Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #528
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest     Wednesday, February 19 1997     Volume 01 : Number 528

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 02:45:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Time to fly

Winged players: we're ready to fly again. I would like to do undead
Mellon's house next.

As soon as two other winged players respond affirmatively to this
message, we shall reattach Mellon's house.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:03:16 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Time to fly

I shall follow breadbox to undead Mellon's house to reattac it.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Winged players: we're ready to fly again. I would like to do undead
> Mellon's house next.
> 
> As soon as two other winged players respond affirmatively to this
> message, we shall reattach Mellon's house.
> 
> breadbox
> 

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:48:03 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 347 Verdict

CFJ 347 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 347
  Subject: Finding Phoebe
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Feb 12, 1997, 18:08h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Phoebe's matchbox is not missing.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Always interested in linguistic interpretation of the rules and fleshing
out game custom, and finding plenty of bandwidth to spare all of the
sudden, what to do with Phoebe comes to mind.

R 909 describes certain conditions under which Phoebe's matchbox
is "deemed to be missing".  Generally Phoebe's matchbox goes missing
when her wisdom is posted, or the time limit to post the wisdom has
elapsed.

In this case, however, Guy Fawkes left the game while he had Phoebe,
and Phoebe is both unique and mimsy, and R 256 describes what happens:

> 1) All of his mimsy possessions are taken away and considered unowned.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

R909 says a lot about how players interact with the Steel Flea. Eir
matchbox is found, it is a great discovery.  Nowhere does it say that it
is ever owned by the player. If the Flea wants to schmoose with the player
who found it, it's her prerogative.
Since the matchbx isn't owned by the player, the above quoted rule does
not apply to it.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:55:36 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Machine (Niccolo)

The machine that goes *ping* has teleported to Niccolo Flychuck's
house.  Strider should announce the current truth.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 05:10:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 347 Verdict

> Call For Judgement 347
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 1) All of his mimsy possessions are taken away and considered unowned.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:
> 
> R909 says a lot about how players interact with the Steel Flea. Eir
> matchbox is found, it is a great discovery.  Nowhere does it say
> that it is ever owned by the player. If the Flea wants to schmoose
> with the player who found it, it's her prerogative.  Since the
> matchbx isn't owned by the player, the above quoted rule does not
> apply to it.

Interesting to compare and contrast this with CFJ 320 ... also judged
by Niccolo Flychuck.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:15:31 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Diplomacy and copyrights

CnH wrote:

>If some people are interested in learning the game, or just getting a
>refresher course, I'm sure that could be arranged. The only restriction is
>that the rules are copyrighted and cannot be put online. This is especially
>important for putting them up as a game in Acka, since we could be liable.

I have never played Diplomacy, but I am interested in learning.  If
we get something going around here then count me in.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:38:13 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1736 

heheh... I goofed.  This was my first proposal, and I didn't do enough
research before writing it, apparently.  In subsequent reviews of the
ruleset, I realized that the /x number was a revision number.  How do I go
about fixing that problem?

>> 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.

Although I have no problem making changes, I'm not certain I see the
neccesity.  "the game master" and "GamesMaster" are two unique terms.  A more
telling problem would arise if more than one game of Diplomacy were running
concurrently.  Then the title, any title, would become ambiguous, no?

>> "the players".

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

See above.

>> 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"?

The most recent set is dated 198(4?5?) something like that.  Mid '80's at any
rate.  I avoided dating it so that the Acka rule wouldn't have to change if
Avalon Hill's rule did change.  As for copyright laws, it was precisely to
avoid problems that I worded it this way.  Avalon Hill has allowed Diplomacy
to be played on the 'net as long as a) no copy of the rules is electronicaly
distributed and b) at least one of the players of the game own a physical
copy of it.  This is what has allowed the electronic adjudicators to exist
with AH's blessing.  If you prefer, I could re-write this section to include
a date, as opposed to "most recent"

>> 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?

by "the game master" or however e shall be named.  Perhaps something ought to
be included so that "the game master" does not receive his pay until the
conclusion of the game.

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

Strider did suggest Dip as a sub game, as a response to my post about running
a tournament this past weekend.  I made a subsequent post about writing a
proposal and heard no objection.  However, if Strider feels I've stepped into
his territory, I'm more than willing to retract and let him propose instead.
 If the general consensus is that this proposal needs all around re wording,
I'll also retract it.  My feeling is that most of the problems presented here
are small and can be fixed via ammendments.

Narf

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:39:07 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: RFC Diplomacy

Malenkai wrote:

[...]

>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.

I think that I would use "[...] the game cannot start unless at least
the minimum number of players enrolled [...]" instead of the wording
above.  I parse the current wording to mean that if the minimum is 7
then there must be at least 7 Acknomic players who do _not_ enroll.

That is the only thing that I noticed, other than the fact that, in
this case, copyright law is getting in my way.

ThinMan
>

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:09:16 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Ambassador

Then he is probably better than I am.  If it is any trouble contacting your 
brother, I would be happy to do it, but I am admittedly not fluent.
Ludwig

On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, [email-masked] wrote:
>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: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:18:02 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1738

I suppose the only actually *essential* rules were in the initial rule
set.  And maybe not even all of those. 

- -mr cwm

>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: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:30:08 -0600
From: john duncan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: P1731 Retraction

I am retracting P1731 - Speaker Succession.

Lestrade
back to the drawing board

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:17:12 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Time to fly 

Once again I leap through my man sized window and take to the skies above
(below?) Ackanomia, rendezvousing with my fellow winged denizens above
(below?) Mellons house.

Narf

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:22:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Time to fly

Mellon's house is now restored. According to memory, that leaves Robin
Hood's as the only dangling undead house.

If any player wants to have their house reattached, they need only
ask.

b

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:32:03 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1738 

<< I suppose the only actually *essential* rules were in the initial rule
 set.  And maybe not even all of those. 
  >>

This is true, and perhaps my intent has been misunderstood.

I have no desire to get rid of all non-essential rules, I hold to the
principle that when playing a game, having fun is essential.  This particular
proposal is one is a series I plan to make the game friendlier and more
appealing to new players.  After all, without the infusion of fresh players,
the game will eventualy collapse and die. 

Keeping that in mind, I'm scouring the ruleset for rules that add (or appear
to add) nothing "fun" to the game, other than the fun of writing them and
having them in the rules.  Winning by Palindrome is a good example of this.
 I'm certain it was fun to write, it's amusing to read, but it will never
happen (I think....).  On the other hand, Phoebe's Matchbox and The Machine
That Goes Ping are examples of fun rules that add to the game and should be
left alone.

I understand also that none of these rules (with the possible exception of
the Crystal Vault thingie) are very large nor do they add much to the ruleset
individualy or collectively.  I thought briefly about attempting to repeal
them one at a time with seperate proposals, but didn't want to FLOOD the list
with 200 proposals at once.  I grouped those four together and sent it off as
a good start.

I intend to look for other ways to make the game easier for a new player to
join, and more enticing for a new player to join as well.  As a new player, I
have a decidedly different view point on some areas than do more established
players.  I also realize I have an obligation to respect the history and
custom of Ackanomia.  It's a difficult task to balance these areas and if I
go to far in my zeal, please forgive....

Narf

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:09:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1738

On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> I have no desire to get rid of all non-essential rules, I hold to the
> principle that when playing a game, having fun is essential.  This particular
> proposal is one is a series I plan to make the game friendlier and more
> appealing to new players.  After all, without the infusion of fresh players,
> the game will eventualy collapse and die. 
> 

Agreed that having fun is essential.  I don't see how removing the fun rules
makes the game friendlier, however.  What it seems more likely to me to do
is make the game appear MORE unfun to those who happen upon Ackanomic.  If
we take out the "trivial rules", we lose alot of the enjoyment of reading
the ruleset.

> Keeping that in mind, I'm scouring the ruleset for rules that add (or appear
> to add) nothing "fun" to the game, other than the fun of writing them and
> having them in the rules.  Winning by Palindrome is a good example of this.
>  I'm certain it was fun to write, it's amusing to read, but it will never
> happen (I think....).  On the other hand, Phoebe's Matchbox and The Machine
> That Goes Ping are examples of fun rules that add to the game and should be
> left alone.
> 

Are you kidding?  If someone could write a good palindromic rule I would
LOVE to have it in our ruleset!  Can it be done?  Probably.  Should it be
easy? Absolutely not.  Taking it out not only "deadens" the ruleset, but
also take away an incentive to be creative in rule-writing.

> I understand also that none of these rules (with the possible exception of
> the Crystal Vault thingie) are very large nor do they add much to the ruleset
> individualy or collectively.  I thought briefly about attempting to repeal
> them one at a time with seperate proposals, but didn't want to FLOOD the list
> with 200 proposals at once.  I grouped those four together and sent it off as
> a good start.
> 

Well, admittedly, that would have been a worse idea. ;)

> I intend to look for other ways to make the game easier for a new player to
> join, and more enticing for a new player to join as well.  As a new player, I
> have a decidedly different view point on some areas than do more established
> players.  I also realize I have an obligation to respect the history and
> custom of Ackanomia.  It's a difficult task to balance these areas and if I
> go to far in my zeal, please forgive....
> 

When I joined, part of what made it exciting was scrounging throught this
*immense* ruleset.. looking for old rules that people had forgotten about.
Did I miss alot?  You betcha.  I even was supposed to go to the Gaol (thanks
Malenkai's Loophole Service) for missing some things.  Part of what makes
this game fun is being subject to a huge ruleset that requires constant
attention.  

The game would be more newbie friendly if we pared back to the initial
ruleset, but man would I be bored for about 2 months.

I'm all in favor of zeal, however.  I'd also like to buy 5PFNarf.

> Narf
> 
> 

IB

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:11:38 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Diplomacy 

I have retracted my Diplomacy proposal.  I am willing to see Malenkai's
counter proposal stand, although I am also willing to rewrite mine to deal
with the issues/problems brought up.

As I see it, there are two major areas of substantive difference between the
two proposals.  

A) My proposal set up default rules covering several areas but allowed "the
game master" to over rule them when the game is announced.  As a potential
adjudicator, I rather liked this feature.  Malenkai's proposal forces the
adjudicator (maybe that's a better title....) to specify everything.

B) My proposal allowed the game to be played for a variety of different
stakes.

Note that I am not fixated on either area, and am really just looking forward
to a good game of Diplomacy starting up, particularly if we can roust
interest for one of the more interesting variants.

Narf

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:18:42 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1738

Narf wrote:

[...]

>I understand also that none of these rules (with the possible exception of
>the Crystal Vault thingie) are very large nor do they add much to the ruleset
>individualy or collectively.  I thought briefly about attempting to repeal
>them one at a time with seperate proposals, but didn't want to FLOOD the list
>with 200 proposals at once.  I grouped those four together and sent it off as
>a good start.

200?  There are 200 rules you want to repeal? ;-)

Seriously, though, the trap you are running into by grouping the
repeals together is that almost every rule has advocates, some of
whom may vote against your proposals solely to preserve just one
of the rules.  You might find it useful to hold a public discussion
about the rules you would like to see repealed.  At the least this
will allow you to guage public support for each rule individually
so that you can pursue a repeal strategy more likely to succeed.
You might also find that you can change people's minds about certain
rules, or even that you change your own mind about others.
>
>I intend to look for other ways to make the game easier for a new player to
>join, and more enticing for a new player to join as well.  As a new player, I
>have a decidedly different view point on some areas than do more established
>players.  I also realize I have an obligation to respect the history and
>custom of Ackanomia.  It's a difficult task to balance these areas and if I
>go to far in my zeal, please forgive....

The worst we will do is vote down your proposals.  Indeed, having
proposals voted down is an experience common to most new players.
I am sure I speak for all when I say that we welcome new ideas and
new viewpoints, whether or not we collectively allow them to guide
the game.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:21:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1738

> Keeping that in mind, I'm scouring the ruleset for rules that add
> (or appear to add) nothing "fun" to the game, other than the fun of
> writing them and having them in the rules.  Winning by Palindrome is
> a good example of this.  I'm certain it was fun to write, it's
> amusing to read, but it will never happen (I think....).

Well, hmm. Winning By Palindrome and That's Just Silly have been
around for quite a while, and, in my opinion at least, have been
successful in their intent to add fun to the game. (And I say that
realizing that no one has yet become a Sage o' Doe Gas, and quite
possibly no one ever will.) In fact, the very introduction of That's
Just Silly was the source of a harfy kind of confusion (see my history
page).

Generally speaking, there really aren't many harfy rules in the
current ruleset that have yet to bring harf to the game. Telepathy,
Telekinesis, and Side Effects is the only one that comes to mind
immediately.

Addmittedly, Winning by Finding the Crystal Chalice is one as
well. But, on the other hand, more than one player put a great deal of
effort into writing that rule, after several public discussions about
creating other ways to win that wouldn't unbalance the game. It does
seem unfair to throw it out after three months, when it has no ill
side effects (other than bloating the ruleset). Rules that don't bring
harf to the game often do get weeded out over time, but unless they
complicate somebody's job they're not weeded out quickly.

Basically, what I'm getting at is that this subject has been brought
up - not just by new players - and discussed, before. It seems to me
that the general consensus in Ackanomic has been that we would prefer
to organize the ruleset, rather than reduce it, to help out newcomers.
(For example, the categorization of rules into hundreds was introduced
about two months ago; before that, the rules were pretty much
organized historically, and one had to depend on /dev/joe's "Rules by
Category" web page to find related rules.)

I'm not trying to discourage you from your stated goal; I'm trying to
explain why there is resistance to achieving that goal by trimming the
ruleset. From the very beginning Ackanomic has encouraged the pursuit
of harfiness (quite literally), and I think it's safe to say that most
players consider it to be an important facet of the game.

breadbox
your humble historian

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:32:12 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Time to fly 

>Winged players: we're ready to fly again. I would like to do undead
>Mellon's house next.
>
>As soon as two other winged players respond affirmatively to this
>message, we shall reattach Mellon's house.
>
>breadbox

I am flying to undead Mellons house to help reattach it.

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:35:02 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Diplomacy and copyrights 

>I have never played Diplomacy, but I am interested in learning.  If
>we get something going around here then count me in.
>
>ThinMan

My sentiments exactly, oh evil twin.  I've never played but I'd love to
learn.  Count me in if we import diplomacy.

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:47:27 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Diplomacy and copyrights

On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> 
> >I have never played Diplomacy, but I am interested in learning.  If
> >we get something going around here then count me in.
> >
> >ThinMan
> 
> My sentiments exactly, oh evil twin.  I've never played but I'd love to
> learn.  Count me in if we import diplomacy.
> 
> snowgod
> 
> 

Heard about it, never played, count me in as an eager newbie.
Except that I"m not clear about how one would get the rules.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:55:34 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Rosebud 

Imagine if you will a group of treasure hunters.  Treasure hunteers who
have so far ignored the clues and failed to find the staute of snowgod mae
entirely of blue jelly.

Now imagine, if you will, the following URL will in some way help you with
your quest.

http://pri0.perceptualrobotics.com/scripts/intercam.dll?CGI?device=Camera1.0.0&q
uality=balanced&scale=0.5&pan=117&tilt=-3&zoom=1

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:59:21 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Diplomacy 

For those who haven't played before but are interested, here are some sites
that you might want to visit.

http://reagan.tkblack.com/Diplomacy/
http://www.pegasus.oz.au/~cjallen/pbem.htm
http://www.csn.net/~mhand/DipPouch/

And I would reccomend downloading one of the many shareware mapping programs
available at the last site on the above list.

Or... keep a board set up on a folding table next to your computer.  Sure,
it's low tech, but it's worked for me for years.  Of course, cat's don't paw
at computer boards, but that's half the fun.
Narf

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:01:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Rosebud

> Imagine if you will a group of treasure hunters.  Treasure hunteers who
> have so far ignored the clues and failed to find the staute of snowgod mae
> entirely of blue jelly.
> 
> Now imagine, if you will, the following URL will in some way help you with
> your quest.
> 
> http://pri0.perceptualrobotics.com/scripts/intercam.dll?CGI?device=
> Camera1.0.0&quality=balanced&scale=0.5&pan=117&tilt=-3&zoom=1

Imagine doing this with lynx.

b

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:28:20 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Undead houses

Are we allowed to freely enter houses haunted by the Undead?

fnord?

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:10:42 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Machine (Niccolo)

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> The machine that goes *ping* has teleported to Niccolo Flychuck's
> house.  Strider should announce the current truth.
> 
> Malenkai
Salutations!

IFF today is a Monday, Wednesday, or Friday with an odd or prime date,
then the Machine that goes *ping* shall go *ping* today.

Ah, well.  Better luck next time.

Say on, Niccolo!

Strider

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:39:37 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:Machine

Salutations!!

I am going to Niccolo Flychuck's house and presenting him with the
Pedestal of *ping*.

Strider

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:00:33 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: More Trinkets  

 I am creating a few more trinkets.  (Are we getting close to
needing a Trinket-Harfer?)

I am hereby creating a trinket called Elves, valued at A$23.
It is a small tree, with green-clad, pointy-eared guys and gals
cavorting about its trunk.

I am hereby creating a trinket called Elvis, valued at A$23.
It is a figurine of the King himself, in his leaner, slimmer
years, long before he started wearing those awful white
and sequin jumpsuits.  In fact, it is wearing a t-shirt, 
leather jacket and jeans.

I am hereby creating a trinket called Elwes, valued at A$23.
It is a figurine of Cary Elwes, star of films such as
"Another Country" and "The Princess Bride".  This figurine
has him wearing all black, just like the Dread Pirate Robert.

fnord

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:34:27 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1738

On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 Narf wrote:

>
><< I suppose the only actually *essential* rules were in the initial rule
> set.  And maybe not even all of those. 
>  >>
>
>This is true, and perhaps my intent has been misunderstood.
>

Well, I kind of overstated it for effect.  I actually agree with your goal
of having a friendly ruleset - whenever I return from a three-week
vacation I feel like more of a newbie than when I actually *was* a newbie. 
But the problem is not so much bulk as complex interactions - the Crystal
Chalice rule can be safely ignored most of the time (I know I certainly
ignore it) but if someone gives you something for example ... do you have
to ack it?  can you refuse it?  can you give it back? etc.  Well, it
depends, and I think that the reorganization has helped with that problem
by putting the answers to things like that all in one place.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:46:35 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Diplomacy

I liked the playing for stakes idea, although the "player" confusion at
first led me to believe that other players could wager on the outcome of
the game (but I liked that idea, too).  (Is it time to revive the
Ackanomic Casino?  Whose idea was that, anyway?) 

- -mr cwm

On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 Narf wrote:

>I have retracted my Diplomacy proposal.  I am willing to see Malenkai's
>counter proposal stand, although I am also willing to rewrite mine to deal
>with the issues/problems brought up.
>
>As I see it, there are two major areas of substantive difference between the
>two proposals.  
>
>A) My proposal set up default rules covering several areas but allowed "the
>game master" to over rule them when the game is announced.  As a potential
>adjudicator, I rather liked this feature.  Malenkai's proposal forces the
>adjudicator (maybe that's a better title....) to specify everything.
>
>B) My proposal allowed the game to be played for a variety of different
>stakes.
>
>Note that I am not fixated on either area, and am really just looking forward
>to a good game of Diplomacy starting up, particularly if we can roust
>interest for one of the more interesting variants.
>
>Narf
>
>

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:15:31 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Undead houses

fnord wrote:
> 
> Are we allowed to freely enter houses haunted by the Undead?
> 
> fnord?

No.

Malenkai!
:)

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:19:02 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: More Trinkets 

fnord wrote:
> 
>  I am creating a few more trinkets.  (Are we getting close to
> needing a Trinket-Harfer?)

We have a Trinket-Harfer :).  There is even a Trinket web page,
accessable off of the main page.  Unfortunately, it is getting a
bit big, so the download takes a little while, but we're all used to
the 450K rules download :)

I was thinking of adding history lines under each trinket, but have not
had the time or energy lately.

Malenkai
trinket-harfer

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:27:52 -0800
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Re: Acka: Undead houses

Malenkai writes:
> >fnord wrote:
> > Are we allowed to freely enter houses haunted by the Undead?
> 
> No.

I was afraid of that.  Oh well.

fnord
- -- 
Michael J. Thomas                              [email-masked]
"Opinions are falling like drops of rain"  In that case, I'm in a downpour!

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:29:44 -0800
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Acka:  Flights

I leave my house, trinkets in hand, ready to join others in the
reattachment of houses to our fair Ackanomia, but it appears I
am too late.  I have spent too much time making trinkets and
staring at the writing on the walls.  So, I decide to swoop around
a bit.  Being a former physicist, I decide to fly around the 
Singularity gazing upon this awe-inspiring sight for a while, but
tire of fighting the pull of it, so I rest upon the Tower of Bandwidth.

To keep myself from looking to see if the second year of the
Tower of Bandwidth has started appearing yet, I play with
my trinkets, Elves, Elvis and Elwes.  They start off okay, but
it seems that Elwes and Elves just don't go well with Elvis.
To prevent any possibility of my trinkets animating when I'm not
looking and destroy each other, I decide to separate them.  I lift 
off from the Tower of Bandwidth, and take to the sky again.  I swoop 
past the Monument to Futility, spiralling around it, unable to enter it.

I decide that this would be a good location to Place Elvis.  I fly 
around the outside of the Monument, not having permission to enter it.
I fly as close to the door to the vault at the base of the tower, and
toss my trinket called Elvis inside, figuring that Placing it there 
is a good idea.

Flying in such tight circles has gotten me a bit dizzy.  I know I put
Elves somewhere, I know I buried them as a Treasure, but for the life 
of me, I can not remember where I put it.  I'm sure a Treasure Map
for the Elves will show up, or down, eventually.  As consolation,
I carry Elwes back to my Home.

fnord

- -- 
Michael J. Thomas                              [email-masked]
"Opinions are falling like drops of rain"  In that case, I'm in a downpour!

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:25:17 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Diplomacy

mr cwm wrote:
> 
> I liked the playing for stakes idea, although the "player" confusion at
> first led me to believe that other players could wager on the outcome of
> the game (but I liked that idea, too).  (Is it time to revive the
> Ackanomic Casino?  Whose idea was that, anyway?)

If you are talking about CFJ casino, it was yours :)  I wrote the proposal
that implemented your idea, which failed by one or two votes.  I forget
the number.  I have a much cooler idea for this though (again something
I stole), which perhaps I will RFC tonite.

As for wagering on diplomacy, it certainly was not my intent to exclude
it, per se, however, it is a much cleaner implementation IMO to put it
under G&C than as a seperate rule, thus wagering was precluded.  If my
general wagering RFC works out, the two can be decoupled, as it should 
be.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:37:46 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Diplomacy and copyrights

Uri Bruck wrote:

> Heard about it, never played, count me in as an eager newbie.
> Except that I"m not clear about how one would get the rules.

In the old days, one could buy replacement parts directly from 
Avalon Hill.  Rules were generally US $4, but that was quite some
time ago.

If your are interested, AH's address is (or was ;)):

The Avalon Hill Game Co.
4517 Harford Rd.
Baltimore, MD, 21214
USA.

Perhaps they have a web site now.  Anyone know?

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:13:43 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Robert Sevin)

Robert Sevin has found Phoebe again.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:27:10 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1739

Proposal 1739
Organized Crime
Narf

{{number this rule 724}}
1. There exists an organization known as Organized Crime, which is not nearly
as organized an organization as its organizers might wish.
2. Publicly admitting to belonging to Organized Crime is a crime, punishable
by no more than 5 days in gaol.
3. There exists a Godfather, who shall be an active Ackanomic player. {{The
first Godfather shall be Narf}}.  Any player may join Organized Crime by
privately mailing the Godfather and stating eir intention to join.  Public
admittance of being the Godfather does not entail admittance of belonging to
Organized Crime.
4. If the Godfather leaves the game, the first player to publicly state the e
is the Godfather is deemed to have overthrown the previous Godfather and
taken over Organized Crime. 
5. Any member of Organized Crime can attempt to overthrow the Godfather by
publicly stating eir intention to do so.  This does not constitute and
admittance of membership in Organized Crime.  If 2/3rds of the members of
Organized Crime publicly acknowledge the challenger within one week, e shall
become the new Godfather.  Publicly acknowledging the challenger does not
entail admittance of membership in Organized Crime.
6. Tammany is a member of Organized Crime.  All bribes paid to Tammany,
whether succesful or not, are turned over to Organized Crime.
7. The purpose of Organized Crime is to run a bookie ring.  The Godfather
may, from time to time, publish odds on various game activities.  Any and all
game events, to include sub games, may be wagered on.  Any member of
Organized Crime may bet by publicly stating which event they are wagering on
and the $A they are wagering.  This also does not constitute an admittance of
membership in Organized Crime.  The Godfather may set a maximum limit on
bets.
8.  Organized Crime will never take a bet that it can not cover.  If at any
time a bet is made that Organized Crime can not cover, the bet is deemed
invalid, even if the Godfather publicly acknowledges acceptance of the bet.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:23:30 -0600
From: john duncan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Diplomacy and copyrights

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > Heard about it, never played, count me in as an eager newbie.
> > Except that I"m not clear about how one would get the rules.
> 
> In the old days, one could buy replacement parts directly from
> Avalon Hill.  Rules were generally US $4, but that was quite some
> time ago.
> 
> If your are interested, AH's address is (or was ;)):
> 
> The Avalon Hill Game Co.
> 4517 Harford Rd.
> Baltimore, MD, 21214
> USA.
> 
> Perhaps they have a web site now.  Anyone know?
> 
> Malenkai

This takes you to their home page. 

http://www.avalonhill.com/avalon.html

However, I would save my money and look at some of the Diplomacy sites. 
This site outlines the rules. (The game is not difficult to learn.)

http://www.pegasus.oz.au/~cjallen/pbem.htm#rules

Lestrade
More of a Kingmaker fan

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:27:21 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1740

Proposal 1740
copyright infringement
Narf

{{number this rule 308 [all the recent talk about copyrights has got me
thinking...]}}

1. A player may claim a copyright on any phrase consisting of 5 or more words
that is not already contained in the ackanomic rules set by posting a public
message containing the phrase to be copyrighted and eir intention to
copyright it.  He will hereafter be referred to as the owning player.
2. It is the job of the Web-Harfer to maintain a list of copyrighted phrases
linked to the main Ackanomic web page.  If neccesary, a volunteer may be
found to assist in this task.
3. No player may use a copyrighted phrase in a proposal unless either the
copyright is eirs or the owning player publicly consents to its use.  The
owning player may request a royalty of up to A$10 per word in the copyrighted
phrase.
4. Any player who violates another players copyright without the express
consent of the owning player may be sued by the owning player for copyright
infringement.  The case shall be heard by the supreme court.  If the Supreme
Court finds in favor of the owning player, the owning player may choose
between one of the following penalties:a) A monetary penalty not to exceed
A$20 per word in the copyrighted phrase, payable to the owning player  b)
Declare the proposal to be invalid, causing the author to lose points as if e
had retracted it. c) Declare the proposal to be valid, but redistribute all
points as though the owning player had been the author of the proposal.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:37:02 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1711 failed quorum (Value)

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

> 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?
	I think it's resolved; although I've herad nothing about jammer's 
vacation it apparently doesn't matter since the eight votes received were 
enough to achieve quorum whether Jammer was active or not.

- --Mohammed

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #528
*******************************