Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #397
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Thursday, December 12 1996      Volume 01 : Number 397

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 18:29:45 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Hubert 

The race is on, who shall be the first to win?

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:37:37 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Trinket

Guy Fawkes -25, trinket

I am creating a trinket worth A$25.  It is called Guy Fawkes' Soap Box.

Guy Fawkes' Soap Box is a nondescript wooden crate approximately one 
meter in each dimension.  It is useful for standing upon.  Any player is 
welcome to stand upon Guy Fawkes' Soap Box when making any sort of speech, 
but they are requested to log their name and the date upon the Soap Box 
before doing so.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:17:34 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1548

Guy Fawkes wrote:
 
> [Malenkai's comments on winning reform]

I do not see how this post is even remotely related to my dislike of
P 1548, yet it is offered as a reply to it, without quoting a single 
line of text from my post.  I wish that the remarks in this post,
including certain expressions in quotes, not be construed as responses
to my ideas.  Moreover, please don't construe apparent responses to
misinterpretion of my ideas to imply the interpretation inferrable from
the content of this post.

I will make a of points which I agree with:

1) I am not happy with our winning conditions, nor do I like some of the
proposed alternatives.  I have made that clear in my post.  Furthermore,
I have admitted to attempting, and failing, to propose many alternatives.
I do not find fault in that, it happens.

2) My actions are in no way attempting to sterilize the game.  Even
if they were, that should be acceptable behavior based on the idealology
presented in this post.  If a super-majority supports it, so be it.

I should now like to respond to specific quoted material:

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> This is one of many areas of the game where I feel we say we want
> something, and then complain (occasionally offensively) about all
> attempts to provide what we say we want, often scaring off new creativity
> in the process.

I find "complaining", (I prefer the term discussion), leads to better
material in the end.  Furthermore, if the material is going to be scared
off by constructive critical comments (you get the idea...).  I hope 
my "complaining" was not offensive, and apologize if it was, it was not
meant to be :)

> While the first steps in a given direction may be small
> and bring forth all sorts of unexpected consequences, they are well worth
> it for the growth they provide.

This seems to imply 'vote YES for everything'.

> Have we become such paraphobes that we
> would rather languish in a smoothly running but eminently boring shell
> rather than explore new systems of rule-making and gameplay?  My journeys
> through the archives, of the turbulent and occasionally nearly
> game-crashing CFJ's of June and July make me wish I had been a player
> then -- perhaps they weren't the most stable of times, but they were
> perhaps the most exciting days this nomic has ever seen.

Again, I am not sure of the relavence of this material in response to my
dislike of P 1548.  They were exciting and enjoyable times, but so was
the recovery and subsequent cleanup from those times, for some players.
We shall see those times again, I believe.  I believe some players
derive enjoyment from preventing those situations, and those players
deserve respect for that position, too.  Perhaps a clean, well-oiled
ruleset is 'exciting' for them.  In the end, its the super-majority
that determines this ruleset, and presumably, its 'exciting' to that
super-majority.

> The words, "If is isn't broke, don't try to fix it," seem to pop up more
> and more in the ruleset these days.

I believe Mohammed was trying to fix R 422.  I believe we simply disagree
as to how it should be fixed, myself agreeing with Mohammed in this case.

> Perhaps in real life they are
> suitable, but I feel that in nomic they represent a very stagnant
> philosophy.  While I do enjoy the multitude of sub-games that seem to
> occupy our time lately, it seems to me that they are a distraction from
> the point of the game itself -- to change the rules.  Why should the fact
> that a rule works be reason to let it be?

Again, I am wondering why I am reading this in response to my post.  Is
there something I'm missing here?  I liked Mohammed's change to the
rule better than yours.  Failing that, I prefer the status quo.  I do not
see how that position could generate such a post.

The point of the game is not necessarity to 'change the rules', but 'to
have FUN', IMHO.  I have had this argument before, though.

> I would much rather try to rewrite it in an entirely different
> direction just to see where it would carry the game rather the life
> in boring contentment with the current game mechanics.

This seems to imply that you would be happier if we liked all changes to
the game direction.  I do not like all changes to the game.  Again, it
looks like a 'vote yes for everything' plea.

> Sometimes it seems we have two groups of entrenched concepts that do not
> work well together, and yet we seem unwilling to part with either one.
> In the case of these Magic Number reforms, for instance, the problem is
> this:  We have a win condition based on hitting a number exactly with
> your score, and yet we have ways to easily manipulate your score.  The
> first, to me seems an interesting challenge.

I have stated that I do not find it an interesting challenge.  I stated
I am willing to part with hitting the number exactly.  The quoted material
does not apply to my ideas, therefore should not be written in response
to them, IMHO :)

> The second group
> (retraction penalties), in my opinion, serve no purpose but to protect
> the game from thoughtlessly written proposals.  Quite frankly, if this is
> a foe we really need protected from, the game has deeper problems than
> the rules can correct.

I believe providing an incentive to proofread your work as fair.  The
retraction penalty is not as melodramically draconian as made out to 
be in this post, and, IMHO, has reduced the number of retractions,
hence has made for better material and less work for the functional
officers, which are rewards as well.  In the old days, we were permitted
to revise proposals in the queue without retracting them.  The mechanics,
which involved a CFJ and date juggling by the Tabulator, were overbearing.
The retraction penalty does add value; it offloads work to the proposal
writer, rather than the rest of the game, and that is good.
 
> We say we want more win conditions, but when they appear, we say, "Yes,
> but not that."

A perfectly reasonable position.

> We have choked R 219 to near-uselessness.

I do not believe that at all.  We have gotten rid of the cheese.  If 
you find a genuine paradox in the rules, as several players have,
including Mohammed after it was "choked", you will be awarded a win today.

> People hint that the palindrome win is "cheap" and "unworthy."

Malenkai wrote:

>> I also feel that wins should not be awarded for Palindromic rules

The language Guy uses above in response to my comments on the Palindrome
rule, including the quoted words, quoted above, borders on academic
dishonesty, and does truly misconstrue my position, and should not be
used in response to unquoted material, and should not be construed as to
how I feel.  I also do not believe the first person to post "Hubert" to
the public forum without a subject line following "Acka:" should win
either.  Am I saying that is "cheap", or "unworthy"?  No.  Can we like
everything?  No.  Can I feel free to state my views on a certain aspect
of the game without this sort of response?  If we are to like everything,
we will end up with something just as bad as the null game: the
everything game.  

> [I would] be the first to laud praise upon Malenkai for the hours he
> puts into this game every day, but for those besides besides he,
> Niccolo, and I, and perhaps a few hours, who are unable to spend hours
> a day writing proposals, or who have
> more important real-life priorities (Quite frankly, as much as I enjoy
> this game, its effect on my real life frightens me), points really don't
> mean a whole lot.

You probably should not speak for other players here.  How do you
presume that score improvement does not mean anything to the players who
you did not name?

> Yet we insist on making them one of the most important
> aspects of this game.

I have stated that I would like point wins to occur as a lower percentage
of the wins we have.  You are misconstruing the post you are responding to.

> I would support sticking a few odd win conditions
> here and there, and if they provoke a premature death of cycle, it's no
> great harm and actually a little bit of fun.

I have stated support for this point in my post.  I have even voted for
one I did not particularly like ("Frankenstein"), and proposed another
("Museums").  It may not be the best solution, but it is effort in the
direction which seems contrary to this post.  Even if it isn't wonderful,
perhaps it will inspire someone else to find something that is.  I find
this post wholly inappropriate in response to mine the more I have read
it, in light of what I have tried to do in terms of winning conditions,
viz:

1) spend hours of my time helping Habeous Corpus with the Chalice stuff
2) provide a bounty for the first player to successfully pass a new
winning condition which I vote for
3) vote for Vault Divination twice
4) vote for Frankenstein
5) propose Museums
6) encourage discussions and help other players think about winning
conditions.
7) vote for p 1500

The fact that I do not like every change to our winning conditions, viz
the strengthening of the Palindrome rule, and P 1548, does not deserve
this sort of post in response to my discussion, which was written 
non-offensively, and hopefully offended no one.

> In short, it seems to me that non-point wins are somehow viewed as
> inferior and "cheap" to the general populous, and in some cases paramount
> to scamming.  I predict that when the time comes that someone actually
> does win by the crystal chalice, there will be those who call it a scam.

A super-majority of Acka voted for that rule.  Where are you coming from
here, accusing people of what they *might* do ??  Would "a general
populace who viewed it as inferior and 'cheap'" approve it by a 
super-majority?

> Sometimes, attempts at non-point wins have provoked violent reactions; I
> was called "total shit" once for a paradox attempt, and yet R219 is not a
> scam;

The initiator, who was not me, apologized.  Shit happens, pun intended ;).
Moreover, the initiator was Mooned, the punishment established by the
rules for such behaviour, written in the ruleset for all to see.  I see
no value added in bringing that incident up here, especially in response
to my work attempting to discuss a proposal, and why I dislike it.

> No matter how you choose to play or change the game, you deserve
> respect.  You might be a rather strange person, but as
> long as you play within the rules, your choice of where to focus
> your energies to play within the rules is yours, and it derseves respect.

I certainly hope you did not take my response to R 1548 as disrespectful.
It was not intended as such.  If you did, I apologize.  It seems that
you are scaring off any disagreement with any of your proposals, and 
that is just as bad as what you try to protect us from.

I wish no flame war, and this is not meant to be imflammatory, or anything
else bad.  I was simply wholly unsatisfied with this response in response
to my hard work in improving our winning conditions, and am saying so,
in a rather long-winded manner :)  The fact that I am not satisfied 
with the results of that work should not be a bad thing.

I realise this post may have been intended as a gereral discussion
starter, and not really meant in response to my material.  If so, it
should have been clear.  If not, the above comments stand.

Malenkai
who dislikes P 1548 and is sorry he said so

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 20:22:44 -0800 
From: David Thomas Fisher <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Trinket 

>Guy Fawkes' Soap Box is a nondescript wooden crate approximately one 
>meter in each dimension.  It is useful for standing upon.  Any player is 
>welcome to stand upon Guy Fawkes' Soap Box when making any sort of speech, 
>but they are requested to log their name and the date upon the Soap Box 
>before doing so.
>
>Guy Fawkes

Hmm.  Would this be a good tool for a presidential debate, say?

23 Skidoo
- --
David Fisher ([email-masked])
"Seduced, shaggy Samson snored./ She scissored short.  Sorely shorn,/ Soon
shackled slave, Samson sighed,/ Silently scheming/ Sightlessly seeking/ Some
savage, spectacular suicide."  - Stanislaw Lem, "The Cyberiad"

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:48:53 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Fictionary

Is it legal for someone to join the current game at the start of a 
new word?  If so, snowgod and I need to know, because I sent him a 
definition, and are not sure if I can play.

Techno

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:48:53 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1548

> Guy Fawkes
> apologizing for rambling 
> 
> 
>
Perhaps if rambling were in my proposal, someone could throw a crying 
towel or two around...B)
[I called the paradox theme that was going on at the time "total 
shit"  I would never call you, Guy Fawkes, that at all.  I respect 
your opinions and your insight very much.]

Techno
Remembering when. . . 

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:48:53 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: I'm building a tower.

> Reply-to:      [email-masked]
> Date:          Wed, 11 Dec 1996 17:48:57 -0900
> To:            [email-masked]
> From:          [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
> Subject:       Re: Acka: I'm building a tower.

> > As I have no wish to disturb the rest of my fellow Ackanomians, I will
> >only turn on the lamp and foghorn on important occasions.
> 
> Oh no, please keep them on all the time.  Perhaps then people will begin to
> take notice of us :)... By the way, remember that all towers extend
> downward from the earth (we are on the bottom) and not upward as is common
> on the topside of the earth.
> 
>  snowgod
> 
> 
> 
>
Ah, but are we not still (standing) hanging from our feet.  
Everything appears to be going up.

Techno 

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 19:56:37 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Up and Down 

>Ah, but are we not still (standing) hanging from our feet.
>Everything appears to be going up.
>
>Techno

Perhaps it does, or perhaps not.  It would depend on wwhether your innner
ear had adjusted to the reversal in feild of reference.  If it had than you
likely wouldn't notice the difference.  If not, everything goes down.

or so I think...

snowgod
what's that AckaPhysicist have to say about this?

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:58:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1548

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Guy Fawkes wrote:
>  
> > [Malenkai's comments on winning reform]
> 
> I do not see how this post is even remotely related to my dislike of
> P 1548, yet it is offered as a reply to it, without quoting a single 
> line of text from my post.  I wish that the remarks in this post,
> including certain expressions in quotes, not be construed as responses
> to my ideas.  Moreover, please don't construe apparent responses to
> misinterpretion of my ideas to imply the interpretation inferrable from
> the content of this post.

This did start out meaning to be a response to your post, but did get 
carried in an entirely different direction.  I apologize if you took them 
personally.  In particular, I apologize if you felt misquoted.  I did not 
mean to quote you, or even paraphrase you, at all.  The "people" I was 
referring to is the general sense I've received over the past couple 
months from a variety of both public and private directions.

I have total respect for you and whatever opinions you may hold, and if 
you like Mohammed's rewrite more than mine, I have no problems with 
that.  In fact, I was rather amused by what seemed to be a point by point 
response based on this misunderstanding.  I hope to continue to enjoy 
this game for a long time to come, it's just that every now and then I 
get somewhat negative.  I'm sure you can relate to that.  Once again, I 
apologize for any misunderstandings.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 20:00:22 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Time Check and other stuff 

I just changed email clients (I hesitiate to say it was an upgrade until I
have time to check things out).  Could someone please verify that my
timestamp is correct, and that nothing else seems amiss?

Thanks,
snowgod

BTW, how do timestamps work?  Does my client just take the information from
my machine and paste it on the message on send, or is it something more
mysterious possibly involving the server and various cosmic forces? I have
to admit that I'm clueless about this.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:00:43 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Up and Down 

>what's that AckaPhysicist have to say about this?

Yes says he.
We need an Ackabiologist and an Ackamedicineplayer (and not ackamedicineman)

CnH
who will investigate after his two exams tomorrow

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:01:01 -0600
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: 

Hubert

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:00:00 -0600
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:

Hubert

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:05:15 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: 

Hubert

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:14:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I'm building a tower.

>  As I have no wish to disturb the rest of my fellow Ackanomians, I will
> only turn on the lamp and foghorn on important occasions. 

Thank you, this is appreciated. Ever since that Brass Monkey acquired
a deep, booming voice, it just hasn't been the same around here.

b

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:15:16 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fictionary

> Is it legal for someone to join the current game at the start of a 
> new word?  If so, snowgod and I need to know, because I sent him a 
> definition, and are not sure if I can play.

I would expect that you cannot join a game in progress unless the rules
specifically allow it; the Fictionary rules allow another player to
make plays in the place of a vacationing player, but that is it.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:32:30 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Acka  Jammers tower

Atop my modest small little domicile
I, Jammer, a lofty pinnacle will build
A smooth a glistening spar, It soars
high above.  From the calliope atop, to
the might Wurlitzer within, this 40 meter
tower, for which I will deduct A$ 12 times
10.  is built to honor the means by 
11.  which the sonorous tones of the 
12.  instrument within sound forth
My Ivory tower, called from now on, the
Jam Session, will have room for all.
MY tomes of Acka Lore, Sword sharpeners
to hone my rapier wit,  other items will 
be revealed as I, Jammer unpack the 
steamer trunk. I carry with me.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #397
*******************************