Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #525
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Tuesday, February 18 1997      Volume 01 : Number 525

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 02:48:30 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Potato

Malenkai gets the magic potato and breadbox gets the Tuba.

Malenkai
looking for a good place for the word "breadbox" in R 940 :)

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

Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:51:52 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ambassador: Nomics, Nomics Everywhere 

Ouyr very own Swann has put together an excellent list of Nomic and Nomic
variants.  I am currently working my way through the list attempting to
contact as many of these nomics as I can (that I have not contacted before)
as well as making another attempt to contact those I have been unable to.

Also, Robert Sevins (kid?) brother is (hopefully) in the process of
translating some communications with Pnomic.  Hopefully that will go well.
Anyone speak sweedish or German so that I can make contact with nomics in
those two countries?  too bad Mellon isn't still with us.

Swann's list can be found at
http://www.sff.net/people/SASwann/nomic/nomicpge.htm

snowgod

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 00:13:57 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fictionary 

I am unable to contact the official dictionary to choose an Ing word.  I
will try again as soon as I get home from work and school tommorow (8:15 PM
AK time).  Sorry about the delay.

snowgod

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 00:23:59 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fictionary (Ing Word) 

I lied.  I was able to check the official Dictioary and have selected an
Ing word. Bluffers, the new Ing word is felly.  Submit your definitions to
me privately, awww, you know the drill.

snowgod

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:53:12 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Pre-RFC org reorg

On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> 
> > So they are both the same except for one of them? :)
> > I think Churches are best left as they are.
> > But since you've brought i tup, let's talk Synod.
> 	*bonk*  Yes, Synod would definitely be rule-sanctioned.  I feel 

The Synod is not an Organization.

> Churches should be player-sanctioned in the future (come on, they're 
> *churches*) and it's something we'll probably disagree on.  Anyway, that 
> isn't where I'm going with this proposal right now.
> 
> > There are a number of ways to go about it.
> > 1. Leave it as it is. That is for Churches only.
> > 2. Ammend it so that any Organization with a Treasure Chest can buy into
> >    it. All Delegates of all Oranizations would have equal status.
> 	I like this option.  By Treasure Chest do you mean the Power I
> wrote up as "Safety Deposit Box"?  I actually like the name "Treasure
Oh. Right :)

> Chest" better, but it'd be confusing, since it's not actually
> Treasure-related..
> 	The more I think, the more I want to rename that Power.  What 
> should it be called?  Maybe "Community Chest"?  or simply "Stash"?  "Cash
> Cache"?  "Shingle"?
> 
> > 3. Ammend it so that non-Church Organizations get Delgates of lower
> >  status. That is, for both voting and profit sharing purposes some
> >    fraction of their membership would be considered. However, the
> >    similarity restrictions would be somewhat relaxed for them. 
> 	I like this one as well, Niccolo.  I think a neat way to do it
> would be that Churches count for their full Size, and other Organizations
> count 1 each (regardless of size).

So a "Safe"("Chest") would not be enough for an Organization to be a
Church. 
The 3rd option is my favorite. Counting non-Churches as if they were 1
member Organizations (for the Synod) simplifies its implementations and
actually brings it into the realm of the workable.
I'll have to look at some numbers to see what maximum Similarity, and what
kind of Similarity should be allowed for them.

Once an Organization gets all the powers of a Church, it could change its
membership status, provided this does not break any Similarity
restrictions.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> > But for that we really need more Powers. 
> > With more Powers some might not go very well when combined with others,
> > and perhaps give Powers the option to upgrade (something to thing about).
> 	*think*
> 
> --Mohammed
> 

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 03:14:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Potato

> Malenkai gets the magic potato and breadbox gets the Tuba.
> 
> Malenkai
> looking for a good place for the word "breadbox" in R 940 :)

Ha. That was actually my first plan. I wanted to change the rule to
say something like "Beldin's Pants may only be transferred as
described by breadbox." But I couldn't get one word change to
accomplish that in a way that wouldn't make the rule ambiguously
ungrammatical.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 03:27:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: More Noise Please

I hate to bring this up, but the Machine that goes *ping* has been,
well, uncharacteristically silent this past week.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:43:27 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Correct Hunting

On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, /dev/joe wrote:

>
>I would also like to visit all of the following:
>The Revolving Shed, Malenkai's Castle, FunkyTown, The Castle on a Cloud,
>and Lestrade's Lighthouse.
>

The door's open.  Come on in and take a spin.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:38:36 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Internomic: P326 Results 

Ackazens,

Internomic Proposal 326 has passed with Ackanomic voting FOR.  Thring
indicated their willingness to vote FOR after the voting period had ended.
Agora and Pumpkin patch abstained. Luckily, there is no quorum to meet.

Ackanomic gains two points in internomic.  Malenkai gains 7 points in
Ackanomic for authoring a passed internomic proposal.

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scores for the current game:

Thring		2
Agora		2
Ackanomic	4
Pumpkin Patch	0
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Text of Passed Proposal:
>Create a new rule with the following text:
>
>Rule 216 is hereby made Mutable.  This rule then repeals itself.

snowgod
Ambassador
Moderator

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:42:13 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Internomic: new ruleset 

Ackazens,

Attached is a current copy of the Internomic Ruleset.  Peruse it if you
choose to.  All proposals that you wish to make should be submitted to me,
and I will then distribute them to internomic.

R216 was created by Agora in response to our win via R114.  It was never
voted on by the Member Nomics,   Malenkai's recently passed P326 seeked to
define the mutability of R216 (making it mutable).

BTW, There are no new internomic proposals for consideration currently.

snowgod
Ambassador
Moderator
and so much more

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

R101.  All member nomics must always abide by all Internomic rules then
      in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect.  At the
      start of the first game, rules 101-114 are immutable, and rules
      201-216 are mutable.  Subsequently, the number of a rule does not
      indicate that rule's mutability.

102.  A nomic is a game in which the rules are changeable by those who
      play it.  The entities which play this nomic, aka "Internomic",
      are themselves nomics, aka "member nomics".  Every member nomic
      shall be either a voting member or a nonvoting member.  References
      in this ruleset to "nomics" or "members" shall mean member nomics,
      and shall include both voting and nonvoting members, unless
      otherwise noted.  References in the ruleset to "rules" shall mean
      Internomic rules, unless otherwise noted.

103.  At any time, there shall be exactly one moderator, who must be a
      player of at least one member nomic.  The moderator may not
      resign.  If the moderator is no longer a player in any member
      nomic, e must name a successor who is.  Once this is done, the
      successor replaces the moderator.

104.  The moderator for the first game shall be Andre.

105.  Every member nomic shall have a liaison at all times.  The liaison
      must be an entity registered as a player of that nomic.

106.  A rule change is the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable
      rule, or the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable
      rule or vice versa.

107.  Every proposal shall be numbered by the moderator.  The numbers
      shall begin with 301, and each proposal shall receive the next
      successive integer.

108.  Every proposal shall be communicated to all voting members before
      it is voted on.  If adopted, it shall take effect in the form in
      which it was voted on.

109.  All proposals shall be voted on.  They will be adopted if and only if
      they receive the required number of votes.

110.  A proposal containing a transmutation rule change is adopted if
      and only if all votes on that proposal are in favor.
      Transmutation may not be implied, but must be stated explicitly.

111.  An immutable rule always takes precedence over a mutable rule.  If
      there is a conflict between the two, the mutable rule is entirely
      void.

112.  A member nomic may always withdraw from Internomic.

113.  It must never become completely impermissible to change rules.

114.  Whatever is not forbidden is allowed, except that changing the
      rules is only permitted when another rule allows it.

Mutable rules

201.  All members begin with 0 points.

202.  The game ends when a nomic achieves 100 points.  The winner is the
      first nomic to do so.  The liaison from that nomic becomes
      moderator, and all scores are reset to 0.  A new game is then
      begun, with all rules and proposals retaining the status they had
      at the end of the game.

203.  A proposal is made by submitting it to the moderator.  All members
      may make proposals.  Upon receiving the proposal, the moderator
      shall assign it a number and distribute it to all nomics.

204.  Every proposal shall contain one or more rule changes.

206.  Each voting member may vote exactly once per proposal.  Nonvoting
      members may not vote.

207.  Voting members may vote either for or against any proposal by
      sending their vote to the moderator by the end of the voting period
      on that proposal.  The moderator may not reveal any votes until the
      end of the voting period.  Any voting member who does not vote has
      abstained.

208.  At the end of the voting period of a proposal, the moderator shall
      reveal all votes legally cast on that proposal.  If required, the
      moderator should indicate eir consent (or lack thereof) at this
      time.  If the moderator does not indicate eir opinion, it shall be
      assumed that e consents.

209.  A proposal passes if and only if all votes cast on it are in
      favor.

211.  If two or more rules conflict, the rule with the lower number
      takes precedence.

212.  Any nomic may submit a statement for judgement to the moderator. Upon
      receipt of such a statement, the moderator must randomly select a
member,
      other than the member who submitted it, to judge the statement. The
      moderator must then distribute the statement and the identity of the
      judge to all member nomics.

213.  A nomic which has been selected to judge must deliver judgement
      within two weeks by sending its judgement to the moderator, who
      must then distribute the judgement to all members.  A legal
      judgement is either "true" or "false", and must be in accordance
      with the rules.

214.  All business to be conducted with a member nomic shall be
      conducted with the liaison to that nomic.  No entity may be
      liaison to more than one member nomic.

215.  The voting members of this Nomic are: AckaNomic, Agora, Thring and
      Pumpkin Patch Nomic. The moderator maintains a list of non-voting
      members.

216.  The Rules may not be changed except as specified in the Rules.

      Anything regulated by the Rules may only be changed as specified by
      the Rules.

      No rule change shall take effect earlier than the moment of its
      adoption (or that of the proposal which included it), nor have any
      retroactive application.

      No game move shall have retroactive effect.

306.  Whenever a proposal is accepted, the member nomic that proposed it
      gains two points.

309.  The voting period for a proposal shall be two weeks, beginning at
      the time the moderator distributes the proposal to all nomics. If at
      any time during the second week all nomics have cast a vote, then the
      moderator may choose to call an end to the voting period.

311.  A rule change takes effect at the moment the proposal containing it
      is adopted. If the rule change is a rule creation, the rule created
      gets a rulenumber equal to the lowest integer equal to or higher than
      the number of the proposal that is not the number of an existing
      rule. For the purpose of this rule, different rule changes in one
      proposal are regarded to take place subsequently in the order in
      which they are given in the proposal.

319.  A nomic that is not a member may become a non-voting member. This is
      done by its liaison sending a message to the moderator clearly indicating
      such. The moderator must announce such a change of membership.

323.  It is forbidden to alter the essentials of the game state except as is
      explicitly or implicitly permitted by a rule or a set of rules. The
      essentials of the game state consist of the rules themselves, the scores
      of the member nomics, the proposals, the votes cast on proposals, the
      statements for judgement and verdicts returned upon them, and anything
      else so designated by some rule. No other things are included in the
      essentials of the game state."

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:18:05 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Ambassador: Nomics, Nomics Everywhere

I speak a little German from High School.  I can translate slowly, what would 
this entail??
Ludwig

On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Phil Ackley <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Ouyr very own Swann has put together an excellent list of Nomic and Nomic
>variants.  I am currently working my way through the list attempting to
>contact as many of these nomics as I can (that I have not contacted before)
>as well as making another attempt to contact those I have been unable to.
>
>Also, Robert Sevins (kid?) brother is (hopefully) in the process of
>translating some communications with Pnomic.  Hopefully that will go well.
>Anyone speak sweedish or German so that I can make contact with nomics in
>those two countries?  too bad Mellon isn't still with us.
>
>Swann's list can be found at
>http://www.sff.net/people/SASwann/nomic/nomicpge.htm
>
>snowgod
>
>
>

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:32:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ambassador

Actually, snowgod, the best thing to do would probably be to just send
them greetings in English and see if they respond. The chances that at
least one person in their game is fluent in English is likely much
higher than any of our American players being able to read/write
intelligibly in theirs.

b

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:01:07 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Conspiracy Board-Game

(posting in response to the Organizations Power/ generic Organization
discussion)

Equipment:
8 named pieces, each representing an agent, plus one piece representing a 
suitcase.  Each player has a bankbook which e may use to deposit money in
any agent's swiss bank account.  Each player start off with $10,000
  A board, each location on the
board is named for a capital city, each city is connected to 2-3 other
cities. Four cities are HQ, one for each player (it's possible to play
with fewer players, but not really much fun). The precise layout of the
board is not important right now, it  is symmetrical, HQs are near the
edges. Initially the suitcae is at the center of the board, and each agent
is near an HQ.
Agents are not owned by players, HQs are.

Object of the game:
To bring the suitcase to your HQ.

Rules:
The game is turn-based.
Each player in eir turn may perform one of the following actions:
a. Move an agent
b. Burn an agent
c. Pay an agent.

Moving an agent:
A player may move any agent from eir current location to a location
connected to it. Any number of agents may occupy any location. (this was
physically impossible on the original board, but the rules assured us that
it was permissible)
A player may move an agent together with the Suitcase, if at the begining
of the turn the agent and the suitcase occupied the same location.
The suitcase cannot be moved on its own.

Burning an agent:
A player may burn an agent B using agent A  provided that the following
conditions are met:
a. At the begining of the turn both agents occupy the same location
b. At the begining of the turn agent A (the assasin) has at least $1000 in
eir bank account paid by that player.

As a result on this move agent B is removed from the board, and agent
$1000 are transffered back from the agent to the player.

Paying an agent:
A player may pay any amount (in multiples of 100) from $0 to all the
money e has left to an
agent's bank account. The money paid is deducted from the player's
account. 
All payments are secret. That is a player anounces that e is paying, but
does not reveal the sum e is paying.
A player may pay only one agent per turn. A player may not take any money
back from the agents, except as specified in the Burning move.

When an agent is removed from the board, all the money paid to that agent
is lost. 

(now comes the fun part)
If a player either moved or burned, any other player can challenge the
move.
In order to determine if the challenge was successful a bidding contest is
initiated between the player who just played, and the challenger. The
results of the bidding contest depend on the amount of money each player
paid (or rather the amount e is willing to reveal e has paid) to the agent
e played with. In the case of a move the agent in question is the one that
was moved, in the case of a Burn, the agent one bids over is the Assasin.

The bidding contest goes as follows:
The player and the challenger take turns stating all or part of the amount
of money they paid to the agent. The amounts they anounce must be
multiples of 100.

At the end of the bidding contest if the player stated the higher amount,
then the challenge is unsuccessful. If the challenger stated the higher
amount then the challenge is successful, the play does not occur, and it
becomes the turn of the next player.

The rules don't say what happens if the amounts are equal. They do say
that if there any ambiguity in the rules, the interpretations is
determined by popular vote. Our game custom has always been that a
successful challenge needs to have more money on the agent.

If a challange failed, then any other player who had not challenged yet
could challenge the move. ( I'm not sure, but I think that the right to
challenge also went according to the turn order, that is, if more than one
player wanted to challenge).

I could probably dig up the original board.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:56:22 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Score Report

There hasn't been a lot of activity here lately, but since we have a bond
cycle ending today...

Changes since last report:
Feb 07 18:57 EST: -25 Red Barn: Frivolous appeal of CFJ 330
Feb 07 21:12 EST: -3 snowgod: did not report what Phoebe said
Feb 08 14:33 EST: -1 Malenkai: retract CFCJ 129
Feb 08 18:53 EST: -5 Swann: P1706 (failed quorum/abstained)
Feb 12 20:37 EST: +10 Niccolo Flychuck: P1707 (author)
Feb 12 20:37 EST: +3 Malenkai: P1707 (no)
Feb 12 20:37 EST: +15 /dev/joe: Whamiol (Ludwig)
Feb 12 20:37 EST: +15 snowgod: Whamiol (Ludwig)
Feb 12 20:37 EST: +15 Strider: Whamiol (Ludwig)
Feb 12 20:37 EST: +5 Niccolo Flychuck: P1708 (author,modest)
Feb 14 05:31 EST: +7 Malenkai: Internomic P322 accepted
Feb 15 23:48 EST: -1 Strider: CFJ346 overturned
Feb 17 12:38 EST: +7 Malenkai: Internomic P326 accepted

Scores at Feb 17 12:00 EST (same as current except Malenkai has scored
7 more points for the internomic prop):

Score   Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----   --------------      ---  -------------
108     Malenkai             Ag  (Randy Hall)
94      /dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis)
49      Strider              A   (Jason McCulley)
48      Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck)
46      Swann               IV   (Steven Swiniarski)
38      snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley)
35      Lestrade             A   (John Duncan)
27      mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray)
22      fnord                A   (Michael Thomas)
17      ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger)
10      Mohammed             A   (Jason Orendorff)
0       BuzzBee             NI   (John Coifman)
0       23 Skidoo            I   (David Thomas Fisher)
0       Clairence           II   (Clair Anthony Viglione)
0       Ludwig               N   (Chris Lundberg)
0       Narf                NV   (Joshua Nave)
0       Panther              N   (Terry McKechnie)
0       IdiotBoy             R   (Matt Miller)
- -1      Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain)
- -2      Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman)
- -19     Jammer               A   (John Lotz)
- -19     Bascule              Vv  (Matt Black)
- -21     breadbox             A   (Brian Raiter)
- -26     Robert Sevin         Av  (Mitchell Harding)
- -29     Red Barn            II   (Daniel Knapp)

Status:
A=Active, N=New, V=Vacationing, IV=Involuntary Vacation, I=On Ice,
D=Dead, R=Returning (non-active), v=Victory Eggplant, g=Chartreuse Goose

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:17:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Pre-RFC org reorg

> Once an Organization gets all the powers of a Church, it could change its
> membership status, provided this does not break any Similarity
> restrictions.
	Yes.  The rules could say, "A Church is an organization that has
all these powers:  Divine Investment, Safety Deposit Box, Internal Policy
(and whatever else...)."  And maybe "When an Organization first becomes a
Church, it receives a Tax Refund of A$??? from the Treasury." 

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 00:08:23 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Pre-RFC org reorg

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > Once an Organization gets all the powers of a Church, it could change its
> > membership status, provided this does not break any Similarity
> > restrictions.
> 	Yes.  The rules could say, "A Church is an organization that has
> all these powers:  Divine Investment, Safety Deposit Box, Internal Policy
> (and whatever else...)."  And maybe "When an Organization first becomes a
> Church, it receives a Tax Refund of A$??? from the Treasury." 
> 
> --Mohammed
> 
I think your RFC fails to address a very significant point. The
exclusionary membership of both Parties and Churches.
So an Organization becomes a Party, suppose one of its members is already
a member of another Organization which is also a Party.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 00:18:31 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Pre-RFC org reorg

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > Once an Organization gets all the powers of a Church, it could change its
> > membership status, provided this does not break any Similarity
> > restrictions.
> 	Yes.  The rules could say, "A Church is an organization that has
> all these powers:  Divine Investment, Safety Deposit Box, Internal Policy
> (and whatever else...)."  And maybe "When an Organization first becomes a
> Church, it receives a Tax Refund of A$??? from the Treasury." 
> 
> --Mohammed
>

We're also losing something here. Church also has a lot of good default
procedures and things like the Founder/Priest/Follower  that you can't
cover effectively with Powers, unless you make som many special cases that
they might be in a rule by themselves, which they are now.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:49:41 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Power Outage

There's a pretty serious power outage here in Austin right now; an area
at least 10 blocks by 15 blocks -- maybe bigger -- lost power an hour ago.
I've been told a fire at a power plant is the cause; the smoke in the air
shows there's definitely a fire somewhere.  My home was affected, but wilma
(only 4 blocks away) was not.  It looks like most of the UT campus has
power.  Still, it's possible the power here could fail -- I don't really
have the information to know for sure -- but I will try to keep wilma
running (currently up 67 days!)

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:34:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Power Outage 

I hope I'm not going to jinx it, but I believe UT has power back ups that
allow it to keep going independently. I'm not sure where Wilma is, but the
computers located with the CS dept have back up power for sure.

From LBJ library, it looked like the State Capitol was on fire. Once
southbound on mopac, it was clear it was further off west. Driving by, it
didn't look pretty.

But talking of Acka, I was wondering what everyone thought of the moderator
position in Internomic? The person can't resign, there is no way to remove
or replace them (unless they name a successor). So what happens if the
moderator goes AWOL? Or it's nomic decides to pull out of IN without being
"nice"?

CnH

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:11:09 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Vacation 

I'm back from my vacation
Narf

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:28:26 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Diplomacy 

There are two ways we can go about putting together a Diplomacy sub game.

Method 1: We could play on one of the electronic judges.  Advantages:
Electronic (error free) adjudication.  Disadvantages: The judges crash a lot,
and sometimes bounce mail or don't process orders.  We also couldn't play
deviant Diplomacy on the Judges

Method 2: A hand adjudicated game.  I would volunteer to adjudicate the first
one.

If there is serious interest in the idea, I'll write a proposal for a
Diplomacy sub game.

Actualy, a third method occurs to me.

We could "use" the judges to perform various actions (like sending press)
which would allow gunboat games, or games with fake press, etc...  And still
process the MOVES by hand, thus allowing variants like Blind Diplomacy or
Deviant Diplomacy.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:51:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Internomic: new ruleset

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

<SNIP to the juicy part>
> 103.  At any time, there shall be exactly one moderator, who must be a
>       player of at least one member nomic.  The moderator may not
>       resign.  If the moderator is no longer a player in any member
>       nomic, e must name a successor who is.  Once this is done, the
>       successor replaces the moderator.

Isn't this conflicting under our strict constructionalist view?  There's a
moderator who must be a member, but he doesn't get succeeded upon leaving a
member Nomic until he performs more duties as Moderator, which he can't be,
etc, etc, etc.

Ok, I'm kind of out of the Internomic loop so somebody gimme a swift kick if
I'm wrong.  (I'd like to suggest someone from Malenkai's Loophole Service do
the kicking.)

Malenkai, can I get a current fee structure?

Oh yeah, I know I just joined back, but my girfriend came to visit, so I've
been really..ummm..busy.  I'm really, really back now.

- --
Matt Miller
[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:46:40 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Diplomacy

[email-masked] wrote:

> Method 1: We could play on one of the electronic judges. 
> Disadvantages:

A player who enjoys adjudicating the game gets shut out from doing
so.  It seems to me that if there is no one who wants to GM the game,
then use the bots, otherwise let that player adjudicate it.

> Method 2: A hand adjudicated game.  I would volunteer to adjudicate the
> first one.

I have little interest in playing straight Diplomacy anymore, but also
would be willing to adjudicate.  If you have equal interest in playing
and adjudicating, then you could play if you want.

> Actualy, a third method occurs to me.

A game involving organizational powers and Diplomacy occurs to me; we'll
see where and if the org re-org goes before thinking of that :)

Malenkai
who used to love to play Germany and hate to play Russia

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:02:32 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Diplomacy 

>Malenkai
>who used to love to play Germany and hate to play Russia

I played Russia in the finals of the FTF Diplomacy tournament this weekend.
 Turkey and Austria jumped on me from the start.  Thanks to allies in Germany
and England I managed to hold them off and eventualy took third.  <shrug>  I
hate playing Russia too, but I'm not a fan of Germany either.  I like France
and Italy myself.
Narf

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:11:50 -0700
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz) 
Subject: [none]

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:19:01 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1733

Proposal 1733
More Sensible Weight
Niccolo Flychuck

This is a Modest Proposal.

Ammend section 1.B of R1230.3 "Swingers Like to Play Around III - mostly
odds" to read in full:
"Absolute Weight for each Swinger is calculated in the following manner: 

For a Swinger whose King is on-board
Weight= 
(Total material value of the on-board pieces)+
for each piece( add the maximum distance the piece can move, without
making a capture), where distance is defined as the greater of
(abs(DestC-C)), (abs(DestR-R))
for each piece (add 3 if the piece attacks at least one opponent piece)
for each piece (add 2 if the piece defends at least one friendly piece) 

For a Swinger whose King is off-board
Weight=0 
"

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:19:12 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1734

Proposal 1734
Eliminating unnecessary CFCJs
Malenkai

This is a Modest proposal
- ------------------------------------------------------------

Amend rule 1209, "The Machine that goes *ping*" to replace:

"
      Should a CFCJ ever find that the current Scholar has violated any
part of this rule during the current Scholar's term, the Machine
immediately randomly teleports itself to another active player's Home.
"

with

"
      Should it ever be publically knowable that the current Scholar
has violated any part of this rule during the current Scholar's term,
the Machine immediately randomly teleports itself to another active
player's Home.
"

{{[a CFCJ seems to be a subset of PK, and PK covers other cases that
will save the CotC a little work.]}}

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:52:12 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ambassador: Nomics, Nomics Everywhere 

>I speak a little German from High School.  I can translate slowly, what would
>this entail??
>Ludwig

First it would require looking at the web page and giving me a roungh
translation of what it says.  Secondly, I would like a vaugue overview of
their rules, but that is not really as important.

The most important thing I guess would be to translate a letter from me
(onb behalf of Acka) into german so that I could send it to them.

snowgod

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:53:16 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ambassador 

>Actually, snowgod, the best thing to do would probably be to just send
>them greetings in English and see if they respond. The chances that at
>least one person in their game is fluent in English is likely much
>higher than any of our American players being able to read/write
>intelligibly in theirs.
>
>b

I have thought of that, and I figured that I could do this is ft came to
it, but I didn't want to present myself (ourselves) as the "ugly
americans".  I think it would at least be fun if we could include some
german in the letter.

snowgod
diplomatic

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #525
*******************************