Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #527
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest     Wednesday, February 19 1997     Volume 01 : Number 527

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:36:35 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1711 failed quorum (Value)

Malenkai wrote:
> > Proposal 1711 
> The proposal's voting period was from 02/01, 13:33, thru 02/08, 13:33.
> 
> We both arrived at 8, via different reasoning.

I agree with Malenkai's reasoning.  Guy Fawkes's vote counts, and snowgod's
does not.

> [Abstentions]:
> 
> > >       fnord
> > >       Calvin N Hobbes
> > >       ThinMan
> > >       Ludwig
> > >       Techno
> > >       mr cwm
> > >       /dev/joe
> 
> Swann and Jammer are not on the list, and, according to my records,
> were not on vacation or in Gaol for the entire voting period.  If they
> both abstained, that makes 9 abtentions, causing quorum failure and
> putting those players on vacation again, once the results of this proposal
> are actually released.  If one of them voted, there is no quorum failure.
> If both voted yes, the proposal passed.

When P1700's results were posted on Feb 6, 22:14 EST, fnord, Calvin N Hobbes,
Techno, and mr cwm were put on vacation.  By rule they could not return
before the end of P1711's voting period at Feb 8 13:33, so their
abstentions don't count, and I think it is clear that quorum was achieved.

The repost of P1701-1706's results by the acting tabulator came at
Feb 8, 18:28 EST, so Swann was put on vacation after the voting period
ended.

ThinMan went on vacation Feb 7, 12:26 EST, so he doesn't count
against quorum either.

Ludwig did not become active until P1707's results were posted on Feb 12.

That leaves just me and Swann who didn't vote.  (I realized I didn't vote,
but the voting period was already over, so I didn't sneak a vote in
even though I probably could have done so.)

The proposal fails by a vote of 4 YES and 3 NO, 1 PRESENT, and 2 abstentions.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:37:05 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1737

Proposal 1737
cleaning up the new player rules
Narf

{{Ammend rule #253 by adding the following text, delineated by ** to the
rule.  **If a mentor leaves the game or is put on vacation, voluntarily or
involuntarily during the time period described in this rule, e shall lose the
fee normaly provided for mentoring and a new mentor shall be assigned to the
player ** [I lost my mentor when Guy quit the game and never got a new one]
Ammend rule #254 by adding the following text, delineated by !! to the rule.
 !!A pending player can only vote on proposals distributed by the promoter
after e joined the game.!! [I keep coming up as an active player (although
I'm really a pending one) who didn't vote on proposals that were made before
I joined.  Although I am able to read them by using the #current and #read
commands, I missed all the discussion on them and do not feel qualified to
vote on them]}}

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:37:03 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1736

Proposal 1736
Diplomacy
Narf

{{Number this rule 1213/6}}
This rule takes precedence over 1201/7 [this allows the game to be played for
suitable stakes]
[Creates a sub game of Diplomacy]
1.  The game: Any player may, by posting a notice to the mailing list, begin
a game of Diplomacy. e shall by known as "the game master".  The next 7
players to respond to the notice, publicly or privately as specified in the
announcement, shall play in the game and be referred to collectively as "the
players".
2.  The rules: The game shall be played by the most current set of Diplomacy
rules published by Avalon Hill except as specified by the game master in the
initial announcement of the game.  Any variant is permissible, as long as the
changes in the rules are knowable by the players before the game begins.
Country assignment shall be done randomly, or in any other method specified
by the game master.
3.  Adjudication: The game may be hand adjudicated by the game master or it
may be set up to run on an electronic adjudicator, as specified by the game
master.  If the game will be adjudicated electronicly, it is the
responisibility of the game master to instruct the players in how to use the
judge, or to point them towards a suitable set of instructions.  If the game
is to be hand adjudicated, the game master should publish a sample set of
orders for the players to follow before the first moves are due.  In case of
ambiguous orders, the game master shall rule that the unit who's orders were
ambiguous holds.  The decision of the game master is final.
4.  Stakes: The game master may specify in the original announcement the
stakes for the game.  The game may be played for fun only, but if it is to be
played for stakes, the following is permissible: a) each player may bet up to
$A 10 b) each player may bet up to 8 Ackanomic points c) each player may bet
up to 10pf bonds of any name.
4.1 Salary: The game master will receive 10% rounded up of all the stakes as
a fee for running the game.  
5. Scoring: Unless specified otherwise by the game master, the first player
to meet the victory conditions of the game [see Avalon Hill's ruleset] will
receive the remainder of the stakes.  Unless specified by the game master, a
draw will only be called if the game reaches 1930 with no winner or 5
straight years pass without a change in supply center ownership.  If a draw
is declared in this manner, then all players within 2 supply centers of the
lead player shall split the stakes evenly.  The game master can allow draws
to be determined in other manners, if so specified in the original
announcement.
6. NMR's/Replacement players: Unless specified otherwise by the game master,
any player who does not submit orders by the deadline has instead ordered all
of his units to "hold".  A replacement player may then be sought out.  The
original player loses all of eir original stakes, and the replacement player
plays for free.  If a player submits orders for some of eir units but not all
of them or if a player submits invalid orders for some of eir units, the
units not ordered or incorrectly ordered are also ordered to "hold".  In this
case, the player continues to play and a replacement player is not found.
 Any player who removes eirself from Ackanomic is also removed from the
Diplomacy game, and a replacement player must be sought out.  The replacement
player plays for free.  A player may also voluntarily remove eirself from the
Diplomacy game, and again a replacement player must be sought out.  The
replacement player plays for free.

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:37:06 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1738

Proposal 1738
streamlining
Narf

[as a new player, the current ruleset is, at best, daunting.  It occurs to me
that many of the rules are trivial, whimsical and non essential.  Removing
some of them from the game will make it easier for new players to read all
the way through the rules, simply by reducing the time neccesary to do so.
 It will also save space on the rules page, making the download time shorter
for everyone]
{{streamline the current rules set by repealing rule #259 [evil twins],
repealing rule #222 [winning by finding the crystal chalice (a very long and
complicated rule, appears to be trivial and virtualy impossible to ever
fulfil its conditions)], and repealing rule #221 [winning by palindrome],
repealing rule #207.1 [that's just silly]}}

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:39:40 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1711 failed quorum (Value)

Malenkai wrote:

> Swann and Jammer are not on the list, and, according to my records,
> were not on vacation or in Gaol for the entire voting period. 

Another cruise through my records indicates that ThinMan and Jammer
were, in fact, on vacation at 02/08 13:33, so the thing just fails,
and makes quorum.  Swann was on vacation too, I believe.

Sorry for the confusion, but no one else has gotten it right yet
either :).  This would be much easier if the voting results were released
in a timely manner, though.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:43:17 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1711 failed quorum (Value)

/dev/joe wrote:

> That leaves just me and Swann who didn't vote.  (I realized I didn't vote,
> but the voting period was already over, so I didn't sneak a vote in
> even though I probably could have done so.)

It seems to me if we are going to go to the trouble to automate
stuff, the above could be enforced by the bot.  There is no reason,
for example, that an automated bot should have accepted snowgod's
vote, given ample time to program the feature, of course :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:47:09 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1711 failed quorum (Value)

> either :).  This would be much easier if the voting results were released
> in a timely manner, though.
	Agreed, and it would be easier if I would actually keep track of
player vacations and stuff like that... is there any way I could get the
office of Registrar?  It seems like it's work I have to do anyway.... or 
*should*...

- --Mohammed
sorry

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:51:42 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1711 failed quorum (Value)

Jason Orendorff wrote:

>         Agreed, and it would be easier if I would actually keep track of
> player vacations and stuff like that... is there any way I could get the
> office of Registrar?  It seems like it's work I have to do anyway.... or
> *should*...

Can we add a #vacation and #end_vacation command to the bot?

I forget the resolution on CC:ing public messages to the bot, but if
we could do that, we'd be ok, I suppose.

On the other hand, just put the player on vacation by hand when they
announce it.  I add an on vacation state to the PE page whenever one
is announced.  I would think it is like a proposal retraction.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:05:49 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1736-8

> Proposal 1736
> Diplomacy
> Narf
> 
> {{Number this rule 1213/6}}
> This rule takes precedence over 1201/7 [this allows the game to be played for
> suitable stakes]
> [Creates a sub game of Diplomacy]

I think this proposal has some problems, but I don't have the time at the
moment to fully analyze it.  However, I note that since the unSneeking
proposal failed quorum, this makes Narf active.

On the other two props Narf submitted, I have these comments:

P1737:
I don't really care if we do that mentors change or not.
As far as pending players voting on proposals submitted before they joined,
it has always been allowed since I joined almost 11 months ago, and ever
since the "active player" definitions which first appeared as a response
to the first quorum crisis, they have not counted against quorum if they
don't vote.

P1738 (streamlining):
Good luck.  I expect you will find violent opposition to this proposal,
although Acka is not so opposed to change now as they once were.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:02:39 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1736

> Proposal 1736
> Diplomacy

> {{Number this rule 1213/6}}

I would not renumber rules to include an artificial revision number.

> This rule takes precedence over 1201/7

I would not claim precedence over a specific revision of a rule.  Also,
the precedence claim is unnecessary, as this rule would not be a G&C
game.

[In case you're wondering, the /x is the revision number of the rule].

> e shall by known as "the game master".

I would prefer a different term.  We already have a "GamesMaster".
How about "Diplomacy-Harfer", or something.

> "the players".

Again, I would use a different term to not conflict with acka "players".

> 2.  The rules: The game shall be played by the most current set of 
> Diplomacy rules published by Avalon Hill except as specified by the
> game master in the initial announcement of the game.

This is troublesome.  It seems virtually impossible to comply with this
rule without breaking american copyright laws, and how likely is it that
all players will have the same set as the adjudicator.  Perhaps there is
some sort of rewording that could occur.  My set is at least 12 years
old; is that the "current set"?

> Any player who removes eirself from Ackanomic is also removed from the
> Diplomacy game, and a replacement player must be sought out.

Sought out by whom?

If you make these changes, and add a little more whitespace, I will
support it, although it was originally Strider's idea, I believe.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:07:00 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bonds

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> /dev/joe wrote:
> 
> > Keep track of bond trades and watch for me to post the
> > end-of-bond-cycle scores (or get them yourself from the web page if
> > I am late in posting them) and you should be able to do your job well.
> 
> Note that even bond holdings are tracked for you at the players-entities
> page.  I generally update the page once a day or once every other day.
> 
> Malenkai
Gratefully noted.

Strider

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:07:42 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bonds

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Strider wrote:
> 
> [quoted bond holdings and calculations]
> 
> > Thanks really huge big amounts to /dev/joe for the work on this.
> 
> I assume this should be construed as the official report?  In any case,
> could you please :) put these in the financier's format, with the
> numbers rounded and not quoted.  Sorry for being so picky :)
> 
> You don't have to do it this time, but I'd appreciate it for next
> time.
> 
> thx
> Malenkai
> Financier
Absolutely.

Strider

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:13:00 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1736-8

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> P1738 (streamlining):
> Good luck.  I expect you will find violent opposition to this proposal,
> although Acka is not so opposed to change now as they once were.

Actually, there will probably be violent apathy, at least that is
what my proposals are receiving :)  I agree with the assessment of
that crystal chalice rule, but I at least wanted to *try* it before
dumping it.  If my vault divinition proposal fails, I will support
dumping the CC.  I never supported evil twins, but do support "that's
just silly" and "palindrome", although making the latter a winning
condition neutered it.  Acka is probably not going to vote a win for
a player for writing a palindromic rule (although before I fixed
some of the loopholes, I was contemplating creating a gadget to create
a palindromic rule ;))

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:24:27 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1736

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > Proposal 1736
> > Diplomacy
> 
> > {{Number this rule 1213/6}}
> 
> I would not renumber rules to include an artificial revision number.
> 
> > This rule takes precedence over 1201/7
> 
> I would not claim precedence over a specific revision of a rule.  Also,
> the precedence claim is unnecessary, as this rule would not be a G&C
> game.
> 
> [In case you're wondering, the /x is the revision number of the rule].
> 
> > e shall by known as "the game master".
> 
> I would prefer a different term.  We already have a "GamesMaster".
> How about "Diplomacy-Harfer", or something.
> 
> > "the players".
> 
> Again, I would use a different term to not conflict with acka "players".
How about megalomaniacs?
> 
> > 2.  The rules: The game shall be played by the most current set of
> > Diplomacy rules published by Avalon Hill except as specified by the
> > game master in the initial announcement of the game.
> 
> This is troublesome.  It seems virtually impossible to comply with this
> rule without breaking american copyright laws, and how likely is it that
> all players will have the same set as the adjudicator.  Perhaps there is
> some sort of rewording that could occur.  My set is at least 12 years
> old; is that the "current set"?
I believe that the rules have not changed since the game was first
published
> 
> > Any player who removes eirself from Ackanomic is also removed from the
> > Diplomacy game, and a replacement player must be sought out.
> 
> Sought out by whom?
The Diplomacy-Harfer would be the best bet.  The problem would be
putting the game on hold until a new player was found.
> 
> If you make these changes, and add a little more whitespace, I will
> support it, although it was originally Strider's idea, I believe.
>
No big deal.  I just wanted it added to the game.  I don't care who does
it, and frankly I stink at writing proposals anyway.
 
> Malenkai

Strider

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:25:30 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 130 (/dev/joe)

/dev/joe has been selected for what I have labelled as CFCJ 130.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 130
  Subject:  Machine
Initiator:  Strider
    Judge:  /dev/joe (selected Feb 18, 1997, 21:25 EST)
Judgement:  

Statement:

Strider has committed a crime.

Strider's Reasoning:

R1209 states, in part; "The truth must be such
that the Machine shall not fail to go *ping* for any seven consecutive
calendar days,"  In posting a truth which strayed from this, Strider
broke the rules.

Suggested Penalty: 

You tell me.

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:32:31 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1738

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1738
> streamlining
> Narf
> 
> [as a new player, the current ruleset is, at best, daunting.  It occurs to me
> that many of the rules are trivial, whimsical and non essential.  Removing
> some of them from the game will make it easier for new players to read all
> the way through the rules, simply by reducing the time neccesary to do so.
>  It will also save space on the rules page, making the download time shorter
> for everyone]
> {{streamline the current rules set by repealing rule #259 [evil twins],
> repealing rule #222 [winning by finding the crystal chalice (a very long and
> complicated rule, appears to be trivial and virtualy impossible to ever
> fulfil its conditions)], and repealing rule #221 [winning by palindrome],
> repealing rule #207.1 [that's just silly]}}
I violently disagree with this. :)  I want both of the above named
winning conditions to stay just because the possibility of them
happening is harfy.  "that's just silly" and "evil twins" are just fun
rules.  Removing any or all of these would not significantly subtract
from the ruleset, would not add anything to the game, and would detract
from (some) players enjoyment of the game.  

Strider

(resolving to work on my palindrome tonight)

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:58:41 -6:00
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Ambassador

Besides being a non german speaking german, I have a brother that 
does speak german.  He studied german in college and was actually 
going to teach german.  He chose music education instead and now 
teaches music in KC, MO.  If you want to send me something for him to 
translate, I will give it to him.

Techno

> >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
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:52:00 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  destruction 

>I destroy Rosebud for A$1.  I destroy the Little Bag 'O Chips F for A$1.
>I intend to sell Thring to whoever is willing to pay good money for it.
>Bidding starts at A$2; if it doesn't sell within a week, I'll destroy it.
>
>This is not an Auction; but make your offers and I will accept the best
>one.
>
>--Mohammed

I'll buy Thring for Acka $15.  Buy the way, I think I may have come up with
an ingenious clue for the rosebud treasure.  I'll let you guys in on it in
a while.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:59:33 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Tithing. 

>I am making a donation of A$25 to the Church of the Markovian Dream.
>
>IB
>
>IdiotBoy -25
>Church of the Markovian Dream +25

As financier for the church I ackanowledge this transaction.  The church
now has a total A$125 in savings, maintianed by me.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:07:53 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1711 failed quorum (Value) 

>> either :).  This would be much easier if the voting results were released
>> in a timely manner, though.
>	Agreed, and it would be easier if I would actually keep track of
>player vacations and stuff like that... is there any way I could get the
>office of Registrar?  It seems like it's work I have to do anyway.... or
>*should*...
>
>--Mohammed
>sorry

I'll resign it if you want it, but I don't mind doing it either.

Your choice.

BTW, do you still want me top dig up the info on mine and jammer's
vacations, or are we okay with the quorum issue now?

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:12:55 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1736-8 

>Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
>
>> P1738 (streamlining):
>> Good luck.  I expect you will find violent opposition to this proposal,
>> although Acka is not so opposed to change now as they once were.
>
>Actually, there will probably be violent apathy, at least that is
>what my proposals are receiving ...

I'll take the bait.

This game will cease to be fun for me on the day when these proposals are
repealed (especially palindromes and cows eat grass).  I am not in favor of
repealing old harfy rules and never will be.  I encourage evey player to
vote against this proposal if they have ever gotten a laugh form one of my
rules (or if they are my evil twin :)

As for the CC, I too would like to see it tried before it is trashed. Elder
Habeous Corpus put a lot of work into that proposal and it would be a shame
for it to never be used.

snowgod
violently opposed

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:20:41 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ambassador 

>Besides being a non german speaking german, I have a brother that
>does speak german.  He studied german in college and was actually
>going to teach german.  He chose music education instead and now
>teaches music in KC, MO.  If you want to send me something for him to
>translate, I will give it to him.

Great.  That should work good, as long as it is not imposing.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:06:31 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Diplomacy

Diplomacy G&C RFC
Malenkai

I believe Diplomacy should be under the G&C framework, for various
reasons.  I attempt an RFC of the game in that context; feel free to
use any, all, or none of this.  I'm not trying to step on anyones
toes, just submitting some ideas.  If I receive no comments, I will
submit it in about a week, if the proposal under vote is not accepted:

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

{{

Create a new game on the Games and Contests page called "Diplomacy"
with the following text:

"
I.  Equipment: None.

II.  Number of Players:

Minimum 2, maximum: Number of Ackanomic players less 1. Referees: 1

III.  Starting an instance of the game:

The game is started upon the completion of the following ordered list
of steps:

A.  A player announces their intent to be a referee for a game of
Diplomacy.  For the purposes of this section, they will be referred to
as the "Referee", athough they do not become so until the game actually
starts.

B.  The Referee announces the following information:

    1) The minimum and maximum number of players in the game.

    2) Any variations to the Rules of Standard Diplomacy.  Such variations
may not scope beyond the game of Diplomacy.  For the purposes of this
game, "Rules of Standard Diplomacy" means the document entitled "Rules
for Diplomacy", copyright 1976, as published by The Avalon Hill Game
Co.

    3) If the variant uses countries, the method in which countries shall
be assigned.

    4) If the variant uses orders or moves, and turns, the time limit
by which orders or moves must be submitted from the announced start of
a turn.  If multiple types of turns exist [eg, "move" and "build"], 
different time limits may be specified for each type.  For the purposes
of these rules, "moves" should be construed as any possible game action
that requires notifiying the referee.

    5) The method of adjudication.  The valid methods are "manual" and 
"automated".  If manual adjudication is specified, the form of all valid
moves in the game and the manner of communication with the referee must
be specified.  If automated adjudication is specified, the referee must
specify instructions on how to use the "judge", or provide a pointer
to a suitable set of instructions.  In either case, it should be such that
a player may play the game with e-mail only access to the Internet.

   6) The default action for all late, ambiguous, or otherwise invalid
orders or moves, and some sort of discussion of what constitutes a late,
ambiguous, or invalid move.

   7) The conditions, if any, under which the game will be terminated
prematurely [e.g., after the Autumn 1930 move], and the method for
determining a winner or winners in such a case.  It is not required that
a winner be determined in this case.

   8) The actions of any bots playing in the game, as per section V.
Bots can replace players who are on vacation or leave the game. [e.g,
bots always submit unambigious hold orders for all their units, and
never submit build orders.]

C.  The referee announces open enrollment in the game, and the deadline
by which open enrollment shall end.

D.  Ackanomic players other than the referee who wish to play shall e-mail
the referee stating this intention.  This step shall end upon the 
occurrance of either of the following 2 events:  The open enrollment 
deadline occurs, or, the maximum number of players for this instance
of the game have signed up.

E.  Upon the former event occurring, the game cannot start if at least
the minimum number of players failed to enroll, and, in this case, this
procedure is aborted with no game instance occurring.

F.  The referree announces the start of the game, the names and e-mail
addresses of all the players, and any necessary initial data [e.g. 
country assignments].

IV.  Rules of the Game:

Standard Diplomacy shall be played, except as modified by the details
announced per section III, and except that no physical board and pieces
shall be used (athough it is permissible, but not required, for a web
page to be maintained that simulates such), and except that a referee
shall adjudicate all game moves and maintain the game state.  The 
decisions of the referee are final. 

Winning the game:  Unless specified otherwise in the details announced
per section III, the first single player to achieve the winning conditions
of Standard Diplomacy shall win the game.  Also, unless countermanded as
per section III, 2 or more players may claim a win by, as a group,
controlling enough of the game space such that if said control were
achieved by a single player, that player would win, provided all players
involved acknowledge this claim seperately to the referee.  [e.g, if 2
or more players control 18 sc's between themselves, they can announce a
co-win].

Upon a winning condition being achieved, the game ends.  All winners
split 8 points evenly.  If the number of winners does not divide evenly
into 8, however, the number of points split is the greatest positive
multiple of the number of winners that is less than 8.  If no such number
exists, no points are awarded.

If the game ends without a winner or winners being declared, however,
no points are awarded.

Upon the end of a game, the referee receives A$10.

V.  Errata

Upon a player or referee of Diplomacy becoming no longer an active
Ackanomic player, the game is paused until a replacment is found, and
such replacement is acknowledged by the GamesMaster.  The game becomes
unpaused upon all non-active players being replaced, or upon being
in a paused state for 3 consecutive days, whichever occurs first.  The
replacement shall play in the former players stead until that player
once again achieves active status in Ackanomic.

A player may resign from Diplomacy, in which case they are treated as a
non-active player as above, except they may never participate in that
instance of Diplomacy again.

No game play shall occur while the game is in a state of pause, and
no time in a state of pause shall count towards any durations in the
game, except for counting towards the pause duration, of course :).

If no replacement player is found by the time the game becomes unpaused,
a bot shall play in their stead, as specified in section III.  If the
individual in question is the referee, however, the game ends without a
winner upon it beoming un-paused, if no replacement referee has been
found.

An active Ackanomic player may always replace a bot with the approval
of the referee, provided that player has not previously participated
in that instance of Diplomacy.

}}

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:16:47 -0600
From: john duncan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1736-8

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > P1738 (streamlining):
> > Good luck.  I expect you will find violent opposition to this proposal,
> > although Acka is not so opposed to change now as they once were.
> 
> Actually, there will probably be violent apathy, at least that is
> what my proposals are receiving :)  

OK, I'll put in my two cents on this.

I like "Evil Twins". Its a fun rule and doesn't cause problems game
wise. I have no problems with "palindrome". I am neutral on CC, if it
stays or  goes I could care less. I don't like "thats just silly", if
the proposal was for repealing just that I would vote for it.

My inital reaction is to vote No, only for the fact that all of these
rules should be judged on their own merits rather than be lumped
together.

Lestrade

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:20:08 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 130 Verdict

CFCJ 130 has been judged TRUE.  Penalty A$50.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 130
  Subject:  Machine
Initiator:  Strider
    Judge:  /dev/joe (selected Feb 18, 1997, 21:25 EST)
Judgement:  TRUE

Statement:

Strider has committed a crime.

Strider's Reasoning:

R1209 states, in part; "The truth must be such
that the Machine shall not fail to go *ping* for any seven consecutive
calendar days,"  In posting a truth which strayed from this, Strider
broke the rules.

Suggested Penalty:

You tell me.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

Strider posted the truth on Sunday, February 9.

The machine failed to go ping on February 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
Then the machine went *ping* on February 17, which Strider reported to us
late (on the 18th).

Rule 1209 states:
"The truth must be such that the Machine shall not fail to go *ping* for
any seven consecutive calendar days ... during the current Scholar's term."

If Strider's posts about the truth are correct, his chosen truth violates
the above-quoted section of rule 1209.  If they are not correct, then
Strider has lied to us about when the machine went *ping*, violating
other parts of Rule 1209.  In any case, it is clear that Strider has
committed a crime.

Actual Penalty:

Rule 1209 will pay Strider A$50 if nobody submits a CFCJ against him within
3 days *after* he posts the undisguised truth, but he is not allowed to
do so in the current circumstances until this verdict is returned.  For this
reason, I expect he's going to get the A$50 anyway.  He has already spent
A$20 initiating the CFCJ, so I choose to just revoke this payment via the
penalty.  I choose a penalty of a FINE of A$50.

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:28:23 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 130 Verdict

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> CFCJ 130 has been judged TRUE.  Penalty A$50.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call for Criminal Judgement 130
>   Subject:  Machine
> Initiator:  Strider
>     Judge:  /dev/joe (selected Feb 18, 1997, 21:25 EST)
> Judgement:  TRUE
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Strider has committed a crime.
> 
> Strider's Reasoning:
> 
> R1209 states, in part; "The truth must be such
> that the Machine shall not fail to go *ping* for any seven consecutive
> calendar days,"  In posting a truth which strayed from this, Strider
> broke the rules.
> 
> Suggested Penalty:
> 
> You tell me.
> 
> /dev/joe's Reasoning:
> 
> Strider posted the truth on Sunday, February 9.
> 
> The machine failed to go ping on February 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
> Then the machine went *ping* on February 17, which Strider reported to us
> late (on the 18th).
> 
> Rule 1209 states:
> "The truth must be such that the Machine shall not fail to go *ping* for
> any seven consecutive calendar days ... during the current Scholar's term."
> 
> If Strider's posts about the truth are correct, his chosen truth violates
> the above-quoted section of rule 1209.  If they are not correct, then
> Strider has lied to us about when the machine went *ping*, violating
> other parts of Rule 1209.  In any case, it is clear that Strider has
> committed a crime.
> 
> Actual Penalty:
> 
> Rule 1209 will pay Strider A$50 if nobody submits a CFCJ against him within
> 3 days *after* he posts the undisguised truth, but he is not allowed to
> do so in the current circumstances until this verdict is returned.  For this
> reason, I expect he's going to get the A$50 anyway.  He has already spent
> A$20 initiating the CFCJ, so I choose to just revoke this payment via the
> penalty.  I choose a penalty of a FINE of A$50.
Acked.  

Strider-A$50

Regards,
	Strider

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #527
*******************************