Subject: acka-voting-digest V3 #169
From: [email-masked] (acka-voting-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-voting-digest      Friday, October 16 1998      Volume 03 : Number 169

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

Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:57:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Proposal 3639

Proposal 3639
hmmm
saaremaa
Due: Fri Oct 23 23:57:19 1998

This is a Modest proposal.

{{[I think this is more covered by the pragmatism clause than
game custom :-)  I'm not sure why trinket creations at the *end*
of the message always are the ones to fail.  I'll fix rule 215 
also if I have the time.]}}

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

Amend rule 373, "Public Actions", to add the following new paragraph
directly after the third paragraph.

"
If more than one action is attempted in a single public message,
each action is attempted in the order it appears in the message
(as written English is customarily read), with an infinitesimal 
time separating each attempt.  If the order of two or more actions
in a public message is ambiguous, all actions attempted in that
message fail.
"

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

Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:57:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Proposal 3640

Proposal 3640
A Gem of a Rule
saaremaa
Due: Fri Oct 23 23:57:54 1998

This is a Modest proposal.

{{[rule 215 is prolly someone's favorite rule.  The problem is that 
needs a good powerwash and new paint job to clean out some of
the anachronisms.  Also, the scope of the game custom/spog clause
needs to be broadened to interpreting the rules all the time
as opposed to interpreting them in CFJs (this means game custom 
will work when the rules are silent or inconsistent without a 
CFJ being required; the popular unclear case is already handled
by rule 101, and is thus redundant, but kept here for the history 
fans.)  This problem is alluded to in my hmmm proposal, which is
a silence of the rules case. (I also kept this clause in r215,
because its traditional there). 

Other changes are to remove the retroactively clause (which bounces
with no effect), to remove the judgements are not rules clause (this
has no effect, and was in the IRS for nomic newbies -- rules may only
be created as described in the rules anyway), and to allow all verdicts,
as opposed to just True ones, to become part of explicit game custom.
(This is bug in the IRS too, I guess no one cared enough to fix it)

Finally, I added the definition of "final verdict" to rule 217 (because
I needed it in 215), and used that to eliminate all that fancy footwork
about when bronze torch points count.]}}

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

Change rule 215's title to, "Making Judgements", then replace its
text with this:

"
All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules in effect at the
time judgement was invoked, and with respect to the game state at that
time.  Whenever the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on any
matter, they shall be interpreted in accordance with any extant game 
custom, and in the absence of a prevalence of such, the spirit of 
the game.

When a verdict is final, it becomes an explicit part of game custom.
"

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

Add the following new paragraph to rule 217, "Overturning Judgements",
directly after the third paragraph of section IV, Appeal limits:

"
A verdict is said to be final when it is no longer possible to appeal
it under the current rules.  Once a verdict becomes final, any later
attempt to appeal it fails.
"

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

Amend rule 600, "Winning Conditions", to replace:

"
When it ceases to be legal to appeal a particular Cycle-Win CFJ, 
if the final verdict is true,
"

with this:

"
Upon a True verdict on a particular Cycle-Win CFJ becoming final,
"

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

Replace the final paragraph of rule 907, "Bronze Torch", with this:

"
A player is eligible for a Bronze Torch if they, as either a Judge
or as part of a Judicial body, have delivered verdicts on at least
15 separate CFJs (including CFCJs), such that each verdict is the 
same as the final verdict on each particular CFJ, and each final 
verdict is either True or False.
"

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

Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:57:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Proposal 3641

Proposal 3641
The Meaning of Ping
saaremaa
Due: Fri Oct 23 23:57:57 1998

This is a Modest proposal.

{{[this takes a little hubert out of the machine game.  Instead of
being within 12 seconds of the sixth ping (and playing games trying to
guess at what time scholars have their cron jobs set for :-)), you
can bid for a magic letter within 12 hours, and buy the right to pick
if you want to spend enough money.  The 12 hours is a compromise between
letting some of the hubert out, and not letting the letter guessing
get too far behind the next pings]}}

{{saaremaa loses 2 points; JT gains 1 point; /dev/joe gains 1 point
[several ideas were kicked around on irc, this one seemed to be the one
to go with]}}

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

Amend Rule 1209, "The Machine That Goes *ping*", to replace section VII.
with this:

" 
VII. If the Machine has gone *ping* at least six times since a Magic 
Letter was named that was considered by the Scholar, and at least six 
times during the current Scholar's term, any active player other than 
the Scholar or the most recent player whose magic letter choice was
considred may name a letter of the alphabet not already considered 
as the Magic Letter during the current scholar's term to be the Magic 
Letter by so posting to the public forum.  Such post must include with 
it a sum of A$ that is at least as much as the Magic Letter Premium 
for the letter named, at least as much as the posting player has.

For all letters of the alphabet named (as described above) within the 
first 12 hours since the *ping* that initiated this round of letter 
naming, the Scholar shall consider the one guess with the most A$ 
associated with it.  If two or more guesses hold this distinction,
the Scholar shall decide which of those guesses to consider.  If no
letters are named within the first 12 hours as above, the Scholar shall
consider the first letter named in this round of letter naming.

The Scholar must respond within three days by naming the guess
that was considered, and by publically reposting the Machine's truth
in its disguised form, except that any * representing the Magic Letter 
or any letter previously named the Magic Letter during the current 
Scholar's term shall be replaced with the actual letter or letters 
represented. The player whose post was considered then forfeits the
sum of A$ associated with eir post. 

The Magic Letter Premium is based on the following schedule: A$25 
for Common vowels ('a', 'e', 'i', 'o'), A$15 for Common consonants 
('d', 'l', 'n', 'r', 's', 't'), and A$5 for all other letters.
"

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

Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:58:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Proposal 3642

Proposal 3642
Duel Game Blackballing
saaremaa
Due: Fri Oct 23 23:58:00 1998

This is a Modest proposal

{{[some things may not be fair as duel games sometimes, or simply
would be no fun to play for a particular player.  For example, 
imagine playing Bacon with only Brazilian films.  (That's how I 
feel about playing Bacon with American films :-); how would a 
Brazilian feel?  Well, I don't know of course, but you get the idea :-)).

While this isn't a perfect solution, it would allow me to challenge
Alfvaen or K 2 to a duel, and think it could be fun :-)  I am
giving A Mean Hat a point, because while I had this idea a while ago,
eir discussion of a new possible duel reminded me of it.  If e changes
eir name, too bad.  Also, if we ever classify games for something 
like the apprentice adept grid, this should be expanded too, but that 
is for later.]}}

{{A Mean Hat. receives 1 point; saaremaa loses 1 point.}}

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

Amend rule 1215, "Duels" to replace:

"
The Second posts a public message, which announces the name of the 
Challenging player, the name of the Challenged player, the reason
for the Challenge, and the fact that a Challenge has been made. 
"

with (delimited by double dollar signs):

$$
The Second posts a public message, which announces the name of the 
Challenging player, the name of the Challenged player, the reason
for the Challenge, the fact that a Challenge has been made, and
optionally, the name of a Game or Contest that "is passe".
$$

;

then amend that same rule to replace 
"determining a winner, or a winning team." with:

"
determining a winner (or a winning team), and it must not have been
declared passe in the Challenge.
"

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

Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:58:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Proposal 3643

Proposal 3643
A small fix to puppetheads
JT
Due: Fri Oct 23 23:58:48 1998

This is a modest proposal.

{{[
This is to fix the problem that pulled Rig R. Mortis off of vacation
and Piz, Ethelred and marsboy off of On-Ice
]}}

In rule 207, section IV, replace the phrase 'After a player has possessed
a Puppet Head for seven consecutive days' with 'After an active player has
possessed a Puppet Head for seven consecutive days'.

In rule 207, section IV, append the following text delimited by FIX to the
end of the paragraph.
FIX
If a player who has a Puppet Head goes On Ice or Vacationing, the Puppet
Head is immediately destroyed.
FIX

Create a rule numbered 1 with the following text as delimited by FIXES
FIXES
{{
Rig R. Mortis is considered to have gone Vacationing as of September
29th, 1998 with an expected date of return of November 2, 1998.

marsboy is considered to have gone On Ice on September 30, 1998.
Piz is considered to have gone On Ice on Septmeber 28, 1998.
Ethelred is considered to have gone On Ice on September 28, 1998.

These effects have precedence over all other rules.
}}
{{[
This should fix the problems and then delete itself.  Set to rule
number 1 so that it has sufficient precedence, and then explicitly
claims precedence to defeat the anti-precedence clause of rule 103 or
101 if Saaremaa's changes go through which is why I did it this way.
]}}
FIXES

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

Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:58:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Proposal 3644

Proposal 3644
Reinstalling Brie
JT
Due: Fri Oct 23 23:58:48 1998

This is a modest proposal.

{{[Let's see if I get it right this time]}}

Append the following BRIE delimited text to rule 611 (Le Grand Fromage)
BRIE
A player receives a brie when they win a Duel. If a player owns a brie
when they lose a Duel, that brie is destroyed.
BRIE

{{Slakko gains 1 point, JT loses 1 point}}

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

Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:58:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Proposal 3645

Proposal 3645
Small Double Crash change
JT
Due: Fri Oct 23 23:58:49 1998

This is a modest proposal.

{{[
It allows double crash to be played on an IRC server (easy to do) and
allows the two players to agreet hat the game was correct before the 3 day
limit is up, thus ending it quicker.
]}}

In rule 1250.12 (Double Crash), section IV, replace the following WAIT
delimited text
WAIT
Once a tentative winner is found, the two players shall reveal their
respective Target Words. The players may then examine each others' plays
for errors. If no actual errors are found within three days, the tentative
winner wins the game.
WAIT

with the following WAIT_OR_AGREE delimited text

WAIT_OR_AGREE
Once a tentative winner is found, the two players shall reveal their
respective Target Words.  The players then have three days during which
they may examine each other's plays for errors.  If during those three
days, both players publically post their agrement that no errors occured,
or if no actual errors are found, then the tentative winner wins the game.
WAIT_OR_AGREE

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

Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:58:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Proposal 3646

Proposal 3646
Easier Custodianship
JT
Due: Fri Oct 23 23:58:50 1998

This is a modest proposal.
Amend rule 1217 (buried treasure) as follows:
In section II, append the following CUSTOS delimited text as a seperate
paragraph.
CUSTOS
The author of any Treasure Map may, as a public action, declare one or
more other players as Potential Map Custodians for that Treasure Map.  If
the player or players so named accept the Custodianship within three days,
the author shall reveal the Treasure Map to the player or players
privately, and then those Potential Map Custodians will become Map
Custodians for that Treasure Map.
{{[
This is to allow another player who might otherwise have an unfair
advantage in finding the treasure (due to having helped with the map
creation or whatnot) to be designated as a Custodian.  Without it,
exclusions need to be written into the map.
]}}
CUSTOS

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

End of acka-voting-digest V3 #169
*********************************