Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #359
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Friday, November 22 1996       Volume 01 : Number 359

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 00:28:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1472

> Proposal 1472 -- Thu 21 Nov 18:09 CST 1996
> Otzma Card type anti-Entity Attitude
> Niccolo Flychuck
	There are already too many "counterspells" in the game.
	There is a gadget that destroyes Gadgets.
	There is an otzma card that counters otzma cards.
	There is a Gadget that breaks Gadgets.

	And, right now, there's really nothing much worth breaking, 
countering, or destroying.  I don't think the existence of this card will 
do anything except reduce the value of all other entities.
	I'm much more interested in stuff like Spread Them Bonuses than 
this... just my two cents.

- --Mohammed (two cents lighter)

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:42:57 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposals 1466 - 1472

On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> These are the Otzma Card proposals.  Unfortunately, they attempt to
> add to the rule suite "Otzma Card Rule Suite" when the name of
> the rule suite is "Otzma Cards Rule Suite".  It seems like a minor
> point, but remember that business with the "a" in the chess pieces.
(I did , that's the conditions for being an Otzma Card rule are less
strict, and the existence of Rule Suites helped)

> 
> I wonder if the Spelling Bee can change the *title* of the rule 
> suite.  Of course, I've written a couple of proposals that use the
> correct title, so that would be a bit unfair, but any creative way to
> fix this would be cool.

I don't think the spelling bee should change it. The plural seems more
appropriate.
There are two possible solutions to that.
1. retract the lot and resubmit them properly
2. wait for the voting perriod to end and renumber them with another
proposal
> 
> Also, P 1471 and P 1472 do not attempt to add to the rule suite at
> all.
An oversight on my, I think this one clinches it
I'll retract the lot.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> Malenkai
> Otzmazised
> 

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:47:43 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1472

On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > Proposal 1472 -- Thu 21 Nov 18:09 CST 1996
> > Otzma Card type anti-Entity Attitude
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> 	There are already too many "counterspells" in the game.
> 	There is a gadget that destroyes Gadgets.
> 	There is an otzma card that counters otzma cards.
> 	There is a Gadget that breaks Gadgets.
> 
> 	And, right now, there's really nothing much worth breaking, 
> countering, or destroying.  I don't think the existence of this card will 
> do anything except reduce the value of all other entities.
> 	I'm much more interested in stuff like Spread Them Bonuses than 
> this... just my two cents.

Then vote No.
My approx. 6.4 agorot (calculated according to current exchange rates)
:)

> 
> --Mohammed (two cents lighter)
> 

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:56:20 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: retractions and lamentations

I am retracting the following proposals

1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472

I'll resubmit them, someone will probably argue that the slight errors are
non-ambigous, but I prefer to have non-ambigous non-errors.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 01:30:14 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1454

Rovert Sevin spake thusly
> Niccolo Flychuck spake thusly 
> >It simply transplants some RL terms onto Ackanomic.  I oppose the
> >discrimination against same-gender unions.  
> 
> It is mocking the real-world discrimination against such unions. I've got my
> new slogan for this proposal: Vote for this or you're a bigot!
>

Actually, I liked the proposal a lot, especially because of the 'discrimination.'
Mainly because I face such discrimination myself.  It's goo dto see that
other people out there see it and recognize it as such.

fnord

(of course, I also agree with Niccolo that we don't need to stay with 
mirroring the outside world.

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:03:42 EST 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Vacation

Having served my civic duty by voting on all legislation in Digest #358, 
and having no CFJ's nor CFCJ's assigned,  I am going on Vacation starting
1200 CST,  today.  I will be gone for approximately 9 days,  and hope to
return no later than 1 December.  If I bag a deer early,  I may return
sooner.

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:53:50 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposals 1466 - 1472

I don't think so.  R695c limits the powers of CSR's to mutable rules.

- -mr cwm

On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

>
>CSR could modify the proposals before effect, I think.
>
>Guy Fawkes
>
>
>On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:
>
>> These are the Otzma Card proposals.  Unfortunately, they attempt to
>> add to the rule suite "Otzma Card Rule Suite" when the name of
>> the rule suite is "Otzma Cards Rule Suite".  It seems like a minor
>> point, but remember that business with the "a" in the chess pieces.
>> 
>> I wonder if the Spelling Bee can change the *title* of the rule 
>> suite.  Of course, I've written a couple of proposals that use the
>> correct title, so that would be a bit unfair, but any creative way to
>> fix this would be cool.
>> 
>> Also, P 1471 and P 1472 do not attempt to add to the rule suite at
>> all.
>> 
>> Malenkai
>> Otzmazised
>> 
>

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:42:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1473

Proposal 1473 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:38 CST 1996
Would two Pyraic Frobnotzers attached at the same place short out?
Malenkai (Randy Hall)

This is a Modest proposal.

Create a new rule reading:

{{

	Amend the blueprint for the Pyraic Frobnotzer to replace the first
occurrance of the word "amended" with "amended, repealed, or modified in
any way".

	[to me, "amended" in ackaspeak has a very specific meaning, and
may not apply to all potential rule changes, such as Spelling Bees,
Crisis Recovery, other Frobnotzers, etc.]
}}

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:43:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1474

Proposal 1474 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:39 CST 1996
Fixing the Lamb
Malenkai (Randy Hall)

This is a Modest proposal.

Amend R 1046 to replace the second paragraph with:

Any player may take possession of the Little Lamb by publically 
announcing they are doing so, unless it is currently possessed by a
player who has possessed it for less than one week.

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:44:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1475

Proposal 1475 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:40 CST 1996
Something Fishy with Counteractions
Malenkai (Randy Hall)

This is a Modest proposal.

Amend R 1369.2, "Otzma Card Type Go Fish" to replace section 3 with:

     3. Counter-Action: 
     a. If the Go Fish Card was used on a Card that has no Counter-Action 
defined for it, then the Counter-Action is identical to the effect of
the Card it was used on.
     b. If the Go Fish Card was used on a Card that has a Counter-Action
defined for it, then the Counter-Action is as follows: A new Card is
created that is identical to the type of Card the Go Fish Card had been
used to Counter, and it is given to the player who played the Card that
was Countered by the Go Fish Card.

     {{[admittedly all this does is change a couple of verbs and articles,
but I could not easily comprehend the current version.  The "the" for "a"
makes a huge difference, for example.  Of course, I may be completely
missing something.]}}

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:45:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1476

Proposal 1476 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:41 CST 1996
Otzma Card of type Map Shard
Malenkai

Create a rule entitled: "Otzma Card of type Map Shard", which is a
member of Otzma Cards Rule Suite, and has the following text:

"
A Card of this type can only be played in the public forum.

A player who plays this Card shall announce the name of a Map Writer or
Map Custodian, and name a Buried Treasure that has not yet been
discovered, for which the named player is privy to its Map. 

The named player shall, within 3 days of the Card taking effect,
privately post any 10 consecutive words from the named Map to the
player who played the Card.  The passage chosen must contain at
least one verb and one noun.  If the Map contains no qualifying passage,
however, the named player shall post this fact instead.   

This rule has precedence over Rule 1348.2 where there is a conflict.

Its Counter-Action:  The private post per above shall be posted 
publically as soon as humanly possible by either party who was privy to
it.  (Once posted by one player, the other player is not obligated to
do so).  
"

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:46:05 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1477

Proposal 1477 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:41 CST 1996
Otzma Card of type Summon Tornado
Malenkai

Create a rule entitled: "Otzma Card of type Summon Tornado", which is a
member of Otzma Cards Rule Suite, and has the following text:

"
A Card of this type can only be played in the public forum.

A Tornado shall sweep through Acka 4 days after this card takes
effect [i.e., 7 days after it is played].

At any given time there may exist at most one Card of this type.
"

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:46:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1478

Proposal 1478 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:42 CST 1996
Untouch my Otzma
Niccolo Flychuck

Create a rule entitled "Otzma Card of type Untouch Me" which is a member
of the Otzma Cards Rule Suite, and contains the following text:

"
An Otzma Card of type Untouch Me can only be played in the public forum.
When a card of this type is played it has the effect of rendering the
player who played it Untouchable for a period of 7 days
Its Counter-Action: The player who played this card ceases to be
Untouchable.

At any given there can be at most 18 Cards of this type in existence.

"

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:46:48 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1479

Proposal 1479 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:42 CST 1996
Otzma Card of type Spread Them Bonuses
Niccolo Flychuck

Create  a rule entitled "Otzma Card of type Spread Them Bonuses", which is
a member of the Otzma Cards Rule Suite, and contains the following text:
"
An Otzma Card of type Spread Them Bonuses can only be played in the public
forum. When a player plays this card, e must also anounce the number of a
proposal authored by emself that failed within the preceding seven days.
The effects of playing this card are as follows: Bonus Votes are created
equal in number to the absolute value of the difference between the number
of yes votes and the number of no votes that were cast on the proposal
named by the player. The player may take one Bonus Vote to emself, the
rest are given to players of eir choice.

If the player failed to post the number of a failed proposal e authored,
then the Card transforms into a Cheshire Cat style smile, and a few
seconds later it disappears.

Counter-Action : If the player who played the Card has two or more Bonus
Votes, then two of eir Bonus Votes are destroyed. Otherwise, 10 points are
deducted from eir score.

At any given there may at most 8 Cards of this type in existence.

"

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:47:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1480

Proposal 1480 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:42 CST 1996
Otzma Card type anti-Entity Attitude
Niccolo Flychuck

A proposal to create a rule entitled Otzma Card type anti-Entity Attitude
which is a member of the Otzma Cards Rule Suite anc contains the following
text:
 "
An Otzma Card of type anti-Entity Attitude can only be played in the
public forum. When a player plays a Card of this type, e anounces the name
of an Ackanomic Entity which is not a player. This has the effect of
causing the Entity to lose all its powers, effects, and special
properties,
and it becomes a Null Entity for the duration of three days. The player
can extend this duration in up to three additional days by anouncing this
when e plays the Card. For each additional day, A$100 are deducted from
eir account and transferred to the Treasury. The money is deducted when
the Card is played.

Counter-Action: The Entity the Card was played on immdiately regains
whatever powers, effect and properties it had, and is no longer Null. If
the player chose an extended duration, then e is not refunded the money e
spent on the extended duration.

At any given time there can at most 8 Cards of this type in existence.

"

{{[I was tempted to add a clause that says:"This card cannot be owned by a
player witht he Ackanomic name of Mohammed" :)]}}

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:47:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1481

Proposal 1481 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:43 CST 1996
Share The Wealth
Niccolo Flychuck

Create a rule entitled:"Otzma Card of type Share my Expenses", which is a
member of Otzma Cards Rule Suite, and contains the following text:
"
An Otzma Card of this type can only be played in the public forum.
When a player who is about to pay any sum of money, plays a Card of this
type e anounces the name of another player, and anamount he wants that
player to play, provided it is at most half what the former player has to
pay. The player whose name was anounced pays the names amount, and the
player who played the card, pays the remainder.

Counter-Action: The player who played the card pays the player whose name
e anounce, the sum of money e originaly named when e played tha Card, plus
10 percent, the sum of both being rounded down to the nearest integer.

At any given time there may at most 10 Cards of this type in existence.
"

- ----------------------------------
Create a rule entitled:"Otzma Card of type Share your income", which is a
member of Otzma Cards Rule Suite, and contains the following text:
"
An Otzma Card of this type can only be played inthe public forum.
When a player plays this a Card of this type e also names another player,
and a sum of money which is at most half of a sum the named player
received in the preceding three days. The Named player transferrs that
same amount  to the player who played the Card

Counter- Action: The player who played the card transfers the amount of
money e named to the player e named, plus 10 percent, the sum of both
being rounded down to the nearest integer.

At any given time there may at most 10 Cards of this type in existence.
"

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:47:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1482

Proposal 1482 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:43 CST 1996
Otzma Card of type Swinging Sale
Niccolo Flychuck

Create a rule entitled "Otzma Card of type Swinging Sale" which is a
member of the Otzma CArds Rule Suite, and contains the following text:

"
A Card of this type can only be played in the public forum.
A player who plays this Card, can purchase a Capital-Swinger Office for
half its normal price, provided that such purchase does not violate any
restrictions on the purchase of Capital-Swinger Offices.

At any given time there may exist at most one Card of this type.
"

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:48:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal: 1483

Proposal 1483 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:44 CST 1996 
Otzma Card of Type Organization Expansion
Niccolo Flychuck

Create a rule entitled "Otzma Card of Type Organization Expansion" which
is a member of the Otzma Cards Rule Suite and contains the following text:
"
An Otzma Card of this type can only be played in the public forum.
When a player who is a member of an Organization plays a Card of this
type then the Organization e is a member of, is considered to have one
more member then the number of players who are members of that
Organization, for a period of 7 days. If the player is a member of more
than one Organization, then e must specify which Organizations e is a
member of the Card is to affect.

Counter-Action: The Organization is no longer considered to have the extra
member.

This Rule takes precedence of all rules that concern Organizations.

The maximum number of Cards of this type in existence at any given time is
equal to twice the number of Organizations in existence.

"

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:48:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1484

Proposal 1484 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:44 CST 1996
End of Cycle Pardons
Niccolo Flychuck

Section l of R666 is relabeled as section m
Append the following text as section l
"
All players who are in Gaol are released from Gaol.
"

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:49:20 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1485

Proposal 1485 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:45 CST 1996
Otzma Card of type Divining Stick
Niccolo Flychuck

Create  a new rule entitled " Otzma Card of type Divining Stick" which is
a member of the Otzma Cards Rule Suite, and contains the following text:

" 
An Otzma Card of this type can only be used in the public forum.
When a player plays an Card of this type he also anounces the number of a
Treasure which has not been found yet. In response the Map Custodian for
that Treasure must reveal a portion of the Treasure Map. It is considered
bad form to reveal a portion of the map which is already widely known.

Counter-action: The player donates A$40 to said Map Custodian's favorite
charity. It is permissible for any entity, player or otherwise, that can
own currency to be a player's favorite charity, if it is not defined as a
charity elsewhere in the rules.
"

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:49:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1486

Proposal 1486 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:45 CST 1996
Mages, Demons, and doorknobs
Niccolo Flychuck

A proposal that has the following effects:
I. 
Create a rule, member of Party Chess Rule Suite, entitle "Creation of a
PartyChessPiece Mage", which contains the following text:
"
1. A Mage is represented by the ASCII character G
2. A Mage has the following move - two squares diagonally, and then 3 to
12 squares either vertically or horizontally, the second part of the move
is at a 135 degree angle to the first part, and provided that all the
squares the Mage passes through are unoccupied.
3. The Mage has material value of 20.
4. When a Mage is purchased, the player who purchases the Mage may also
purchase up to four of the following Otzma Cards, provided that total
cost of the Cards does not exceed A$210
The Otzma Cards e decides to purchase are created and transferred to
Swinger whose Office receives the Mage.

a. Mage - Teleport (A$80)
b. Mage - FireBall (A$70)
c. Mage - Exchange (A$120)
d. Mage - Freeze (A$50)
e. Mage - ShapeShift  (A$50)
f. Mage - Teleport II (A$120)

5. When a Mage is created by the process of Promotion, then none of the
above Cards is created.
- -----------------------------------------------
II.
Append to R985.1 Swingers Play Around I - the board and the playing
pieces, the following text:
"8. A Frozen piece can neither Move, Capture, or be Captured. However, if
a Swinger who controls a Frozen piece surrenders, it becomes an off-board
piece. Pieces can be made Frozen only according to the rules. A Piece can
be made Frozen for a maximum of 3 Rounds. If a Piece is Frozen, and no
time has been set for it to cease being Frozen, then it ceases being
Frozen exactly one Round after it became Frozen. It is impossible to
Freeze with material value equal to or less than 2. The concept of Frozen
is protected.
- -----------------------------------------------------------

III.
A proposal to create a rule, a member of Party Chess Rule Suite, entitled
"Creation of a PartyChessPiece Demon", which contains the �����p�2:[�2�c�2�H.�/�0�1�2�3�4�5�6�7�8�9�:����3�m��2:[�2��2�RR�S�T�U�V�W�X�Y�Z�[�\�]�^�����K��2:[�2f��2�({�|�}�~����������������������y��2:[�2��2����������������(����2:[�2fX�2�D������������������������������$���2:[�2橎2������������������������h��ݨ2:[�2g��2�D������������������������������ﲨ2:[�2�L�2���������������arly the entire board, pawn
promotions give it added value, but I want to have other potentially
strategic states/areas as well]}}
- ----------------------------------------------
IV. Create a rule, member of Otzma Cards Rule Suite, entitled" Otzma Card
type Mage- Teleport", which contains the following text:
"
 An Otzma Card of type Mage - Teleport can be used only by a Swinger who
has an on-board Mage, and only on eir turn. Playihng a Card of this type
allows a Swinger to move one of eir on-board Mages to any un-occupied
square on the Party-Board, provided that in its new position it does not
attack any opposing piece.
When a Swinger plays this Card, e is considered to have Passed on eir
PartyChess turn. 

The Counter-Action of this Card is as follows: The Mage is returned to the
square it was Teleported from. If that square is occupied, the Mage
becomes an off-board piece.

The maximum number of Card of this type is equal to the twice the number
of Mages in existence.

- -------------------------------------------------
V.  Create a rule, member of Otzma Cards Rule Suite, entitled" Otzma Card
type Mage- Fireball", which contains the following text:
"
An Otzma Card of type Fireball can only be used by a Swinger who has an
on-board Mage, and only on eir turn. 
A Swinger who plays a Card of this type may remove from the board and take
possesion of an opposing piece which occupies a square at a maximum
distance of 5 in any given direction from one of eir on-board Mages.
When a Swinger plays a Card of this type e is considered to have Passed on
eir PartyChess turn.

Counter-Action: The Counter-Action for a Card of this type is as follows:
The piece that was removed is transferred to the Swinger who controlled it
before it was removed. That Swinger chooses one additional piece from
among the off-board pieces of the Swinger who used the Card, provided
that it has equal or lesser material value than the first piece, and that
piece is also trasferred to him.

The maximum number of Cards of this type is equal to twice the number of
Mages in existence.
- -----------------------------------------------

VI> Create a rule, a member of Otzma Cards Rule Suite, entitled "Otzma
Card type Mage - Exchange", which contains the following text:
"
An Otzma Card of this type can only be used by a Swinger who has an
on-board Mage, and only on eir turn.
A Swinger who plays a Card of this type e may exchange the positions of
any two friendly pieces.
When a Swinger plays a Card of this type e is considered to have passed on
eir PartyChess turn.

Counter-Action: The Counter-Action for a Card type is as follows:
The two pieces that were exchanged returned to the position the occupied
before the exchange. If either square is occupied by a another piece(not
one of the exchanged pieces), then the Swinger loses points equal in
number to the sum of the material values of both pieces, and the pieces
remain where they were after the original exchange.

The maximum number of Cards of this type is equal to the smaller of (the
number of Mages in existence, the number of Swingers)

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

VII. Create a rule, member of the Otzma Cards Rule Suite, entitled "Otzma
Card type Mage - Freeze" which contains the following text:
"
A Card of this type can only be played by a Swinger who has an on-board
Mage, and can only be played on eir turn.
A Swinger who plays a Card of this type can Freeze any on-board piece,
except for pieces which can't be Frozen, for a period of exactly 1 Round.
When a Swinger plays a Card of this type e is considered to have Passed on
eir PartyChess turn.

Counter-Action: The piece which has been Frozen, ceases to be Frozen.

The maximum number of Cards of this type is twice the number of Mages in
existence.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII Create a rule , member of Otzma Cards Rule Suite, entitled "Otzma
Card type Mage - ShapeShift", which contains the following text:
"
A Card of this type can only be played by a Swinger who has an on-board
Mage, and it cannot be plated on eir turn.
A Swinger who plays this Card can anounce that one of eir on-board Mages
has assumed the guise of another type of PartyChessPiece. The Swinger must
specify which on-board Mage has done so, and what type of e is
masquarading as. Once this has been anounced, the Mage will be considered
to be a piece of that type for exactly one Round, for all purposes except
for Weight calculaion, which will conisder its true material value.

Counter-Action: The Mage drops its disguise and is no longer conisdered to
be anything but a Mage.

The maximum number of Cards of this type is twice the smallest of (the
number of Mages in existence), (the number of Swingers)

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
IX. Create a rule, a member of Otzma Cards Rule Suite, entitled "Mage -
Teleport II", which contains the following text:
"
A Card of this type can only by a Swinger who has an on-board Mage, and
only on eir turn.
A Swinger who plays a Card of this type may place of eir on-board pieces
on any unoccupied square, provided that it does not attack any opposing
piece.
When a Swinger plays a Card of this type, e is considered to have Passed
on eir PartyChess turn.

Counter-Action: The piece is returned to the square it occupied just
before the Card was played. If that square is already occupied, then
Swinger loses points, equal in number to the material value of that piece,
and the piece is remains in the square it was Teleported to.

The maximum number of Cards of this type is equal to the lesser of (the
number of Magesin existence), (The number of Swingers)
- --------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 22:55:02 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1476

On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Proposal 1476 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:41 CST 1996
> Otzma Card of type Map Shard
> Malenkai

:(
This looks better than my Divining Stick Otzma Card proposal.
I'll leave, the differences might be worth it.
Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> Create a rule entitled: "Otzma Card of type Map Shard", which is a
> member of Otzma Cards Rule Suite, and has the following text:
> 
> "
> A Card of this type can only beplayed in the public forum.
> 
> A player who plays this Card shall announce the name of a Map Writer or
> Map Custodian, and name a Buried Treasure that has not yet been
> discovered, for which the named player is privy to its Map. 
> 
> The named player shall, within 3 days of the Card taking effect,
> privately post any 10 consecutive words from the named Map to the
> player who played the Card.  The passage chosen must contain at
> least one verb and one noun.  If the Map contains no qualifying passage,
> however, the named player shall post this fact instead.   
> 
> This rule has precedence over Rule 1348.2 where there is a conflict.
> 
> Its Counter-Action:  The private post per above shall be posted 
> publically as soon as humanly possible by either party who was privy to
> it.  (Once posted by one player, the other player is not obligated to
> do so).  
> "
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 23:00:50 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1475

On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Proposal 1475 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:40 CST 1996
> Something Fishy with Counteractions
> Malenkai (Randy Hall)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> 
>    {{[admittedly all this does is change a couple of verbs and articles,
> but I could not easily comprehend the current version.  The "the" for "a"
> makes a huge difference, for example.  Of course, I may be completely
> missing something.]}}
> 
>
I don't think you're missing anything. 'the' is better. In fact, I have
adopted the convention of using the phrase 'the Card' which is sufficient
to specify which Card.
Niccolo Flychuck

 > 

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 22:51:58 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1472 (or what ever it's gonna be numbered now)

On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > Proposal 1472 -- Thu 21 Nov 18:09 CST 1996
> > Otzma Card type anti-Entity Attitude
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> 	There are already too many "counterspells" in the game.
> 	There is a gadget that destroyes Gadgets.
> 	There is an otzma card that counters otzma cards.
> 	There is a Gadget that breaks Gadgets.
> 
> 	And, right now, there's really nothing much worth breaking, 
> countering, or destroying.  I don't think the existence of this card will 
> do anything except reduce the value of all other entities.
> 	I'm much more interested in stuff like Spread Them Bonuses than 
> this... just my two cents.
> 
> --Mohammed (two cents lighter)
1. All the instances you site  have gadgets affecting gadgets, or Oztma
Cards affecting Otzma Cards. There is no interaction between them
2. How about the following hypothetical Card (which I might even propose,
once language has been cleaned up a bit:
- -- 
An Otzma Card of type Go Go Gadget can be played only in the public forum.
A Player who plays this Card anounces the name of an existing blue-print. 
A Gadget is immediately created from this blue print and transferred to
that player for a period of 7 days, at the end of which it is desroyed, if
it can't be destroyed then it is transferred to the Treasury.
(loads of precedence here)
- --

Or

- --
An Otzma Card of type Transfer Gadget can played only in the public forum.
A player who plays this Card anounces the name of a Gadget owned by
another player. The Gadget is transferred from the latter player t the
former for a period of 7 days, at the end of which it is returned to that
player, unless manipulation or use of that Gadget has destoryed it.
It that latter player is no longer a player at that time,then the Gadget
is destroyed.
- ----

Niccolo Flychuck

> 

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:50:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1472 (or what ever it's gonna be numbered now)

On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > > Proposal 1472 -- Thu 21 Nov 18:09 CST 1996
> > > Otzma Card type anti-Entity Attitude
> > > Niccolo Flychuck

The following is a hypothetical scam.  I am not actually doing any of this.

First, I make a proposal more or less the same as Malenkai's "coup" 
proposals.  Then, I wait a few days for everyone to get their "NO" votes 
cast, at which point I play an "Anti-Entity Attitude" card on the One 
Player, One Vote rule and immediately cast several hundred YES votes for 
my proposal.

In my remembrance, at least one rule implicitly classes rules as 
entities, and this card says it can nullify ANY entity.

Guy Fawkes 

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:58:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1474

> Proposal 1474 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:39 CST 1996
> Fixing the Lamb
> Malenkai (Randy Hall)

"Fixing?"  I don't believe the Lamb is broken.  This may not be the way 
it was intended to work, but IMO, it is better this way.  Should 
ownership of the lamb ever be a vital part of the game (as it might if 
P1430 passes), it places far to much importance on being able to send a 
message at the moment the Lamb becomes available.  As it is, you can have 
the lamb regardless of your ability to get to the computer at the right 
time.  This is kind of like the gumball debate.  Why shouldn't more than 
one person be able to chew the gumball on a given day?  Why shouldn't 
more than one person have the lamb?

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 00:45:39 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1472 (or what ever it's gonna be numbered now)

On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> > 
> > > > Proposal 1472 -- Thu 21 Nov 18:09 CST 1996
> > > > Otzma Card type anti-Entity Attitude
> > > > Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> The following is a hypothetical scam.  I am not actually doing any of this.
> 
> First, I make a proposal more or less the same as Malenkai's "coup" 
> proposals.  Then, I wait a few days for everyone to get their "NO" votes 
> cast, at which point I play an "Anti-Entity Attitude" card on the One 
> Player, One Vote rule and immediately cast several hundred YES votes for 
> my proposal.
> 
> In my remembrance, at least one rule implicitly classes rules as 
> entities, and this card says it can nullify ANY entity.
> 
> Guy Fawkes 
> 
I think this claim does not claim sufficient precedence, which might make
just as ineffective for any other entity. Maybe I need to remake it into a
couple of different cards, each of which effects a different kind of
entity.

Now that we've proposed some Cards, and I expect some of them to pass (it
would be interesting if both Map Shard and Divning Stick pass, although I
believe the former stands a better chance) I'd like to start exploring
Cards, that include as one of the effects of their Action, or even
Counter-Action, countering a specific type, or set of types of Otzma
Cards. Thus, it would not be their only function, so they could be used
for the sake of the other parts of their function. This could potentially
produce interesting chains of Actions and Counter-Actions.
(Does the Counter-Action section specify that a Card can only be Countered
once? -I'll have to look it up and submit an ammendment if it's not in
there.)

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 18:06:18 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1472 (or what ever it's gonna be numbered now)

Uri Bruck wrote:

> I think this claim does not claim sufficient precedence, which might make
> just as ineffective for any other entity. Maybe I need to remake it into a
> couple of different cards, each of which effects a different kind of
> entity.

So if it does not have enough precedence to affect rules, it seems it
would not have enough precedence to neuter any entity earlier that its
high rule number, making it useless.  On the other hand, remember the
dormancy crisis, I would think about retracting this.

Is there a paradox if the card is used on itself, or the RuneMaker
who is responsible for managing it?

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 18:12:12 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1474

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> > Proposal 1474 -- Fri 22 Nov 14:39 CST 1996
> > Fixing the Lamb
> > Malenkai (Randy Hall)
> 
> "Fixing?"  I don't believe the Lamb is broken. 

Thus everyone claims it, effectively neutering its trebling power (ie,
everyone gets 3 chances), or there is a paradox where it claims 
3 times "normal" odds, whatever "normal" is construed to mean.  (I
don't have the text in front of me).

I'm old-fashioned and believe objects should be possesed by one
person.  Its alot simpler on the mind for me.  (I also thought common
sense and common english usage should have rendered a FALSE verdict,
but I'm that loose-constructionalist kinda thing, (except when I play
WizWar :)).

Its not the same as the gumball, where there is no limit on multiple
chews.  Chewing is not the same as possessing.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 01:17:54 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1472 (or what ever it's gonna be numbered now)

On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > I think this claim does not claim sufficient precedence, which might make
> > just as ineffective for any other entity. Maybe I need to remake it into a
> > couple of different cards, each of which effects a different kind of
> > entity.
> 
> So if it does not have enough precedence to affect rules, it seems it
> would not have enough precedence to neuter any entity earlier that its
> high rule number, making it useless.  On the other hand, remember the
> dormancy crisis, I would think aboutretracting this.

Actually that's exactly the point I thought I was making when I wrote the
above paragraph. I'll retract it, but I have to find it first :)
(resubmissions...)

> 
> Is there a paradox if the card is used on itself, or the RuneMaker
> who is responsible for managing it?

RuneMaker is a player, it can't be used on a player. And anyway, what if
it used on the RuneMaker, it's an optional office. It would be the same
effect as if the Seat was unoccupied.

As for using it on itself, I don't believe that's possible since a Card is
destroyed as soon as it is used, so, unless you are arguing for
simultaenity, which I don't believe applies here, there would nothing to
act on.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > Malenkai
> 

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 18:20:44 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1472 (or what ever it's gonna be numbered now)

Uri Bruck wrote:

> > Is there a paradox if the card is used on itself, or the RuneMaker
> > who is responsible for managing it?
> 
> RuneMaker is a player, it can't be used on a player. And anyway, what if
> it used on the RuneMaker, it's an optional office. It would be the same
> effect as if the Seat was unoccupied.

Right.  I guess I should read the proposal :)

> As for using it on itself, I don't believe that's possible since a Card is
> destroyed as soon as it is used, so, unless you are arguing for
> simultaenity, which I don't believe applies here, there would nothing to
> act on.

Yes, I could make this argument very easily.  You are claiming it is
destroyed before its power is applied.  I have trouble with that, 
especially as I remember wording in the Otzma card rules that says its
power occurs immediately upon it being played if a counteraction is
defined for the particular card (as is the case here).  I think I
could worm a paradox out of this in front of the right judge ;)

Malenkai

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #359
*******************************