rule 1301/24, replace the FOUNDERLESS-limited text of iten 8.i:

FOUNDERLESS
If a player that is the True Prophet is a member of a Church or Cult where
the Founder is no longer a member, then that player becomes its new
Founder.
FOUNDERLESS

with the following FOUNDER-limited text:

FOUNDER
If the Founder of a Church ever leaves the Church by declaring it publicly
or by leaving the game, the Church shall be considered "orphan" until it
achieves the following conditions:

(1) it has 5 or more members whose game status is Active
(2) it has 3 or more Priests
(3) at least one of its Priests has already read, while being a Priest, one
of the Ackanomicon pages that reffer to any of the following:
	(a) the Arcane Lore
	(b) Ancient Artefact
	(c) The Secret
	(d) Long Lost Treasure

When it happens all Founder's duties or authorities will be automatically
transferred to the most Senior Priest, who shall make it public by posting
a message with the words "Follow me all you members of <name>! Follow me
and you will never get lost in the darkness!", where <name> is the name of
the Church.

If the Priest who first read the Ackanomicon pages listed above is not the
Senior Priest, the Senior Priest the Senior Priest is encouraged to give
this Priest a
gift of eir (the Senior Priest's) choice, like a Trinket, for example.
FOUNDER

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

End of acka-voting-digest V3 #48
********************************