Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #90
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Friday, July 5 1996         Volume 01 : Number 090

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

Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 01:43:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 957

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 957 - Wed Jul 03 11:46:11 EDT 1996
> Notes fix
> Mohammed  (Jason Orendorff)
> 
> A left square bracket in a rule or other text begins a note, which ends
> with the next following right square bracket, or the end of the rule or
> body of text, whichever comes first.

I strongly urge Mohammed to retract this. It could break appeals of CFJs
to the supreme court (qv R 569). Its not his fault, 569 has always had
an unbalanced '[' problem. Even the proposal had an unbalanced '[['.

> (If someone wants a temporary note from here on out, {{ [ notes can be
> embedded in Malenkai braces. ] }} )

I like the name, its a shame that the way its written, it will be removed
from the rule in its final form :)

Malenkai
Reporting eggs in the rules

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 01:22:54 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: RFC: Mentors 

This is a RFC for a proposal that seeks to make entrance into the game
easier without creating a burden on gameplay.  Please submit comments.

- ---

Upon the admittance of a new player into the game, the Registrar shall
randomly select a player from a pool of volunteers to act as a "mentor" for
the new player.

It is the duty of the Registrar to maintain a list of players who are in
the volunteer pool.  If there are not enough players in the volunteer pool
to assign a mentor for each new player, the Registrar may randomly select a
player from the general population.

The duties of the mentor are as follows:

1) Answer any questions concerning game procedure to the new player.

2) Provide a new player with history and arguements for and against either
side of a proposal in the voting queue upon the new players request.

3) Provide a new player with information on any matter that requires his
immediate attention [for example, a newly active player who is required to
return judgement]

4) Answer any other questions the new player has concerning the game of
Ackanomic.

The mentor shall be responsible for performing these duties for a period of
two weeks from the day he assigned to the player, or until the player
declines further services [whichever comes first]

A mentor must always provide information without political or religious bias.

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 08:21:48 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 105 (Techno) 

> Call for Criminal Judgement 105
>   Subject:  Cruel and Unusual Penalites
> Initiator:  Malenkai
>     Judge:  Techno (selected Jul 3, 1996, 00:11h New York Time)
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Player pTang1001001sos has violated R 101.
> 
> Malenkai's Reasoning:
> 
> pTang1001001sos has invoked R 362, forcing Speaker/Acting Speaker
> Malenkai to initiate a process of removing certain players from the
> game. That action, in Malenkai's "judgement" is a "penalty worse than
> losing, in the Malenkai's judgement to incur it"
> 
> Malenkai has put forth rationale as to why that is such, but that matters
> not for this argument. All that matters is Malenkai's "judgement" that the 
> quoted phrase above is true, and the fact, by pTang1001001sos invoking
> this rule, is imposing this penalty.
> 
> I now quote from R 111 (Immutable), in part:
> 
> > No penalty worse than losing, in the judgement of the player to incur
> > it, may be imposed.
> 
> pTang1001001sos is imposing such a penalty on Malenkai, simply by invoking
> R 362. Thus pTang1001001sos is violating R 111 (quoted above), and thus
> is violating R 101. A verdict of TRUE is necessary.

I maintain that the Rules, not any Player, impose the penalty, and, moreover,
that the correct interpretation of R111 is that if a player feels that a
penalty worse than losing has been imposed then he may quit the game to avoid
it.  I urge the judge to find this CFCJ FALSE.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 10:00:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Spickes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 214 (De'ghew)

> De'ghew has been selected to judge the following, and has 3 days
> to accept or decline the appointment.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> 
> Call for Judgement 214
>   Subject:  ThinMan's winning
> Initiator:  /dev/joe
>     Judge:  De'ghew (selected Jul 2, 1996, 23:49h New York Time)

	If I haven't already, I hereby decline to judge this CFJ.  I'm 
drowning in things to do in RL(tm), not to mention CFJ's.  :)

	De'ghew

- -- 
  John Spickes - Undergraduate - UMCP - http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jspickes
   PGP encrypted email preferred - finger [email-masked] for key

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

Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 10:08:18 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: snowgod's ashes

Hoping to lay to rest the debate as to whether snowgod can be reconstitued
and burned again as a heretic:

Witchfinder General

Rule 767/2 (Mutable)
Nothing Important
Calvin N Hobbs (Thierry Joffrain)

      The Ackanomic Afterlife hereby exists. It is unique and all other rules 
referring to this location use
      the definition below. 

      It is the name of a luxurious palace near the Senate. A player that has 
"entered" this palace can do
      so as per another rule, not directly of his own decision. This palace 
magically heals all burns, and
      the ashes of players have been known to spontaneously "decombust" back 
into the player when
      put there. 

      A player may leave the palace whenever he wants.

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

Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 10:08:18 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: snowgod's ashes

Hoping to lay to rest the debate as to whether snowgod can be reconstitued
and burned again as a heretic:

Witchfinder General

Rule 767/2 (Mutable)
Nothing Important
Calvin N Hobbs (Thierry Joffrain)

      The Ackanomic Afterlife hereby exists. It is unique and all other rules 
referring to this location use
      the definition below. 

      It is the name of a luxurious palace near the Senate. A player that has 
"entered" this palace can do
      so as per another rule, not directly of his own decision. This palace 
magically heals all burns, and
      the ashes of players have been known to spontaneously "decombust" back 
into the player when
      put there. 

      A player may leave the palace whenever he wants.

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

Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 11:25:44 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: end game situation 

"Malenkai" == Malenkai  <[email-masked]> writes:

Malenkai> As for the Fat Lady, that rule is a million problems waiting
Malenkai> to happen:

no kidding.

the Fat Lady is retained in "Winning Really Isn't Everything", but in
a much less destructive manner.  coming soon from a Promoter near you!

k.

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 13:22:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Witchhunt Pascal

On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> 
> 
> I still content that I cannot be burned as I am residing in the ackanomic
> afterlife where I have yet to be reconstituted into something resembling a
> human.  I will leave the afterlife when the shackles of religious opression
> are removed.  Until such time, I welcome pascal to enjoy the solitutde with
> me and CnH.
> 

Just to make sure - did the AA exist at the time you were burned?

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 12:27:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Appointer (CotC filled, election open)

The NP for the Office of the Clerk of the Courts is over.  The sole 
nominee is Malenkai, who is thus once again CotC.

The NP for the Speaker election is over.  The sole Nominee is Malenkai.  
See rule 611.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 12:29:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 957

> > Proposal 957 - Wed Jul 03 11:46:11 EDT 1996
> > Notes fix
> > Mohammed  (Jason Orendorff)
> 
> I strongly urge Mohammed to retract this. It could break appeals of CFJs
> to the supreme court (qv R 569). 
	I retract Proposal 957.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 14:31:47 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  Appointer (CotC filled, election open)

Mohammed wrote:
> 
> The NP for the Office of the Clerk of the Courts is over.  The sole
> nominee is Malenkai, who is thus once again CotC.
>

The CotC shall be under control in 12 hours, verdicts distributed, etc,
and the CotC page updated. Hopefully.

I resign as Justice and endorse mr cwm per previous endorsement. I do 
this because there is a thread out there, hinging on 2 CFJs and my
ODW reasoning, which would have me Justice still. (qv: Re: Acka: end game
situation).
 
> The NP for the Speaker election is over.  The sole Nominee is Malenkai.
> See rule 611.

It seems that R 611 requires an election for Speaker, even though there
is only one one nominee. Furthermore, only the nominees may be voted
for. That seems a little silly, but I'm not sure if this has come up
before, so as Assistant Tabulator, I am holding a election for Speaker,
as required by R 611. The nominees are:

Malenkai

The election shall end 72 hours from the date of this post.

Assistant Tabulator

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

Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 14:44:43 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 199 Verdict

The following, CFJ 199, as been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 199
  Subject:  Vacationers are Players
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  snowgod (selected Jun 27, 1996, 10:30h New York Time)

Statement:

Rule 362 applies to vacationing Players.

pTang1001001's reasoning:

R362:

"If any player does not vote or communicate publically with all of
the Ackanomic players for a time period of one week, and this fact
is pointed out to the Speaker by any player (other than the said player),
then the Speaker must send a message to the player who has been absent.
In this message the Speaker must ask the player if he wishes to continue
playing the game, and points out why the message is being sent. If the
player does not reply within two days, then the player is no longer a
player in the game. The ex-player may rejoin the game later, if he desires,
with the same score he had when he left."

In the past, no-one has pointed out to the Speaker the lack
of public communication by vacationing players, and so I assert
that there is NO current game custom to deal with this issue.

The fact that R362 deals harshly with vacationing players is a
sound argument for amending the Rule, but does not give us any
right to ignore its text.  Particularly with the lack of ANY
relevent game custom, it would be sheer fiat for anyone to conclude
that R362 excludes vacationers.

To assert that a vacationing Player is not a wholly contained class
within the concept of "Player" is absurd.  R362 applies to them.

snowgod's reasoning:

The court can find no fault in the above reasoning.

R457/3  states "While a player is on vacation, the player shall not not be 
randomly selected for anything. The player shall also not be chosen to 
perform any task."  Answering a query from the speaker seems to qualify as a 
task, but since the R457 is of a higher number than "Removing Dead Players" 
the latter would take precedence and require a player to respond.

Though legal, this judge frowns upon players asking for vacationers to be 
removed from the game, since a vacationing player can do no harm.

I am therefore returning a judgement of TRUE.

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

Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 14:48:41 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 208 Verdict

The following, CFJ 208, has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 208
  Subject:  Game custom of time
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  snowgod (selected Jul 1, 1996, 21:15h New York Time)

Statement:

When the Rules do not specify a time period for a Player to perform
a given action, Ackanomic game custom dictates that the Player should
attempt in good faith to carry out the action as soon as is feasible;
as a specific example, Malenkai is obligated to send messages to the
potentially "dead" Players, as per R362.

pTang1001001sos' Argument:

The operation of the very game presupposed that Players who are instructed
by the Rules to perform some action will do so expeditiously.  As I have
said, imagine if the CotC "sat on" the CFJs that didn't meet his fancy.
(check R588.  There is no time period for selecting a Judge)
Can the Tabultor report the voting results 5 years after the vote has been
taken? (see R414 to see there is no stated period for reporting)

The examples of the Rules assuming the aforementioned principle are legion,
and the fact is that game custom dictates that actions need to be carried
out in a timely manner.

The case is even stronger in the particular case of R362, as the strongest
possible language is being used:
"[...] the Speaker must send a message to the player who has been absent.
In this message the Speaker must ask the player if he wishes to continue
playing the game [...]"

snowgod's reasoning:

Since the rules do not dictate that a game action is to be performed "as
soon as feasable" and in fact, do not dictate any time restrictions at all,
I am returning a judgement of False on this CFJ.  In pTang1001001sos
specific example, Malenkai would be in the right, so long as he does
eventually perform the duties described in R362 (though eventually could be
anywhere from tommorow to next year, so long as it gets done sometime.)

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

Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 14:56:02 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 213 Verdict

The following, CFJ 213, has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 213
  Subject:  R 362's validity
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  ThinMan (selected Jul 2, 1996, 23:45h New York Time)

Statement:

R 362 is wholly void and without effect.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

R 362 (mutable) reads, in part:

> If any player does not vote or communicate publically with all of the
> Ackanomic players for a time period of one week, and this fact is
> pointed out to the Speaker by any player (other than the said player),
> then the Speaker must send a message to the player who has been absent.
> [...]

This rule applies to vacationing players (qv CFJ 198). Furthermore, this
rule requires that the Speaker send a message to vacationing players
asking them if they want to remain in the game, if said vacationing
players have not communicated or voted within a week, and a player
requests that the Speaker do so.

Let the term Speaker mean Speaker or Acting Speaker, it matters not
for the purposes of discussion, it is the same individual.

In the "judgement" of the current Speaker, being asked to do the work
required by this rule (not the same as being asked by the player to
*start* the work) is a "penalty worse than losing, in the Speaker's
judgement to incur it". The current Speaker has put forth rationale as
to why that is such, but that matters not for this argument. All that
matters is the Speaker's "judgement" that the quoted phrase above is true.
Thus R 362 is forcing a "penalty worse than losing, in the Speaker's
judgement to incur it", upon the Speaker.

I now quote from R 111 (Immutable), in part:

> No penalty worse than losing, in the judgement of the player to incur
> it, may be imposed.

Thus R 362 imposes a penalty worse than losing, in the Judgement of the
Speaker to incur it, and R 111 prohibits such imposition.

This is an Immutable/Mutable inconsistency. I quote from R 108, in part:

> Mutable rules that are inconsistent in some way with some immutable
> rule (except by proposing to transmute it) are wholly void and
> without effect.

Thus R 362 is "wholly void and without effect". A verdict of TRUE is
necessary.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

1) Even if I accept the rest of Malenkai's argument, his claim that R 108
applies to R 362 is valid only if the Speaker considers the requirements
of R 362 to be "a penalty worse than losing."  Malenkai was Speaker at the
time he submitted this CFJ, and he did feel that way.  However, it is not
the case, in my opinion, that R 362 is always void an without effect, even
if it is in some circumstances.  If the statement I am judging were
conditional, then it would be much stronger.

2) More importantly, however, I do not interpret the requirements of Rule
362 as a penalty.  In my opinion, in the context of R 111 a penalty is an
adverse requirement incurred as a result of an offense or other illegal 
action.
The requirements of R 362 are part of the normal duties of the Speaker, not
the result of any Rule violation, and therefore do not constitute a penalty.
I acknowledge that the Speaker may find those requirements odious, but they
are not made void by R 108.

3) As I see no other grounds on which R 362 could be declared "wholly void
and without effect," I see no other possible judgement than FALSE.

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

Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 15:20:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 216 (Kelly Martin)

ThinMan has declined judgement on CFJ 216. The Court commends ThinMan
on his intergrity, and quotes his declination message in full:

>I must respectfully decline to judge CFJ 216, for a judgement of true would
>declare, among other things, that my recent win claim was valid.  I am,
>therefore, not an impartial judge for this CFJ.

The CFJ has been reassigned to Kelly Martin, who has 3 days to accept or
decline the appointment.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Call for Judgement 216
  Subject:  Fat Lady
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  ThinMan (declined to judge)
2nd Judge:  Kelly Martin (selected on 5 Jul, 1996, 15:25h New York Time)

Statement:
 The argument below, after the header "Reasoning:" and between
 the quote marks, is sound and shall be entered into game custom.

Reasoning :
 "
 R790 states:

 >Furthermore, the game, or a cycle of the game, cannot be over until the
 >Fat Lady sings.

 What does this mean?

 I submit that it means the cycle number cannot be incremented.  The
 action of incrementing the cycle number would very strongly imply the
 end of the previous cycle.  I know of no other reference to what
 constitutes a cycle end in the Rules.

 Here's what happened:
 1) ThinMan changed n to 6, and claimed a win of the game.  This win claim
 was valid.
 
 2) At this point, R666 triggered, executing clauses (a) through (j), and
 got hung up before executing clause (k), waiting for the Fat Lady to sing.

 3) Clause (a) of R666 says "Ackanomic play is suspended".  By CFJ 193,
 only those activities which are analogous to "setting up a chess board"
 are valid during this period.  I submit that my changing of n does not
 qualify.

 4) I tried to change n.  This did not happen, as it is an unacceptable  
action.

 5) Malenkai stated that the Fat Lady is singing.  I submit that this is
 a "setting up" activity, as it triggers the change in cycle number.

 6) R666 executes clause (k), incrementing the cycle number, then (m),
  resuming Ackanomic play.
 "

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

Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 15:36:02 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 217 (Robin Hood)

Robin Hood has been chosen to judge the following, and has
3 days to accept or decline the appointment.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 217
  Subject:  Burning the Witch in the Afterlife
Initiator:  snowgod
    Judge:  Robin Hood (selected Jul 5, 1996, 15:37h New York Time)

Statement:

An player in the Ackanomic Afterlife cannot be burned as a heretic.

snowgod's Reasoning:

To set fire to a witch in the Afterlife, another player would have to enter
the afterlife to set said witch aflame.

R767 states that "A player that has 'entered' this palace can do so as per
another rule, not directly of his own decision."  Since no player can enter
the afterlife except as described in the rules, and currently the only way
to get into the afterlife is to commit heresy, a player in the afterlife
cannot be burned.

The penalties decribed in "Ackanomic Middle Ages" state that they take
effect only after a player is burned. Hence, regardless of the outcome of
the witch hunt against me, the penalties cannot be applied.

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

Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 15:41:26 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 214 (Calvin N Hobbes)

De'ghew has declined to judge the following. It has been reassigned to
Calvin N Hobbes, who has 3 days to accept or decline the appointment.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 214
  Subject:  ThinMan's winning
Initiator:  /dev/joe
    Judge:  De'ghew (declined to judge)
2nd Judge:  Calvin N Hobbes (selected Jul 5, 1996, 15:49h New York Time)

Statement:

When ThinMan set n to 6, he won the game.

/dev/joe's Comments:

I don't care either way, but it's rather important to know.

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

Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 15:45:53 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Making FUN Party Offical

The FUN Party has reformed. The particulars are on the Web page.

(I believe the rules require the speaker to announce this for it to
be so officially. We could probably cut down on bandwidth by allowing
the party to do it themselves).

Malenkai
Acting Speaker

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 23:37:53 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Making FUN Party Offical

On Fri, 5 Jul 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> The FUN Party has reformed. The particulars are on the Web page.
>                   ^^^^^^^^
They weren't such a bad bunch before :)
Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 13:21:03 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Witchhunt Pascal

>Just to make sure - did the AA exist at the time you were burned?
>
>-mr cwm

Yes, The Afterlife has existed since the adoption of proposal 767, which
was quite some time ago.

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 22:27:57 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vote NO on 950

> Proposal 950 - Mon Jul 01 17:02:11 EDT 1996
> Terminology Check
> /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)
> 
> [[ Currently the rules refer to YES, NO, FOR, IN FAVOR, and AGAINST votes.
>    The result of a proposal vote is referred to as accepted, adopted,
>    passed, rejected, and failed.  This proposal would reduce this to 
>    just YES and NO votes and "accepted" and "rejected" proposals.  It also
>    eliminates the now-unnecessary concept of unanimous votes, and the 
>    outdated term "Voters."
> 
>    Rules 104, 105, 379, 491, 516, and 706 are handled by other proposals.]]

I urge a NO vote on 950. I would vote yes for the unanimity and
voters part of the proposal. However, I think standardising the
language to simply accepted or rejected would sterilise the ruleset
of some interestingness, and I can see no benefits from this.

Are we to allow only one word to describe something? What is wrong
with synonyms? The use of "adopted" to mean "accepted" does not make
the rules any harder to understand, and the use of a variety of
words makes the rules more interesting to read. 

Bascule

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jul 1996 01:08:17 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC- Swingers Play Around 

RFC
Singers Play Around
Nicolo Flychuck

A proposal to create a new rule by the name of Swingers Play Around

1. There exists a checkered board, divided into 20 by 20 squares, which resides
 in Party Hall. It is called the Party Board. The Party Board is Protected. The
 Party Board is used for the sole purpose of playing a game called Party Chess.
Each column has a letter assigned to it, from a-t beginning with the leftmost 
column. Each row has an integer assigned to it, from 1-20, when viewed on a 
screen, the lowest row is on, the highest is 20, consecutive rows are marked 
with consecutive integers

Each square on the Party Board has coordinates made up of the a letter, 
which corresponds to the column the square is part of, and an integer, which 
corresponds to the row the squre is part of. The letter always preceds the 
integer.
Food or drink may not be placed on the Party Board.

2. Party Chess Pieces
a. Each Swinger controls a set of Party Chess Pieces. The pieces are owned by
 the Office of Swinger, and controlled by the Swinger who holds that office. 
Whenever this rules reffers to pieces as being owned, or as property of a
 Swinger, the implied meaning is that they are owned by, or are the 
property of the Office of the Swinger.
b.A Swinger may acquire new pieces in one of two ways: (i)by capturing an  
opponent's piece, as described elsewhere in this rule . (ii) by purchasing  
a new piece from the Treasury.
c. Party Chess Pieces may be either on-board of off-board.
  on-board pieces are pieces which are currently on the Party Board. 
  off-board pieces are pieces which are currently off the Party Board.

d.
   (i) Any player  may anounce at any time that e is purchasing a new 
       Party  Chess Piece.
    (ii)The Party Chess Piece must  be a piece defined by a 
	PartyChessPieceDef  rule
    (iii) The price of a new Party Chess Piece is equal to M*5+10 A$, 
	where M is thematerial value of the piece. The money is paid to the 
	 Treasury.
    (iv) If a Party member purchases a Party Chess Piece, it becomes the 
	property  of the Swinger of that Party
    (v)if a non-aligned player purchases a piece, it becomes the property of 
	the Office of the NAP-Swinger
   (vi)Any newly purchased Party Chess Piece is initially off-board

e. When a Party is disbanded all the Party Chess Pieces owned by the Swinger 
  or that party are destroyed. No re-imbursement is made for destroyed pieces.

f. When the word 'piece' or 'Piece' is used in this rule, it means Party Chess 
Piece.

3. PartyChessPieceDef rules
a. Each PartyChessPieceDef rule defines exactly one type of piece that can be
 purchased and used in the game of Party Chess
b. A PartyChessPieceDef rule must include in itts title the words 'Creation 
of  PartyChessPiece' followed by the name of the piece
c. A PartyChessPieceDef rule must define the legal moves a piece can make. 
That is, define in a non-ambigous way, which empty squares on the Party Board 
the piece can move to. All such definition are relative to the current 
square the piece occupies
d. A PartyChessPieceDef rule may define different rules for capturing an 
opponent's piece. Capturing consists of moving into a square occupied by an
 opponent's piece, removing the opponent's piece from the board, and adding 
it to one's own off-board pieces. If a PartyChessPieceDef rule does not define 
rules for capture, then the rules defined for movement, are also the rules 
for capture. - i.e. piece A can capture opponent's piece B, if B occupies a
 square, that, had it been vacant, would have been legal for A to move into.

e. Capturing friendly pieces is forbidden. 
f. A PartyChessPieceDef rule must define a material value for the piece. 
g. A PartyChessPieceDef rule must define a non-space ASCII character to 
represent the piece. The character must not be one that is already used by 
another Party Chess Piece. These characters will be used to represent the 
pieces on representation of the Party Board.
h. The only exception to section 3 of this rule is the Party Chess Piece named
 King. The King is defined in a seperate section of this rule.
i. The following are some useful conventions that may be used in 
PartyChessPieceDef rules. None of these of conventions are obligatory.
  (i) The capital letters R and C may stand for the row and column which 
the square the piece currently occupies is a part of, respectively.
  (ii) The terms DestR, and DestC, may stand for any destination square
  (iii) When reffering to a direction of travel, f'rinstance in a phrase 
such as "For any given direction D", D1 means the closest square in that 
direction, D2, is the second closest square in that direction, d3 is the 
third closest sqaure in that direction and so on.
  (iv) The synbols /AND/ /OR/  /XOR/ /NOT/ 
   correspond to the logical operators AND,OR, XO,NOT respectively, and 
have the same meanings. In order to distinguish them from standard English 
words, they are written all caps, and are written between forward slashes / /

4. Office of the  Chess-Umpire
a.Section 4 of this rule creates the office of the Chess-Umpire.  The 
Office of the Chess-Umpire is a functional office.
b. Any player who is not a Swinger is eligible for the office of Chess-Umpire
c. If a Chess-Umpire becomes a Swinger, e must immediately resign eir position
 as Chess-Umpire.
d. The Chess-Umpire has the following responsibilities:
  (i) maintaining and updating the Party Board
  (ii) Checking for the legality of the moves
  (iii) Notifying Swingers that it is their turn to move - by private e-mail
  (iv) Alerting Swingers to the fact that they are being checked, by a 
       public message, which indicates which Swinger or Swingers have been 
	placed in a state of check.
  (v) Calculating and posting the Swingers' Absolute and Relative Weights 
	after each move.
  (vi) Maintanng a list of game history - all the moves made, Pieces purchased
 	 and owned
  (vii) The Chess-Umpire will make this information publically  available.
	 If possible, the informatin will be maintained on a web-page as well.
  (vii) Determining the playing order.

5. Managing the Game
a. At the begining of the game there are no Party Chess Pieces on the Party
Board
b. Each Office of Swinger receives one King, and five playing pieces. Each 
  Swinger may choose any five pieces which are defined be a 
  PartyChessPieceDef rule, as long as their total material value does not 
  exceed 30. These pieces are freely given.   Initially all pieces are off-board
c. When a new Office of Swinger is created, it receives one King and five 
   playing pieces, as described in 5b
d. Whenever an Office of Swinger is destroyed, as a result of the fact that eir 
   Party no longer exists, all Party Chess Pieces owned by that office are 
   destroyed. No re-imbursement is made for the destroyed items.
e. Determining the playing-order: the NAP Swinger is always first in the playing
   order. The Chess-Umpire determines the playing-order of the Party 
   Swingers randomally.
f. Spectators are players who are not Swingers, and observers, who wish to 
   follow the game. Whenever this rule calls for a public anouncement to be 
   made, it means that the anouncement is made to all the Swinger and all the 
   Spectators g.Swingers take turns playing according to the playing-order
h. Every play must be anounced publically - except when this rule specifically 
   states otherwise. Once a play has been publically anounced, the turn 
   becomes the turn of the next Swinger in the playing-order. That Swinger 
   has four days in which to make eir play, otherwise eir play defaults to a
Pass
i. After the last Swinger in the playing-order has played, the next Swinger in
    the playing-order is the first Swinger in the playing order.
j. Playing-order must always be followed, except when this rule specifies 
   otherwise

6.Playing the game
A.
(i) An opponent piece is a piece controlled by another Swinger, regardless of 
    any agreements, contracts, or treaties made between the different 
    Swingers.
(ii)A friendly piece is a piece controlled by the same Swinger.
(iii)Piece A is said to attack opponent piece B, iff the pieces are placed 
     on squares such that had it been Swinger A's turn, he could capture piece 
      B, using piece A. 
(iv)Piece A is said to protect friendly piece B, iff piece A and B are placed 
    on squares such that had B been an opponent piece, A would have been said 
    to attack B.

B.On eir turn Swinger may make one of the following plays
terms between ' <' and '>'  will be substituted by actual balues during gameplay
(i). Move- The Swinger moves an on-board  piece e control from the square it 
     is on, to an unoccupied square, according the PartyChessPieceDef rule, 
     defining that piece. Move is anounced as follows:

Move <piece name> <current square>  To <destination square>

(ii). Capture - The Swinger moves an on-board piece e controls from the square 
      it is on, to a square occupied by an opponent's piece, according to the 
      PartyChessPieceDef rule defining that piece. The opponent's piece is 
      removed from the board, and becomes the property of the Swinger who 
      captured it. Captured pieces belong are initially of-board.
Capture is anounced as follows
<friendly piece name> <current square>  Captures <destination square> 
   	<opponent's piece name> <opponent's Party name>

(iii). Placement - a Swinger places one of eir of-board pieces on an unoccupied 
	square on the board. The Swinger may not place the piece in such a 
	position that it attacks one or more opponent pieces.
Placement is anounced as follows:
Place <piece name> at <destination square>

(iv). Pass - the Swinger does nothing.  If a Swinger makes no play, 
	within four days of the the most recent play made, then he is 
	considered to have Passed. Such a play is called a Pass by Default, 
	and is considered a play for all practical purposes, including the 
	four day count.
A Pass is anounced as follows:
Pass

(v). Surrender - All of the Swinger's pieces are removed from the board, and 
 	become off-board pieces. 
A Surrender is anounced as follows:
Surrender

C.
(i) If a promotable piece is moved, whether through a Move, or a Capture, into 
	a position which allows it to be promoted, then it is immediately 
	promoted. 
	The process of promotion is as follows: The original promotable 
	piece is destroyed, and instantly, the piece to which it promotes 
	is created, at no cost, and placed on the square that was occupied by 
	the promotable piece when it was destroyed.
(ii) If a Swinger Places a piece on a move, e may not Move, or Capture in eir 
	next move.
(iii) A Swinger may not Pass if e is currently in a state of check
(iv) A play that results in placing the Swinger who made that play in a state of
	 check, is illegal. - If there is no legal play, other than 
	Surrender, that would not place the Swinger in a state of check, 
	then the Swinger must surrender

D
(i) A Swinger is considered to be checked, or in a state of check, when eir 
	King is attacked by one or more opponent pieces. 
(ii) It is the responsibility of the Chess-Umpire to identify states of check 
	and alert the Swingers that such a state exists, and let the Swingers
	 know whose King is being atttacked.
(iii) Whenever the Chess-Umpire declares that a state of check exists the 
	following procedure take place:
     	If the Swinger whose turn it is to play, is not the checked Swinger, 
	then the Swinger whose turn it is to play is placed On-Hold, and the
	 turn becomes the turn of the checked Swinger. After the checked Swinger
	 has made his play, the turn reverts back to the Swinger On-Hold, and
	 e is no longer On-Hold
(iv) If two or more Swingers are checked simultaneously then the following 
	procedure takes place:
  /a/ If the Swinger whose turn it is to play, is not one of the checked 
	Swingers, then the Swinger whose turn it is to play is placed On-Hold. 
  /b/ Each of the checked Swingers mails eir play by private e-mail to the 
	Chess-Umpire
 /c/ If there no conflict between the plays, then the Chess-Umpire anounces
	 the plays publically and updates the Party Board accordingly.
 /d/ If there is a conflict between the plays, then the Chess-Umpire anounces
	 this fact publically, and each of the checked Swinger must again mail
	 eir plays privately to the Chess-Umpire,
 /e/ If the Chess-Umpire decided that there are no possible moves that would 
	not result in conflict, then e must anounce that fact, and all of the 
	checked Swingers must Surrender
 /f/ If after 4+cp repetitions of the procedure described in steps /b/-/d/, 
	the Swingers' plays still result in conflict, where cp is 
	the number of checked Swingers, then the Chess Umpire anounces 
	that fact, and all of the checked Swingers must surrender.

 /g/ A state of conflict is defined as one of the following:
     /i/ Two or more Party Chess Pieces occupy the same square, where none
of those pieces had 
	occupied that square before. 
   /ii/ The result of plays is that at least one of the checked Swingers is
	 still checked

7. The Party Chess Playing Piece known as King
a. Each Swinger has exactly one king.
b. The King may move exactly one square in any direction.
c. This definition is analogous to section 7.b :
 The king may move to a square (DestR,DestC) which belong to the set of all 
squares such that (abs(DestR-R)=1) /OR/ (abs(DestC-C1)=1) 

d. The material value of the King is undefined
e. For the purpose of this rule, 'King' is a genderless word.

8. Calculating Swingers' Weight
 a. Whenever a Swinger completes eir play, the Chess- Umpire calculates the
Swingers'
    Weights and posts that information.
 b. Absolute Weight for each Swinger is calculated in the following manner:
    For a Swinger whose King is on-board
    Weight=
    (Total material value of the off-board pieces)+
    3*(Total material value of the on-board piece)+
    for each piece(add piece add the maximum distance the piece can move,
without making
    a capture), where distance is defined as the greater of (abs(DestC-C)),
(abs(DestR-R))
    for each piece (add 3 if the piece attacks at least on opponent piece)
    for each piece (add 2 if the piece defends at least one friendly piece)
 
    For a Swinger whose King is off-board
    Weight=1
 
  c. Relative Weight for each Swinger is calculated as follows - 
     if the minimum Weight is non-zero, then 
     Relative Weight= Absolute Weight / minimum Weight
     if the minimum Weight is equal to zero then 
     Relative Weight=Absolute Weight

9. The game of Party Chess is Protected. The Party Board is Protected. All
Party Chess Pieces are Protected. This rules takes precedence over all
PartyChessPieceDef rules.

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jul 1996 01:11:13 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Swingers Play Around, & Law of Party Gravity 

I posted what I believe to be the final version of these two RFCs.
I'd like to thank Mohammed for his input, his commentary has been
invaluable, and some of his suggestions have been incorporated into this RFC.
I have already told him privately of my intent to name a Party Chess Piece
in his honor. You will see this in a further multi proposal RFC that I will
be posting, sometime this weekend.

rfc
Nicolo Flychuck

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #90
******************************