Subject: acka-voting-digest V3 #55
From: [email-masked] (acka-voting-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-voting-digest       Sunday, April 26 1998       Volume 03 : Number 055

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

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 10:40:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: nomicbot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2942

Proposal 2942
Hmmm Quick Fix
Slakko (Duncan Richer)

This is a Modest Proposal.

[You can currently have two moves followed by a placement, but not two
moves without a following placement.  How stupid is that?]

Amend Rule 1230.2 by replacing the sentence delimited by COMPLEX below:

COMPLEX
A Swinger whose Weight is non-zero and less than 50, and has four or fewer
on-board pieces may make a Play composed of k Moves followed
by a single Placement, or one Move followed by k Placements, or any other
single Atomic Play, where k is equal to one or two. 
COMPLEX

with the following FLEXIBLE-delimited text:

FLEXIBLE
A Swinger whose Weight is non-zero and less than 50, and has four or fewer
on-board pieces may make a Play composed of k Moves followed by l
Placements, where k and l are each at most two, and sum to at most three.
FLEXIBLE

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

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 10:41:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: nomicbot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2943

Proposal 2943
Look but don't touch
The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)

This is a modest proposal.

Create a new rule as a member of the otzma card rule suite titled "Otzma Card
of type Lay Off!" reading as follows:

"This card may only be played in the public forum.

In order to play this card the owner must unambiguously specify any single
gadget. For the next week (i.e. 168 hours) any attempt to use a scroll of
crumble on that gadget will fail. The scroll will still be destroyed however.

At any given time there may be at most 7 cards of this type. Lay Off! cards
have an F designation of Normal."

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

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 10:42:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: nomicbot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2944

Proposal 2944
More Repeal
The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)

This is a modest proposal.

All otzma cards of type untouch me are converted to A$5. Repeal rule 1240.5.

{{[I've yet to see one of these used, and I can't really see them ever being
used. Duels are fun.]}}

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

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 10:43:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: nomicbot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2945

Proposal 2945
Party Chess Piece Guard
The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)

This is a modest proposal.

Create a new rule as a member of the party chess rule suite titled "Party
Chess Piece Guard" reading as follows:

"A guard is a piece with a material value of 7.

It is represented by the character +.

A guard cannot be captured by an archer or a kamikaze [due to special
training]. If there are no enemy pieces which are attacking it then it will
also be able to protect any friendly pieces orthogonally adjacent to it,
which means that any such pieces also may not be captured by an archer or a
kamikaze.

A guard may move up to three squares in any orthogonal direction or up to two
squares in any diagonal direction."

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

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 10:44:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: nomicbot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2946

Proposal 2946
Beldin's repeal
JT (JT Traub)

This is a modest proposal.

Amend rule 910 'The Ackanomicon' to remove the following GONE delimited text
GONE
The Secret (1 page): This page contains the great, unutterable Secret. The
reader of this page may amend the rule Beldin's Pants as if he were
Beldin's Tailor. He may only do so once, and he has only 72 hours after it
becomes publicly knowable that he has read this page to do so. Doing so,
however, will cost the player the Standard Harfer Fee, he may only do so
once.
GONE

Repeal rule 939 "Beldin's Tailor".
Repeal rule 940 "Beldin's Pants".

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

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 10:45:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: nomicbot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2947

Proposal 2947
Bandwagoning
Slakko (Duncan Richer)

[This rule provides a scoring system for BAA! votes, slightly different
from other votes, but hopefully not so different as to completely ruin the
Scorekeeper's day.]

Amend Rule 207 by inserting the following SHEEPISH-delimited text
immediately before "A proposal can only be declared to be Modest or
Grandiose as defined by the Rules."

SHEEPISH
A player who votes BAA! on a proposal shall receive (n-p) points, where n
is the number of points that could be earned by anti-voting on that
proposal, and p is the total number of players who voted BAA! on that
proposal.

However, if exactly one player votes PRESENT on a proposal, all points
(positive or negative) which would have been given to players who voted
BAA! as a result of the preceding paragraph are instead given to the
player who voted PRESENT, who is then known as the Shepherd.  The players
who voted BAA! do not have their score changed as a result of their votes
in such a case.
SHEEPISH

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

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 18:17:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2947

On Sun, 26 Apr 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> Proposal 2947
> Bandwagoning
> Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> 
> SHEEPISH
> A player who votes BAA! on a proposal shall receive (n-p) points, where n
> is the number of points that could be earned by anti-voting on that
> proposal, and p is the total number of players who voted BAA! on that
> proposal.
> 

My problem with this is that there appears to be no advantage to voting
BAA!, over anti-voting.. even if you are the only one..

If you could increment the n or even multiply it, it would be much cooler.

Yes, I know we've already had these discussions.

But not everyone else knows that!

IB

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

End of acka-voting-digest V3 #55
********************************