Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #213
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Tuesday, July 22 1997        Volume 02 : Number 213

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 01:02:39 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chalice & Agendas

> I have to agree with Alfvaen on this one.  And with Malenkai, too.  The
> Jukkasjarvi treasure is too hard to find, period.  I don't buy this "if
> people were really interested, then they would have figured it out"
> arguement for a second.  All of Ackas best treasure hunters have taken a
> stab at it, many stabs, in some cases.

The problem with the attempts that I have seen is that they have not
seen the all necessary fragments, period.  I assure you that if a
reasonable treasure hunter saw *all* the fragments, they could solve
it.  In that sense, I stand by my comment that it is the same problem
as the keys, with a couple of differences.  The differences are that if
you are clever and lucky enough, you can do it without seeing *all* the
fragments (it was designed that way -- but that requires inferences
based on *other* attempts, and a little luck ... I still do not wish
to reveal more, until acka has decided to trash it), and that you can
steal fragments with a fairly easy entity to get (ie, a JMCL can be 
gotten for about 20% of the cost of a Museum win, and there are cheaper
ways, of course).

> For new
> players, there's just too much to learn from scratch, too many screwball
> messages, hints, clues, chaff, and then the fragments themselves. 

There is nothing but fragments and attempts.  What "hints, clues, and
chaff" are you referring to?

> I never much liked the fact that the Golden Frog was just tucked away in a
> treasure, especially one with this mind boggling behemoth of a treasure
> map.

That was my money to create the Frog, and my treasure.  Why is that
different than any other treasure?

> I can agree with Malenkai that perhaps simply getting the keys to
> the vault together is too easy a task to merit a win, but it still isn't
> exactly easy.  It would require a fair amount of time, effort, and guile.
> Tacking on the treasure map just makes it even harder, I often think of it
> as "Winning by treasure hunting" now, in my own twisted little head.
> except of course, it isn't, it's winngng by treasure hnting AND getting
> all the keys.

I still think its a reasonable winning condition.  I'll bet for an
investment of less than A$5000 (the cost of a Museum win), it can be
done (would *you* sell a fragment for A$200?), and with the possibility of
scamming or sponging off of someone else's attempt, possibly alot less.

> Well, first off, I don't see why there is any rush to get rid of it.  The
> keys can be kind of annoying, in that no one ever seems to track them
> properly,

That is enough reason, IMO :).   As for a rush, no rush, but I believe 
without proposal 2220, Synod would have festered unused and unfixed forever.
Its the same intent here -- spur some interest or can the thing.  Those
keys have not been voluntarily traded in several *months*.

> I havent seen any attempts to win via palindrome (thank god), but we're
> not scrambling to get that out of the ruleset are we?

There have been 2 attempts (1 for a win, actually).  The differences are
that the rule is simple, and has been tried, and no weekly harfing is 
required.

> He thinks that the Chalice is too easy to win by, without his treasure
> map to make it harder.

I did not say that.  Why am I always misquoted?  I said the condition
should not be trivial.

> I'd like to see the Chailce rule stick around, obviously.  what I think
> should go is this treasure business.  

Then submit the appropriate proposal.

> Furthermore, I don't like the fact that the Golden Frog is just a big old
> trinket with the right name.  I say ditch the treasure, and give the
> Frog a new home and better definition in the rules.

The Frog is my creation from way back, even before trinkets, and it has
a bit of acka history in it.  If you want to do this, use a different
name.  I will use the backdoor in the RoJ map to get the Frog back, and
let you provide your own vault divination proposal, if you would like.
Why don't you propose something?

It is my opinion that winning should be real difficult.  I guarentee
that finding the RoJ treasure and then getting the keys would be a
worthy win.  All I've seen is the magic number trashed so that wins
are real cheap, and really cool wins, like the Cheez-Whiz one, called
cheap.  What solution do you propose?

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 23:11:14 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chalice & Agendas

> 
> It is my opinion that winning should be real difficult.  I guarentee
> that finding the RoJ treasure and then getting the keys would be a
> worthy win.  All I've seen is the magic number trashed so that wins
> are real cheap, and really cool wins, like the Cheez-Whiz one, called
> cheap.  What solution do you propose?

The Superduperconducting Superdupercollider win.
That was an easy question.

**two-star

> 
> Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 23:37:34 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Player States 

Ackazens,

Chalmers, and sammy were voting players, as was lipid.

I cannot find ben's sign on message in my file.  I seem to remember him
being a voting player.  Perhaps mohammed could check the command I enetered
into his bot and see for certain?

Mr. Lunatic Fringe

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 08:19:47 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chalice & Agendas

> The Superduperconducting Superdupercollider win.
> That was an easy question.

The problem I had with that proposal was that there was no
gist section, and I really didn't understand it, and it seemed
like alot of harfing with no one assigned those duties.  I
would prolly vote for it if it were resubmitted with those things
fixed.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 10:07:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: OUCH!!

> 
> In the middle of downloading today's mail,  My system took a dump from a
> nearby lightning strike.  Everything's OK,  but I lost power just as the
> mail was being processed.  Therefore,  I have not recieved anything from
> Acka in the last 24 hors.  Couls someone please send me an update????

Last 2 days of acka-games + acka-research; more to come separately:

From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Games Digest)
To: acka-games-digest
Subject: Ackanomic Games Digest V2 #123
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Errors-To: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

Ackanomic Games Digest      Monday, July 21 1997      Volume 02 : Number 123

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 09:57:53 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Duel

> Has malenkai made a play in the Duel between him and myself?

No sorry.

I play "s".

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 10:36:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Lantern

> play: desk lamp

This is accepted and burned.  It is Vynd's turn.
Vynd has 2 cards.

Malenkai
barkeep

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 12:04:56 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Duel 

>I play "s".

su

Mr. Lunatic Fringe

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:45:41 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Duel

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 

> su

sui

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:43:31 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Duel 

Malenkai played : Sui

I play: Suic

Mr. Lunatic Fringe

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 23:46:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Duel

> I play: Suic

suici

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 20:44:53 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Duel 

>suici

suicid

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 00:39:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Duel

> suicid

suicida

Malenkai

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

End of Ackanomic Games Digest V2 #123
*************************************

From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest
Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #116
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Errors-To: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

Ackanomic Research Digest    Monday, July 21 1997    Volume 02 : Number 116

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 10:21:22 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2246

> Proposal 2246
> Internomic a la Vynd

> Ammend Section V to read in full:
> "
> In order to change the Attitude of Ackanomic toward any other member nomic
> of InterNomic, a vote must be held. Each Senator has one vote, each
> member of the People's Council for Internomic has one vote and the
> Liaison has one vote (if the Liaison is also a Senator, or a member of
> the People's Council for Internomic, e only gets one vote total).

Wouldn't a senator who is also a member of the PCfI get two votes?  I
see the loophole fixed for the Liaison, but not the senator.  Is this
the intent?

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 16:44:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2251

I was going to ask Niccolo Flychuck to start the next round in my duel
vs. Alfvaen, and I started thinking about what would happen if we didn't
manage to finish before I had to go on vacation.  Then I remembered that
Alfvaen had already gone on vacation and returned once during the duel.

So, I looked at Rule 1215 and I saw

      f. If a player who is currently engaged in Duel procedures goes on 
      Vacation or to Gaol he forfeits the duel. 

OK, fine, so what happens to a forfeited duel?

      3. Whenever a duel is forfeited,  the Challenged player loses 6
      points, and the Challenging player gains 6 points.  The Seconds scores
      are not changed in this case.

Hmm, I lost 6 points because Alfvaen forfeited??  Not good.  Thus P2251.

The score change happened back on July 9, so the posted final scores
were wrong by the above change.  This brings Alfvaen's score up
to 149, making it prime, but he is already the Mad Scientist so he
does not become Archaeologist (Calvin N Hobbes still does).

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 00:06:47 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Organizational burying

> > This is my first RFC, so I hope I've done everything right. This is
> > intended to allow organizations to bury treasure.
> 
> I'm unclear as to why organizations should be allowed to bury treasure in
> the first place.  In what way could an Organization be a Map Writer or
Map
> Custodian?  This seems like just another tax shelter attempt to me. 
[snip]
> 
Yes, it is a tax shelter, but it could also be used for other things. Like,
uh, stuff. Anyway, I like the idea of orgs being able to do most of the
things players can, like do traded, make profits, and even vote (unity
votes). As for on org being a map writer, why not? In Hunt a Resonant
Fungus (another nomic I play ;-)) organizations can be considered authors,
and, like I said, they already vote in Acka.

> > proposal Organizational Burying
> > 
> > This is a Modest proposal.
> > 
> > Prepend the following text to rule 1217, "Buried Treasure":
> > 
> > The term player as used in this rule also refers to any organization.
> > Any
> > action undertaken by a player in this rule may also be undertaken by an
> > organization in the usual fashion for organizational actions.
> 
> I will not support a Proposal like this without, at the least, a
> provision that, if an Organization buries a Treasure, the same
> penalties will apply if a member of that Organization retrieves it as
> would occur if a player find eir own Treasure.  (Or, probably, anyone
> who's been a member within the past week...) 
What kind of tax shelter would that be? ;-)

>And similarly if a player
> buries it an an Organization finds it(which this amendment would
> probably allow).  Also, only Organizations which may transfer other
> entities(like, perhaps, Churches or Orgs with Trade License)should be
> able to do this at all.
> 
The trade license thing is a good idea. I should have thought of that. But
then, that's what RFCs are for, I suppose.

I'll rewrite this soon, and resubmit.

> 
> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:13:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2251

On Sun, 20 Jul 1997, Acrobot wrote:

> Proposal 2251
> A Big Dingleberry I found while trying to figure out this duel thing
> /dev/joe
> 
> 
> This is a modest proposal.
> 
> Amend R1215, 'Duels', as follows:
> 
> Change section 3 to read:
> 
>   3. When a duel is forfeited, the player who forfeited loses 6 points,
>      and his opponent in the duel gains 6 points.  The seconds scores are
>      not changed in this case.
> 
> {{[ It now says:
> 
>      3. Whenever a duel is forfeited,  the Challenged player loses 6
>      points, and the Challenging player gains 6 points.  The Seconds scores
>      are not changed in this case.
> 
> but it is possible for the Challenging player to forfeit duels by going
> on vacation or to Gaol, by section 4f.  Alfvaen thus forfeited the
> tromino go duel back on July 9.
> 
> Also fix some stuff to ensure it is always well-defined who forfeits: ]}}
> 
> At the end of the 4th paragraph of section 2, change
>   "he is considered to have forfeited the Duel"
> to:
>   "the Challenged player forfeits the Duel"
> 
> 

Heh.  I was wondering when this would come up again.  My second proposal
ever was a patch for this same problem, but it was voted down.  I thought
about submitting it as a foolish proposal, but I'd decided to wait until I
ahd a chance to scam 6 points by going on vacation first. =)  Ah well.

                                     - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:17:02 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2225 rejected (Homing Entities)

> > Proposal 2225
> > Homing Entities
> > Calvin N Hobbes
> > 
> > Votes cast by active players:  16 / 18 = 88.888889%
> > Yes:  8    No:  7     Present:  1   ...Proposal rejected.
> > 
> > 
> > YES votes:
> > 	Malenkai
> 
> As of this proposal, Malenkai has won the cycle.  I am too busy now
> writing a paper on electrostatic precipitators to harf the end-of-cycle,
> but all the usual stuff happens.  I will calculate the end-of-cycle scores
> and post them, though, so others can figure out what else happens.

Maybe I missed the result of the CFJ that stated whether or not proposals
could be considered Modest if the declaration was in self-deletion braces,
but I believed that all the proposals that Malenkai allegedly points for
anti-voting on, ending the Cycle, were Modest.  I do not believe the Cycle
ended.  Yes, I believe that CFJ 414 established that self-deletion braces
do not make such a proposal non-Modest.

- - --
- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--John Denver:Greatest Hits Vol. 2
Current Book--Robert Jordan:The Dragon Reborn
Bad night to sleep in a eucalyptus tree.

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:21:35 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Modesty, scoring, and anti-voting

> Does anyone else agree that these things are broken?  Since I'd like
> to do away with both points and anti-voting, I'm not sure how much I
> can suggest, but if we want to keep this stuff, I would suggest the
> following:
> 
> 3 pts for a modest proposal, 1 point for a yes or *no* anti vote.

May not be a bad idea.

> I think Modesty is way overused -- mabye not overused, but overscored,
> when you consider the relative scoring of 5 points for the author and
> 0 points for anyone else (because 90% of then pass), and *no* anti-voting
> is worthless.  

I never use Modesty for voting purposes.  If the Proposal makes a minor
change to an existing Rule, I consider it Modest, otherwise not.

Also, I recall someone raising the point(when I submitted "False Modesty")
that Modesty was also useful for making sure that Proposals didn't get
rejected just because people anti-voted for points on them.  In that sense,
anti-voting may be problematic for getting proposals passed, but if we are
going to keep points(and I would like to), I think we should keep
anti-voting on some Proposals.  Maybe there needs to be another layer,
below Modest(Trivial?)--Modest proposals are 5 points to the author and 1
point to anti-voters, and Trivial proposals are 3 points to the author and
no points to anti-voters.

- - --
- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--John Denver:Greatest Hits Vol. 2
Current Book--Robert Jordan:The Dragon Reborn
Flung any good witches lately?

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 21:33:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2225 rejected (Homing Entities)

> but I believed that all the proposals that Malenkai allegedly points for
> anti-voting on, ending the Cycle, were Modest.  I do not believe the Cycle
> ended.

Yes anti-voting counts on rejected Modest proposals.  Can you find rule
or CFJ to support you position?  From rule 207:

      IV. Scoring on Rejected Proposals
      If a proposal is rejected, but meets quorum, the player who proposed
      it loses 7 points and every player who voted YES on it
      receives 3 points. 

Malenkai
unrepentant anti-voter who wants to eliminate anti-voling

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:35:50 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2251

> I was going to ask Niccolo Flychuck to start the next round in my duel
> vs. Alfvaen, and I started thinking about what would happen if we didn't
> manage to finish before I had to go on vacation.  Then I remembered that
> Alfvaen had already gone on vacation and returned once during the duel.
> 
> So, I looked at Rule 1215 and I saw
> 
>       f. If a player who is currently engaged in Duel procedures goes on 
>       Vacation or to Gaol he forfeits the duel. 

Oh, poot.  I thought I'd checked that.  <sigh>  I think that, on balance, I
shouldn't have gone on Vacation after all.  Oh, well.

> OK, fine, so what happens to a forfeited duel?
> 
>       3. Whenever a duel is forfeited,  the Challenged player loses 6
>       points, and the Challenging player gains 6 points.  The Seconds scores
>       are not changed in this case.
> 
> Hmm, I lost 6 points because Alfvaen forfeited??  Not good.  Thus P2251.

No, not good...well, except for my score.  Especially since I did not
expect to win the Duel anyway.  :-)

> The score change happened back on July 9, so the posted final scores
> were wrong by the above change.  This brings Alfvaen's score up
> to 149, making it prime, but he is already the Mad Scientist so he
> does not become Archaeologist (Calvin N Hobbes still does).

Except that the Cycle hasn't ended yet.

- - --
- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--John Denver:Greatest Hits Vol. 2
Current Book--Robert Jordan:The Dragon Reborn
The Salmon Of Correction:  A useful creature for whapping those who annoy you.

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 20:45:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2225 rejected (Homing Entities)

Alfvaen wrote:
> Maybe I missed the result of the CFJ that stated whether or not proposals
> could be considered Modest if the declaration was in self-deletion braces,
> but I believed that all the proposals that Malenkai allegedly points for
> anti-voting on, ending the Cycle, were Modest.  I do not believe the Cycle
> ended.

No, you missed the fact that the scoring on rejected proposals is not
affected by modesty.  There is, and always has been, scoring for
YES anti-votes on modest proposals that are rejected.

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:52:51 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2225 rejected (Homing Entities)

> > but I believed that all the proposals that Malenkai allegedly points for
> > anti-voting on, ending the Cycle, were Modest.  I do not believe the Cycle
> > ended.
> 
> Yes anti-voting counts on rejected Modest proposals.  Can you find rule
> or CFJ to support you position?  From rule 207:
> 
> 
>       IV. Scoring on Rejected Proposals
>       If a proposal is rejected, but meets quorum, the player who proposed
>       it loses 7 points and every player who voted YES on it
>       receives 3 points. 

I was just mustering my arguments, and evidence, when I took a good hard
look.  You're right, rejected modest proposals give points for anti-voting.

I say once again(at least, I believe I have before)that I think the
phrasing of Rules 207 and 209 with respect to each other is utterly
abominable.  Perhaps the two Rules should be integrated for greater
clarity.  I will hopefully RFC this soon, because this really, really,
really bugs me.  IMHO, the scoring determinations on various types of
Proposals should be consistent and symmetrical for both passed and rejected
Proposals.  Modest proposals should be penalized less if rejected;
Grandiose proposals should be penalized more if rejected.  Otherwise,
what's the risk?  Something intangible like "greater/lesser chance of
passing"?  I still am not sure I have observed this phenomenon.  (I suppose
I can't see it working with Literature, though...)

- - --
- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--John Denver:Greatest Hits Vol. 2
Current Book--Robert Jordan:The Dragon Reborn
Toothpaste and an orange.  It's a bad idea.

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:54:39 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2255

> Repeal Rule 42, "Revenge of Life, the Universe, and Everything"
> Repeal Rule 938  "We Shall Inherit The World!"
> Repeal Rule 1322 "Doomsday! Part II"
> Repeal Rule 1324 "More Blatant Elitism"
> Repeal Rule 1326 "Gimme that Gnome yet again"
> Repeal Rule 2103 "Doomsday! Part II"
> Repeal Rule 2104 "More Blatant Elitism"
> Repeal Rule 2105 "Universal Nomic Strikes Back!"
> Repeal Rule 2106 "Gimme that Gnome yet again"
> 
> {{[listed twice because that is the way they are in the rules document.
> The one that is wrong will fail.  Also, I have no idea why they were in
> the 1300s, any renumbering should have put them in the 1100's]}}

Proposal 2199 renumbered the 2100's proposals into the 1300's.  By the way,
I believe that this made the Aliens determination on Monday invalid, since
I saw a 1900-something in there...

- - --
- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--John Denver:Greatest Hits Vol. 2
Current Book--Robert Jordan:The Dragon Reborn
BIG HONKIN' MUONS--The new release by Larry 'Bud' Niven!

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #116
****************************************

From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest
Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #117
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Errors-To: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

Ackanomic Research Digest    Tuesday, July 22 1997    Volume 02 : Number 117

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 08:06:39 -0400
From: jordan james <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka:  Proposal 2251

- - -----Original Message-----
From:	John Frederic Mc Coy [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Sunday, July 20, 1997 7:13 PM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re: Acka:  Proposal 2251

On Sun, 20 Jul 1997, Acrobot wrote:
> Proposal 2251
> A Big Dingleberry I found while trying to figure out this duel thing
> /dev/joe
>
>
> This is a modest proposal.
>
> Amend R1215, 'Duels', as follows:
>
> Change section 3 to read:
>
>   3. When a duel is forfeited, the player who forfeited loses 6 points,
>      and his opponent in the duel gains 6 points.  The seconds scores are
>      not changed in this case.
>
> {{[ It now says:
>
>      3. Whenever a duel is forfeited,  the Challenged player loses 6
>      points, and the Challenging player gains 6 points.  The Seconds 
scores
>      are not changed in this case.
>
> but it is possible for the Challenging player to forfeit duels by going
> on vacation or to Gaol, by section 4f.  Alfvaen thus forfeited the
* tromino go duel back on July 9.
* I thought Alvfaen just went away for the weekend without officially 
putting himself on vacation
* -Karma
>
> Also fix some stuff to ensure it is always well-defined who forfeits: ]}}
>
> At the end of the 4th paragraph of section 2, change
>   "he is considered to have forfeited the Duel"
> to:
>   "the Challenged player forfeits the Duel"
>
>

Heh.  I was wondering when this would come up again.  My second proposal 
ever was a patch for this same problem, but it was voted down.  I thought 
about submitting it as a foolish proposal, but I'd decided to wait until I 
ahd a chance to scam 6 points by going on vacation first. =)  Ah well.

- - - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:01:26 -0700
From: Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2256

What happens to the keys if the rule is repealed? I assume they stick
around-- the badges of many thanks (and possibly the pulse shovel) are
precedent-- but they would not remain tradeable. What happens if a
buried nontradable entity is found? I am not against ditching the rules,
but I would like to have the keys remain and remain tradable as
reminders of a historical rule. This was the same justification I had
for keeping the half-a-chip: it certainly wasn't hurting anyone or
creating any loopholes; it was merely a reminder of a time when it was
possible to create such a thing. The rules may be obsolete, but I do not
think we should erase history when we repeal obsolete rules.

> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 20:22:00 -0500
> From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Acka:  Proposal 2256
> 
> Proposal 2256
> vault: not found
> Malenkai
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> {{[this is like the Synod was when proposal 2220 was submitted,
> a complex, unused rule.  Perhaps this proposal will spur interest
> and proposals to simplify and repair (as 2220 did), perhaps not and
> acka will decide to eliminate the rule.  In any case, same comments I
> made in the proposal 2220 debates apply here too, nothing more, no
> need to rehash them.  It is still my opinion that a useable rule,
> (meaning a rule meant to be used in the course of normal, as opposed
> to extradordinary gameplay, should be either used or repealed, if its
> been around awhile.]}}
> 
> - -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Repeal rule 607, "Winning by Finding the Crystal Chalice"
> Repeal rule 607.1, "Vault Divination"

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #117
****************************************

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 10:11:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: OUCH!!

> 
> > 
> > In the middle of downloading today's mail,  My system took a dump from a
> > nearby lightning strike.  Everything's OK,  but I lost power just as the
> > mail was being processed.  Therefore,  I have not recieved anything from
> > Acka in the last 24 hors.  Couls someone please send me an update????
> 
> Last 2 days of acka-games + acka-research; more to come separately:

That'll teach me to watch who I send mail to; sorry everybody who didn't
need to see this.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:39:00 EDT 
From: [email-masked] (Ed  Graham)
Subject: Acka: Re: Proposal 2256

As the writer of the "original" Crystal halice Rule,  way back when,  I
have one comment on Prop 2256:

PLEASE,  PLEASE,  PLEASE,  PLEASE  get rid of this Rule!

When I first wrote it,  I envisioned a puzzle that would require none of
the previous mathematical or programming expertise required buy most
Treasure hunts.  Rather it should have taken a little deviousness and
Diplomacy-like skill in collecting the Keys.  The idea was to accumulate
sufficient points and entities thast eventually you could end up being
the only eligible Player with all the Keys.  By burying one of the Keys, 
and subsequent ammendments to the Rule,  the entire "flavour" of the
Crystal Chalice has changed.

Add to this the fact that I have not seen a single Player even make the
attempt at gathering the Keys (admittedly made more dificult by burying
one of them)  leads me to believe that this was a poorly thought out
puzzle to begin with.  While I,  as well as Malenkai and others,  think
there should be other ways to Win other than by Points and PWCFJ's,  the
fact that Malenkai,  who has managed to win a Cycle by just about every
other means available hasn't been able (or possibly willing) to win via
the Crystal Chalice tells me we need to come up with newer,  more
original and thoughtful methods.

One idea I am particularly fond of is the "hidden agenda"  that's been
bandied about.  Another is a possibility of a "Super treasure Hunt"  that
incorperates difficult,  yet attainable puzzles that do not require
extensive knowledge of mathematics,  programming languages,  any
scientific knowledge above the eighth grade level,  or obscure quotations
from Lithuanian talk radio broadcasts.

VG
to MS14

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 12:30:14 -0400
From: jordan james <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: A New Me

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Aaron V. Humphrey [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Tuesday, July 22, 1997 12:57 AM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Acka: A New Me

Okay, I'm sending this from my new account.  Anyone who's not 100% 
convinced
that it's me can ask me for something private...:-)  The address is
[email-masked] (you can tell I got to choose it myself...:-),
which should be moderately easy to remember.  I suppose I'll be subscribing
to all the mailing lists from here...my only trepidation so far is that the
setup here doesn't seem to allow the obtaining of mail without a POP
client, and I don't know if I have one of those for when I'm logged on in
Linux.  (Anyone who knows of a good POP client for Linux, let me know.)
Otherwise, I'll only be able to read email in Windows, and that's just a
bit unacceptable.  (If I have to, I'll hack one up myself in Perl.  I've
got the RFC's around somewhere...)

Anyway.  I would like to request that my old email address be changed to
this one in all places where it occurs, and, as I said, the mailing lists
I'll do myself.  I'll have mail forwarding set up at Terranet as long as
that stays up...

- --
- --Alfvaen (No web page set up yet)
Current Album--Ray Stevens:I Have Returned
Current Book--Robert Jordan:The Dragon Reborn
[Random tagline generator program temporarily unavailable]

HEEEE! HAAAA! I got to hand it to you Alvfaen this is the funniest tagline 
yet. Whoo . Yer too much man I wan't to join yer church. It must be a hoot.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #213
*******************************