Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #384
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Saturday, December 7 1996      Volume 01 : Number 384

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 07:54:01 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fame

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> (NRA)RFC
> 
> If at any time in the future another nomic is found to be waging a
> Holy War against Ackanomic, the player known as Calvin n Hobbes will
> have eir name immediately changed to Cassandra. Another player will be
> randomly chosen to have eir name changed to Clytemnestra. Blood will
> then be spilled appropriately. (Other rules may stipulate further
> players to take the parts of Agamemnon, Aegisthus, and the Chorus of
> Argive Elders.)
> 
> breadbox
> 

ROTFL!

snowgod
bandwidth waster

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 11:55:34 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: YORL

It seems to me the first Bard would be asleep by now, probably in
a drunken stupor.  TM?

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:00:02 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Clair Anthony Viglione)
Subject: Acka: My proposal 

My proposal is to make a rule that would allow players to attempt to "zap"
other players, rendering them unable to submit ANY mail to this game of
Nomic for one (1) day. The details are below:

                Only one person may zap per standard 24 hour day. This
would require that someone makes a schedule of who's turn it is to zap and
when. Now, zapping is handled through your imaginary "zap gun". If it is
your day to zap, you send a message to Guy Fawkes, or whoever has gotten
his position that he holds at the date of this message, that you want to
zap (whoever you want to zap). Then, the person you sent that message to
rolls a six sided die, this die roll is may be affected by modifiers, but
they will be described later, after what happens when you roll the die is
described now:

    If you roll a:

      1: Not only do you miss your zap, but your gun blows up, causing you
minus two points, as well as you not being able to zap on your next zap
turn. (on that day, NO ONE will zap.)
      2: You miss your zap, no pentalties.
      3: You hit, but not the person you expected to hit! (The person in
charge must make a RANDOM determination as to who is hit.
      4: You came close to hitting, but your zap bounced off a mirror and
came back to hit YOU! You now experience the effects of the zap.
      5: You hit your target, causing normal affects (as described above)
      6: You critically hit your target, making them not able to submit any
mail for two (2) days!

   Modifiers:

    1. If a person has never zapped, they get a minus one pentalty. (if you
rolled 6 they would get 5, ect.)
    2. If a person has zapped more than 5 times, they get a plus one bonus.
    3. If a person has zapped more than 15 times, they get a plus two bonus.
    4. If a person has zapped 100 times or more, they have "mastered"
zapping. When Guy Fawkes (or whoever has his position that he has at the
time of this mail) rolls the dice for the zap master, he only rolls a 3
sided die. 1 on the die is equal to 4 on the six sided die, 2 on the three
sided is equal to 5 on the six sided, and 3 on the three sided is equal to
6 on the six sided.

   Also, people can get skills that allow them to avoid being zapped, as
described below:

    1. If the person being zapped has never been zapped, the attacked gets
a plus 1 bonus!
    2. If the defender has been zapped more than 10 times, the attacker
gets a minus 1 pentalty!
    3. If the defender has been zapped more than 50 times, the attacker
gets a minus 2 pentalty!
    4. If a defender has been zapped more than 100 times, he/she has said
to have "mastered" avoiding being zapped. The attacker gets a -4 pentalty,
unless the attacker is a master of attack, in which case there are no
pentalties.

      Misc. Rules:

      If, after the modifiers being applied to an attack roll, the result
is a negative number, count it is a 1.
      If, after modifiers, the attack roll result is greater than 6, treat
it as a 6.

   _PLEASE_ thikn before you vote on this rule, as it will bring a whole
new aspect of play into the game, and it will also bring in some mild
violence.

   BTW, this is only me 3rd proposal!

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:12:51 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Clair Anthony Viglione)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1523 

>Uri Bruck wrote:
>
>> If there is more than one No vote then nobody receives a Bonus Vote. So
>> any effort would be a wasted one, and rational players know this. It
>> something of a Prisoner's Dillema in it.
>
>I agree with snowgod and oppose the proposal.  If we are going to have
>it, however, it should not apply to Modest proposals; it should be
>as simple and painless as possible to fix bugs.
>
>Malenkai

I vote no also, I do NOT like this proposal.

                        /|  /|
                        ||__||
                       /   O O\__
                      /          \
                     /      \     \    - Clair Viglione (yes, this is  what
I
                    /   _    \     \     look like!)
                   /    |\____\     \
                  /     | | | |\____/
                 /       \| | | |/ |     __
                /  /  \   -------  |_____|
               /   |   |           |       --|
               |   |   |           |_____  --|
               |<-|_|_|_|--<<<     |     \----
               /\                  |
              / /\        |        /
             / /  |       |       |
         ___/ /   |       |       |
        |____/    c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:13:57 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Clair Anthony Viglione)
Subject: Re: Acka: Reminders 

>1) Today is Party Hall Party day.
>
>2) There are ongoing nominations for the following offices:
>
>NAP Swinger
>Tabulator
>
>Email snowgod if you wish to be Tabulator, me if you wish to be NAP Swinger
>
>3) The President's term ends on the 11th.  It was extended 4 days due to
>holidays.  Now is a good time to post some pre-campaign rhetoric, so
>the newspapers can do some in-depth analysis and tell the voters who
>is going to win :).  The next President will be possibly responsible
>for building a Bomb Shelter, and will be Acting Tabulator.
>
>Malenkai
>speaker
>who is willing to moderate a debate in accordance with R 115

Can you please tell me what the Swinger's duty is? Please do not tell me to
visit a Web Page, cause my Web Server is down at the moment. Thank you!

                        /|  /|
                        ||__||
                       /   O O\__
                      /          \
                     /      \     \    - Clair Viglione (yes, this is  what
I
                    /   _    \     \     look like!)
                   /    |\____\     \
                  /     | | | |\____/
                 /       \| | | |/ |     __
                /  /  \   -------  |_____|
               /   |   |           |       --|
               |   |   |           |_____  --|
               |<-|_|_|_|--<<<     |     \----
               /\                  |
              / /\        |        /
             / /  |       |       |
         ___/ /   |       |       |
        |____/    c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 13:15:09 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: My proposal

Clair Anthony Viglione wrote:
 
> My proposal is to make a rule that would allow players to attempt to "zap"
> other players, rendering them unable to submit ANY mail to this game of
> Nomic for one (1) day. The details are below:

Some comments:

1) Do not use "Guy Fawkes" or any other explicit name in a rule,
unless there is a specific effect you wish to achieve (such as the
Amber Banana).  This is not a case of this.  The player could quit,
be on vacation, or change their name.

Your best bet is to use the name of an office.  In the case, Officer in
Charge of Random Things should probably be the officer, and should handle
all of the random determinations delineated in the rule.

2) While a person is Zapped, they still should be able to send official
mail related to their office.  Some official mail must be sent out on
a particular day, or the game will be delayed by it not being sent out.
This could also be a problem for the Scholar of *ping*, but that seems
ok.

3) I would shy away from wording like "a six sided die", unless it is 
permissable to use the dice server anyway for the random determination.
I do not have a real problem with it, but a stricter-constructionalist
may :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:20:13 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Clair Anthony Viglione)
Subject: Re: Acka: A helper proposal 

OK people, this is a VERY modest proposal, PLEASE vote yes:

   This rule would allow Malenkai to modify the rule that I just submitted,
the "zap" rule. Anyway he/she sees fit. Thanks.

                        /|  /|
                        ||__||
                       /   O O\__
                      /          \
                     /      \     \    - Clair Viglione (yes, this is  what
I
                    /   _    \     \     look like!)
                   /    |\____\     \
                  /     | | | |\____/
                 /       \| | | |/ |     __
                /  /  \   -------  |_____|
               /   |   |           |       --|
               |   |   |           |_____  --|
               |<-|_|_|_|--<<<     |     \----
               /\                  |
              / /\        |        /
             / /  |       |       |
         ___/ /   |       |       |
        |____/    c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:44:46 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1523

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > If there is more than one No vote then nobody receives a Bonus Vote. So
> > any effort would be a wasted one, and rational players know this. It
> > something of a Prisoner's Dillema in it.
> 
> I agree with snowgod and oppose the proposal.  If we are going to have
> it, however, it should not apply to Modest proposals; it should be 
> as simple and painless as possible to fix bugs.
> 
> Malenkai
> 
I'm way ahead of you on this one. I retracted this and submitted a new
version which does reward the single No vote. Does not apply to Modest
proposals, and rewards a single Yes vote on a failed proposal. Now don't
tell me that can encourage people to vote against proposals.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 14:45:30 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1523

Uri Bruck wrote:

> I'm way ahead of you on this one. I retracted this and submitted a new
> version which does reward the single No vote. Does not apply to Modest
> proposals, and rewards a single Yes vote on a failed proposal. Now don't
> tell me that can encourage people to vote against proposals.

I'm not going to tell you that, despite the fact that it is probably
true :).  I do not even like *scoring* based on how people vote on
proposals, much less something like this, so I have not really analysized
it as others have.

I believe proposals should be voted on based on their merit alone, with
none of this "psychic skill" of voting strategy.  Every time near the
end of the cycle I find myself drawn into this voting strategy, and its
one of my least favorite parts of the game.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 21:55:58 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1523

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > I'm way ahead of you on this one. I retracted this and submitted a new
> > version which does reward the single No vote. Does not apply to Modest
Before anyone else fries me on this one, I meant to write :
Does NOT reward the single NO vote

Niccolo Flychuck

> > proposals, and rewards a single Yes vote on a failed proposal. Now don't
> > tell me that can encourage people to vote against proposals.
> 
> I'm not going to tell you that, despite the fact that it is probably
> true :).  I do not even like *scoring* based on how people vote on
> proposals, much less something like this, so I have not reallyanalysized
> it as others have.
> 
> I believe proposals should be voted on based on their merit alone, with
> none of this "psychic skill" of voting strategy.  Every time near the
> end of the cycle I find myself drawn into this voting strategy, and its
> oneof my least favorite parts of the game.
> 
> Malenkai
> 

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 21:57:52 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1523

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> > 
> I'm way ahead of you on this one. I retracted this and submitted a new
> version which does reward the single No vote. Does not apply to Modest
                ^^^^^^^

Does NOT, Does NOT

Niccolo Flychuck

> proposals, and rewards a single Yes vote on a failed proposal. Now don't
> tell me that can encourage people to vote against proposals.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 01:31:49 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Kolot Ackanomic Premiere Issue

Citizens of Ackanomic,

Kolot Ackanomic Premiere issue is here. 
For this special 1st issue, which is published on a date of a Party-Hall
Party, Kolot presents eir new readers with this ballad written by Guy
Fawkes.

Earlier today, the Vulcan Swinger, who also doubles as Chess-Umpire, was
seen dancing around in Party-Hall singing this very ballad. Every now and
then he would dance over to the PartyBoard and examine the board position,
undoubtedly considering eir next move, only to start singing again a few
moments later, with traditional musical accompaniment that didn't appear
to originate anywhere in particular.

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

		The Ballad of Party Chess

There is a board in Party Hall; sing rickety-tickety-tin.
There is a board in Party Hall, and on it armies rise and fall.
'Tis a miracle 'tis used at all --
For the game that could never begin, begin
For the game that could never begin.

Sir Flychuck sent an RFC; sing rickety-tickety-tin.
Sir Flychuck sent an RFC, 'twas analyzed quite heatedly,
And then he passed proposals three--
But to think that was all is a sin, a sin
To think that was all is a sin.

For on a trip he went away; sing rickety-tickety-tin.
For on a trip he went away, and then again returned one day.
To find a game he could not play--
For the rules had passed without men, no men
The rules had passed without men.

The men were made, and that was great; sing, rickety-tickety-tin.
The men were made, and that was great, but still the game was stalemate,
For no one wished to moderate--
And the rules needed written again, again
The rules needed written again.

These rules, to some, seem'd paradox'd; sing rickety-tickety-tin.
These rules, to some, seem'd paradox'd, and to them jurisprents flocked, 
All Party Chess's chances rocked--
All seeking a paradox win, a win
All seeking a paradox win.

The paradoxen were unmade; sing rickety-tickety-tin.
The paradoxen were unmade, but then Malenkai CFJ'd;
The court said, "It cannot be played--
Go rewrite the rules again, again
Go rewrtie the rules again

The rules were fixed, or so thought we; sing rickety-tickety-tin.
The rules were fixed, or so thought we, but then came Swing'rs and Gravity,
So crazy did the whole thing be--
You would think we were all frinking gin, yes gin
You would think we were all frinking gin.

And now the game's on solid ground; sing rickety-tickety-tin.
And now the game's on solid ground, and now new pieces do abound,
And so we say don't stand around--
Oh, become a Swinger; join in, join in
Yes, become a Swinger; join in.

And if you do not like my song; sing rickety-tickety-tin.
And if you do not like my song, you yourself are in the wrong,
You've yourself to blame if it's too long--
You should never have let me begin, begin
You should never have let me begin.

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 01:40:18 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Niccolo Flychuck for President

Citizens of Ackanomia,

It is time for Presidential Elections once again.
And I am in the running again.
Acka's only two term non-President is running once again.
But what does Niccolo Flychuck stand for?

Niccolo Flychuck stands for progress, for a dynamic nomic.
Niccolo Flychuck stands for promoting creativity and has been instrumental
in creating new fields where players can explore strange new rules.
Niccolo Flychuck standa for Ackanomic.

Niccolo Flychuck stands for Logical choices

Niccolo Flychuck for President.

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 18:46:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Niccolo Flychuck for President

Uri Bruck wrote:
 
> It is time for Presidential Elections once again.
> And I am in the running again.

Actually, the nomination period will not be until I call it, which can
be no earlier than December 11th, when snowgod's term ends.  4 days
of snowgod's term did not count against its duration (Holidays) per
R 973.

Sorry if the previous message caused confusion, or looked like the start
of the nomination period.  Pre-nomination campaigning is cool, though :)

Malenkai
speaker

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:49:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1531

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> I might have it, but the gist was that with countermoves, any symbol could
> eventually revert back to a symbol equivalent to its original value.
> Which would not only make countermoves null, but introduce several
> additional ways of forcing a win.
> He argued a first player win, played a corner, I replied with center, to
> which he replied with a corner adjacent to the first one.
> Blocking with  an F between the eir two Ts would have allowed to anti-play
> that T and win immediately. So I anti-Played one of eir Ts, which the
> situation winnabble to me on my next move, and legal for Thinman to
> anti-play the resultant !T.
> Clearly, we could play out all the permissibile anti-plays on the two Ts
> which would leave the board with a forced first player win.
> 
> I don't believe this situation exists with 3 anti-plays.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

I am working with an idea that makes the number of anti-plays 
irrelevant.  It may be that the first player can always force a win by 
playing to force stalemate, at which point he would have 5 symbols on the 
board to false's 4.  There are a few cases I haven't checked yet.  I'll 
get back on this.

I do have one personal theory that there is no such thing as a game of 
this sort.  There are a finite number of routes the game can take, and 
the only thing that makes a game of this sort a game is that the 
possibilities are too complex for a player to master.  Thus standard 
tic-tac-toe is not a game; chess, for human minds, is.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:55:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: My proposal

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Clair Anthony Viglione wrote:

> My proposal is to make a rule that would allow players to attempt to "zap"
> other players, rendering them unable to submit ANY mail to this game of
> Nomic for one (1) day. The details are below:

Am I to take this, and the ESP tester thing, as proposal submissions?

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:56:13 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A helper proposal

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Clair Anthony Viglione wrote:

> OK people, this is a VERY modest proposal, PLEASE vote yes:
> 
> 
>    This rule would allow Malenkai to modify the rule that I just submitted,
> the "zap" rule. Anyway he/she sees fit. Thanks.

Uh, what happens when Malenkai modifies it to say he is supreme dictator 
of Ackanomic?

Guy Fawkes

> 
>                         /|  /|
>                         ||__||
>                        /   O O\__
>                       /          \
>                      /      \     \    - Clair Viglione (yes, this is  what
> I
>                     /   _    \     \     look like!)
>                    /    |\____\     \
>                   /     | | | |\____/
>                  /       \| | | |/ |     __
>                 /  /  \   -------  |_____|
>                /   |   |           |       --|
>                |   |   |           |_____  --|
>                |<-|_|_|_|--<<<     |     \----
>                /\                  |
>               / /\        |        /
>              / /  |       |       |
>          ___/ /   |       |       |
>         |____/    c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 19:57:49 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A helper proposal

Guy Fawkes wrote:

[in reference to the modification of the zap proposal proposal]

> Uh, what happens when Malenkai modifies it to say he is supreme dictator
> of Ackanomic?

I would get bored fairly fast of such.  I can use the Frobnotzer to
accomplish the same goal anyway ;)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:09:22 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Clair Anthony Viglione)
Subject: Re: Acka: My proposal 

>On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Clair Anthony Viglione wrote:
>
>> My proposal is to make a rule that would allow players to attempt to "zap"
>> other players, rendering them unable to submit ANY mail to this game of
>> Nomic for one (1) day. The details are below:
>
>Am I to take this, and the ESP tester thing, as proposal submissions?

Not the ESP, but this one, yes.

                        /|  /|
                        ||__||
                       /   O O\__
                      /          \
                     /      \     \    - Clair Viglione (yes, this is  what
I
                    /   _    \     \     look like!)
                   /    |\____\     \
                  /     | | | |\____/
                 /       \| | | |/ |     __
                /  /  \   -------  |_____|
               /   |   |           |       --|
               |   |   |           |_____  --|
               |<-|_|_|_|--<<<     |     \----
               /\                  |
              / /\        |        /
             / /  |       |       |
         ___/ /   |       |       |
        |____/    c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:10:26 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Clair Anthony Viglione)
Subject: Re: Acka: A helper proposal 

VEry well, delete the helper proposal, but count the zap proposal as a
proposal, and call for a vote on it, please.

                        /|  /|
                        ||__||
                       /   O O\__
                      /          \
                     /      \     \    - Clair Viglione (yes, this is  what
I
                    /   _    \     \     look like!)
                   /    |\____\     \
                  /     | | | |\____/
                 /       \| | | |/ |     __
                /  /  \   -------  |_____|
               /   |   |           |       --|
               |   |   |           |_____  --|
               |<-|_|_|_|--<<<     |     \----
               /\                  |
              / /\        |        /
             / /  |       |       |
         ___/ /   |       |       |
        |____/    c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:40:39 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Steven A. Swiniarski)
Subject: Acka:newbie RFC

Ok I'm a newbie, so I'd like some comment (RFC is the term, right?) on 
these two prospective rules.  In case you're wondering, they are loosly 
based on some rules I wrote in Agora (Where I am Mad Scientist) but are 
somewhat different-- well, very fferent-- in character.  I'd 
especially like comment not just on the marits (whatever the heck those 
are) but on how smoothy these rules would work with the Acanomic ruleset 
(i.e. conflicts, pitfallss _unintended_ unintended consequences &c.)

Title: The Mad Scientist

     There is an Office of Mad Scientist which has one seat.  The holder 
     of the Office has the title of Scientist, but e is not a member of 
     the Ackanomic Research Guild.  This Office cannot be filled by any 
     other Scientist, and when a Player takes the seat of this Office e 
     must say publicly; "They laughed at me back at the Academy, the 
     fools! Bwahahaha!"  Or words to that general effect.

     This Office can only be filled or transferred as follows:  If the 
     seat is vacant, it is filled by the last Player to take possession 
     of any Frankenstein Monster.  If no such player exists, the seat 
     shall be filled by Election for Office.

     The Mad Scientist's duty is to create Blueprints for Frankenstein 
     Monsters.  This takes precedence over the general rules for 
     Gadgets.

     The Mad Scientist shall receive A$15 for each Frankenstein Monster 
     e creates.

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

Title: The Frankenstein Monster(s)

     There is a class of entities known as Frankenstein Monsters.  Each 
     Frankenstein Monster is a unique Gadget that has its own name.  
     Each Frankenstein Monster has its own unique Blueprint, which can 
     only be crated as specified in this Rule, and only by the Mad 
     Scientist.  This rule takes precedence over the Rules generally 
     governing the behavior of Gadgets and Blueprints.

     If no Blueprint for a Frankenstein Monster is currently under 
     construction, the Mad Scientist shall begin construction of one by 
     making a public announcement, in the proper accent, as follows:

     "I am building a monster and its name is <name>!" (where <name> 
     throughout this Rule refers to a name picked for the Monster by the 
     Mad Scientist that is not the same as that of any other Entity, or 
     any prior Monster.)

     Thereafter, the creation of a Blueprint for a Frankenstein Monster 
     named <name> is initiated.  The Blueprint is constructed by the Mad 
     Scientist attaching valid Frankenstein Parts to it.  However, e may 
     only attach such Frankenstein Parts as are delivered to em.

     Any Player (including the Mad Scientist) has the option of digging 
     up and delivering a Frankenstein Part to the Mad Scientist, 
     provided that Player has not already done so since the prior 
     Thursday.

     A Frankenstein Part is dug up in the following manner:
       i) A complete sentence of no more than thirty words is copied
          from either some current Rule, some past version of a Rule, 
          the text of some prior proposed Rule, or the text of a 
          Blueprint for something other than a Frankenstein Monster.  
          The sentence is only valid if it has never been used before to 
          create a Frankenstein Part; a body can only be dug up once.
      ii) A single noun is selected from this sentence.
     iii) All instances of the selected noun is replaced by <name> (or 
          its plural, possessive, or other grammatical form as 
          appropriate.)
      iv) The modified sentence, if it fulfills all the above 
          conditions, is a valid Frankenstein Part.

     The Mad Scientist must attach all parts to the Blueprint, in the 
     order delivered.  If any Part contradicts an already attached Part, 
     the new Part is rejected, withers, and is discarded.

     The Mad Scientist shall keep the Blueprint for eir creation secret, 
     not revealing anything of its nature or contents, until one of the 
     following conditions is true:

       i) The construction of the Blueprint is such that any new Parts 
          would be rejected.
      ii) The Blueprint is over 1000 words long.
     iii) The Blueprint consists of more than 25 complete sentences.

     Once this happens the Mad Scientist shall publicly announce;

     "It's Alive! <name> IS ALIVE!" 

     E shall then post the text of the Blueprint.  At this posting, The 
     <name> Frankenstein Monster shall be created and given to the last 
     Player other than the Mad Scientist to have dug up and delivered a 
     Part that was successfully attached (i.e. not rejected) to the 
     Monster.  If this Player also submitted the last Part in case i) 
     above (i.e. any additional Parts would have been rejected) that 
     Player shall also win the current cycle of the game.

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

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 21:21:27 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:newbie RFC

Steven A. Swiniarski wrote:
 
> Ok I'm a newbie, so I'd like some comment (RFC is the term, right?) on
> these two prospective rules.

>      The Mad Scientist's duty is to create Blueprints for Frankenstein
>      Monsters.  This takes precedence over the general rules for
>      Gadgets.

Do you intend this to be construed that the Mad Scientist does not have
the other privileges that Scientists have, such as to create arbitrary
Blueprints, and to build Gadgets other than Frankerstein Monsters from any
extant Blueprint?  If yes, your wording seems a bit confusing.  If no, I
do not believe the precedence claim is necessary.  Wording such as
"In addition to the usual duties and privileges of office, the MS has
the duty to create ..." or something to that effect.  In any case, I
would clarify if they have Scientist privs.
 
>      There is a class of entities known as Frankenstein Monsters.  Each
>      Frankenstein Monster is a unique Gadget that has its own name.
>      Each Frankenstein Monster has its own unique Blueprint, which can
>      only be crated as specified in this Rule, and only by the Mad
>      Scientist.  This rule takes precedence over the Rules generally
>      governing the behavior of Gadgets and Blueprints.

I would remove  "the behaviourof " from the precedence claim.  I also
do not believe the precedence claim is necessary.  You may want to add
something to the effect "When a Frankenstein Monster Blueprint becomes
Lonely, it is instantly destroyed", or otherwise handle the case where
a F.M. is created from its Blueprint, and that F.M. is destroyed by a
Scroll of Crumble or by some other means.  At that point, any Scientist
can build another one from the Blueprint.  That may or may not be your
intended effect. 

>      Any Player (including the Mad Scientist) has the option of digging
>      up and delivering a Frankenstein Part to the Mad Scientist,
>      provided that Player has not already done so since the prior
>      Thursday.

I would prefer than the Mad Scientist not be permitted to add parts, but
lack of such a provision would not cause me to vote against it, mabye :)
 
>      The Mad Scientist must attach all parts to the Blueprint, in the
>      order delivered.  If any Part contradicts an already attached Part,
>      the new Part is rejected, withers, and is discarded.

I would codify what "contradicts" means here a little better.  I'm not
exactly sure myself what it means, and for our Blueprints in general.
 
>      E shall then post the text of the Blueprint.  At this posting, The
>      <name> Frankenstein Monster shall be created and given to the last
>      Player other than the Mad Scientist to have dug up and delivered a
>      Part that was successfully attached (i.e. not rejected) to the
>      Monster. 

You will need a precedence claim here, I believe.  The rules are quite
explicit about creation of Gadgets from Blueprints, and you have problems
here on three counts:  

1) the Blueprint must have existed for at least 3 days before something
can be created from it.  Game custom would indicate that the text of
the Blueprint need be publically knowable for three days.

2) The second is that the Gadget is auctioned when created, and you are
not doing that here.

3) Possibly the biggest barrier:  Blueprints (and Gadgets created therefrom)
are instantly destroyed if it is judged that the Blueprint conflicts, or
could possibly conflict, with the rules in any way.  It seems likely that
a Blueprint created as described here has that possibility.

A well written precedence claim, or modification of the Blueprint rules
can get around these barriers, but I would think about how you want to
handle case 3.

Also, explictly say that the player to which the Monster is presented 
owns the Monster.  We have a weird notion, not fully ironed out, of
ownership and possession on Acka.

>      If this Player also submitted the last Part in case i)
>      above (i.e. any additional Parts would have been rejected) that
>      Player shall also win the current cycle of the game.

I'm a little leary of giving out a win for this.  How about 25 points?

Otherwise, I like the proposal very much.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:35:23 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:newbie RFC

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Steven A. Swiniarski wrote:

> Title: The Mad Scientist
> 
>      This Office can only be filled or transferred as follows:  If the 
>      seat is vacant, it is filled by the last Player to take possession 
>      of any Frankenstein Monster.  If no such player exists, the seat 
>      shall be filled by Election for Office.
> 
>      The Mad Scientist's duty is to create Blueprints for Frankenstein 
>      Monsters.  This takes precedence over the general rules for 
>      Gadgets.

This differs significantly from the usual blueprint context, especially 
when you factor in the creation of gadgets by the Machine that Goes 
*ping*, which would not discriminate between the standard blueprints and 
the frankenstein blueprint, even if it was secret.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Title: The Frankenstein Monster(s)
> 
>      There is a class of entities known as Frankenstein Monsters.  Each 
>      Frankenstein Monster is a unique Gadget that has its own name.  
>      Each Frankenstein Monster has its own unique Blueprint, which can 
>      only be crated as specified in this Rule, and only by the Mad 
>      Scientist.  This rule takes precedence over the Rules generally 
>      governing the behavior of Gadgets and Blueprints.

Similar to the first.  As it is, gadgets are non-unique entities, though 
there in some cases be only one of them.  Personally, I like the idea, 
but would make it an entirely disjunct class of entity.

>      A Frankenstein Part is dug up in the following manner:
>        i) A complete sentence of no more than thirty words is copied
>           from either some current Rule, some past version of a Rule, 
>           the text of some prior proposed Rule, or the text of a 
>           Blueprint for something other than a Frankenstein Monster.  
>           The sentence is only valid if it has never been used before to 
>           create a Frankenstein Part; a body can only be dug up once.

Please, no proposals.  Else, upon the start of a Frankenstein blueprint, 
I will distribute a proposal saying "This is the last sentence of the 
monster's blueprint." and immediately give it to you as a Frankenstein 
part, thereby winning the cycle.  In general, I like to avoid having mere 
proposals effect the game state without a vote.

>      The Mad Scientist shall keep the Blueprint for eir creation secret, 
>      not revealing anything of its nature or contents, until one of the 
>      following conditions is true:
> 
>        i) The construction of the Blueprint is such that any new Parts 
>           would be rejected.
>       ii) The Blueprint is over 1000 words long.
>      iii) The Blueprint consists of more than 25 complete sentences.
> 
>      Once this happens the Mad Scientist shall publicly announce;
> 
>      "It's Alive! <name> IS ALIVE!" 

There is a chance, that once the blueprint is publically knowable, it 
will be found to contradict the rules, upon which it would be immediately 
destroyed.

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 21:01:10 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: My proposal 

>>> My proposal is to make a rule that would allow players to attempt to "zap"
>>> other players, rendering them unable to submit ANY mail to this game of
>>> Nomic for one (1) day. The details are below:
>>Am I to take this, and the ESP tester thing, as proposal submissions?
>Not the ESP, but this one, yes.

The standard way for proposal submission is to send them privately to Guy
Fawkes (or whoever is currently holding the office) and he will distribute
them. 

Robert Sevin, who may or may not be...
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 21:25:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1531

OK.  I have completed my analysis on Boolean tic-tac-toe, and I have found
that my original hypothesis was flawed by an incorrect understanding of 
the rules.  However, I am not retracting this proposal because I have 
found that the _first player_ can force a win -- for ANY level of 
repetitive antiplay.

Consider standard tic-tac-toe, and regard it as boolean tic-tac-toe with 
antiplay allowed 0 times per square.  The first player will always win, 
if he acts rationally, because two rational tic-tac-toe players will 
always force it to a cat's game, upon which the first player wins (with 5 
symbols to second's 4).

The first player, then, can always win boolean tic-tac-toe if he can 
reduce it to standard tic-tac-toe; that is, he can win by eliminating 
anti-play.  He can do this with a twofold strategy.
1) Never give the second player the opportunity to anti-play -- do this 
by never placing two of your symbols in a row, column or diagonal unless 
the third space is already occupied by your opponenent's symbol; never 
give yourself the winning move, but force your opponent to give it to you.
2) Create a situation where if ever the second player gives the first 
player the ability to anti-play, the first player can immediately win the 
game.

For the analysis below, 0 is an unmarked square

True, to force the win, opens center.  The two distinct responses are corner 
and side.  True then plays diametrically opposite the response.  Distinct 
grids at this point are:

f00  0f0   False is now faced with an interesting dilemma.  If he places
0t0  0t0   an f anywhere that lines up the two moves, true can antiplay his
00t  0t0   (false's) first move and win.  Avoiding this, he must play 
	   elsewhere.  True responds with the same tactic he did the 
first time -- diametric play.  Distinct grids now are:

f00  0f0  (the other response to the second case above yields
ttf  ftt  the same grid as the only response to the first)
00t  0t0

False is faced with the same dilemma.  True responds as before.
Distinct grids:

f0t  ft0  (response to the second case above yields one of the
ttf  ttf  grids produced from the left case.
f0t  0ft

No further winning moves are possible.  Anti-play is eliminated from the 
game, which goes to the cat, and true wins, 5 spaces to 4.

As you can see, changing the number of times anti-play is allowed is 
irrelevant to the game; true can always win by using anti-play as a 
blocking tool until it is impossible to use, stalemating the game for his 
victory.

Guy Fawkes

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> > 
> > Proposal 1531 -- Sat 7 Dec 7:04 CST 1996
> > Not a Game at All
> > Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)
> > 
> > Create a new rule with text as follows:
> > {{The entity Boolean Tic-Tac-Toe is hereby destroyed.  [The second player 
> > can always force a win.]}}
> >
> Thiman has shown this to be trivially true if 4 countermoves were allowed,
> and sugggested the limit be lowered to 3, which has been done.
> Can you demonstrate.
> (below is an unofficial first move a demonstration game - it is not part
> of a Duel)

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #384
*******************************