Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #277
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Saturday, August 30 1997       Volume 02 : Number 277

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 21:42:47 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The HTML Standard Volume 1 number 4

The HTML Standard is proud to announce a playtest of two-star's (soon to 
be) proposed agenda condition submission and bidding system. If you are 
interested in testing out this (soon to be) proposed rule, please reply 
with three agenda conditions. All replies that are received in the next 
three days will be announced and a mock bidding session on them will be 
held among the participants. Valuable Mock Nemesis Eggplants and Agenda 
Hats will be distributed to all who participate.
Conditions should be in the form of statements whose truth or falsehood
depends on the game state. (Example: "The owner of the Agenda Hat 
associated with this agenda condition owns a prime number of entities") 
See two-star's This is a Grandiose RFC message for the mechanics of the 
hidden agenda rule.

The editor would like to note that the largest flaw in the proposal as 
RFC'ed is that it allows players to own agenda hats to be owned by, if 
not initially distributed to, the player who submitted the agenda 
condition. Please assume this is not the case when crafting your agenda 
conditions.

The HTML Standard
two-star, Editor.

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 10:33:39 -0700
From: Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The HTML Standard Volume 1 number 4

**Alexandre Muniz wrote:

> The editor would like to note that the largest flaw in the proposal as
> RFC'ed is that it allows players to own agenda hats to be owned by, if
> not initially distributed to, the player who submitted the agenda
> condition. 

That's just horrible. Please read this as, "The editor would like to
note that the largest flaw in the proposal as RFC'ed is that it allows
agenda hats to be owned by, if not initially distributed to, the player
who submitted the agenda condition."

**two-star
Editor, The HTML Standard.
Not a particularly good one. :(

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 20:51:13 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Where do we go from here

On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Notwithstanding the fact that the effect of this may be nil, I
> > suggest that the organization Vulcan [membership: /dev/joe,
> > Malenkai, ThinMan, Vynd] take the following actions:
> > 
> > (1)
> > Change the rules by deleting the fourth paragraph of rule 511.
> 
> I approve of this action.  As all members have done so, it happens.
> 

None of this happens. All these actions were taken by the alegged power
given to the Vulcan Party by Rule 1. Since the rule gives them no such
power, both by my arguments and my own, the Vulcans may delude themselves
into believing that this indeed happen, when if fact, none of it did, and
should they attempt to play the game as if it did, they will simply be
breaking the rules.  

Niccolo Flychuck
Free Acka

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 10:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Did I miss CFJ 450?

>>> I still hand code all html,
>> 
>> I hand-coded the CFJ files when I was doing them (though I used
>> templates which had the common parts all written out already). In
>> fact, I did this sort of thing for most of the pages -- only a few
>> special cases like the Player/Entity page were totally generated by
>> computer.

I'm trying to reach a happy medium where I hand-code the real content
and then generate the rest automatically.

> Yeah, that all sounds very familiar.  So far I'm not finding it all
> that overwhelming, which may be why I'm not encouraging Archie Leach
> more.  :-) But we'll see what happens when Acrobot goes up and the
> pent-up Proposals go surging forth.  At least I hopefully won't have
> to maintain the Current Props page anymore.

I should clarify something here. I am *not* setting up the old
Acrobot. Rather I am creating my own bot. One, I don't know Python,
and I don't have the time to learn yet another language or try to
maintain unfamiliar code. Two, I'm hoping to avoid some of the more
egregious problems that Chaos experienced with his setup.

>> But I had a nice computing environment I was comfortable with,
>> mainly because I was in control and set up everything I wanted
>> under Linux the way I wanted it.  If I had been more into putting
>> icons on my web page which show off my software, there would have
>> been a "powered by emacs" icon at the bottom of the main page
>> (together with the ones already there) and "powered by python" on
>> the PE page.

Yes, thank Stallman for emacs....

> I have to say here that the only reason there are any graphics on
> the Ackanomic web pages is because they were there before.  I tend
> to be opposed to the things in principle, from too many years of
> using lynx over 2400 baud connections.  (Okay, not that many years
> of lynx, but I was at 2400 baud for a long time.)  Still, if there
> are icons for being powered by vi and Perl...:-)

There *are* icons for being powered by Lynx out there, which I find to
be extremely funny.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 10:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Where do we go from here

> Proposal 2285 is hereby immediately deemed invalid.  The text "This
> is a rule of the Imperium." is hereby immediately appended to the
> text of Rule 1 as a seperate paragraph.  This paragraph is deleted
> from this rule immediately after all the other effects described in
> this paragraph are enacted.

Just a reminder, folks: CFJ 452 is a thread split, and these Vulcan
actions only occur in one thread. Please remember to vote on Proposal
2285 in case we're in the other thread.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee

> I've been wanting to do this for a long time...
> 
> The Spelling Bee is flying!  This should be remembered as the
> "publically" flight, as I dedicated myself mostly to stamping this
> nonword out wherever it occurred...:-)

My dictionary lists "publically" as a valid alternate spelling of
"publicly". This is why I didn't change those on the previous Spelling
Bee flight. Oh well.

> Rule 340, change "mispelled" to "misspelled"  {{[ I find this one
> particularly ironic...:-) ]}}

... Indeed.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vaguely weird things with my email.

> This is mostly for breadbox, I guess.  I seem to be getting
> responses to people's messages before I ge the messages themselves,
> at least some of the time.  I realize this isn't all that uncommon
> in the world at large, but since it only seems to have started
> happening to me for ackamail in the last day or two, I thought you
> might want to know.  I'm not on any digests, either, before you go
> check...

It sounds like some node between you and me is having problems, so
that half your mail is taking an alternate, longer route to you. I
have received no bounces or other warning emails in regards to your
address.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 15:34:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee

> My dictionary lists "publically" as a valid alternate spelling of
> "publicly". This is why I didn't change those on the previous Spelling
> Bee flight. Oh well.

If "publically" is in [either] official dictionary, then none of those
replacements happen, by my reading of rule 342.  My don't have telnet
now, so I cannot check it.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 23:37:28 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Otzma - not yet RFC

I have a couple of ideas that mgith make the management and creation of
Otzma Cards simpler. The current scheme worked fine for me, but as I am no
longer RuneMaker, nor do I have any interest to become RuneMAker again at
this point, one might consider making the creation of Otzma Cards and
maintenace thereof more simpler to any other person who might take this
was if it were not for the work involved.

1. OCID -  I see  no good use for them.  I thought they might make
tracking of uses and counter uses easier, but we can do that without
OCIDs. eliminating OCIDs might be a good idea.

2. LSAP - I want to keep that. Mostly I want to keep anything that would
tie the creation to the Game State. So other criteria would do. But this
one, together with the additional ways we have of creating Otzma Cards,
seem like a good idea.

3.Creation process - this is the real monster of this rule.
I propose the following  - which would still leave an element of
randomness, and give the RuneMaker some discretion

4. For each Card created there is a 50/50 chance between Determinsitc and
Probablistic. Deterministc is trivial, the RuneMaker can create any Card
for which an instance limit has not been reached.
For Probablistic
All cards have a default probability of Normal. All Cards that reached
their instance limit the probability is 0.
Cards may have a probability of Rare or Common.  Rareprobability is 1/3
Normal Probability, Common Probability is 3 times Normal Probability. This
is no more compicated than the Potato Determination as affected by the
Lamb, or the Purple Robeof Justice effect.

Furthermore, I intend to add a clause that all instance limits, both
individual and collective, are for Cards within Acka, as I intend to
introduce a new ETP proposal, and I see no reason that :1. we should track
entities once they left Acka or 2. That the existence of an entitythat
originated in Acka elsewhere should necessarily affect Game State or
actions.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 15:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee

>> My dictionary lists "publically" as a valid alternate spelling of
>> "publicly". This is why I didn't change those on the previous Spelling
>> Bee flight. Oh well.
> 
> If "publically" is in [either] official dictionary, then none of those
> replacements happen, by my reading of rule 342.  My don't have telnet
> now, so I cannot check it.

You're right; I forgot about that.

"Publically" is in fact listed at Marldoom.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 17:24:49 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee

> > My dictionary lists "publically" as a valid alternate spelling of
> > "publicly". This is why I didn't change those on the previous Spelling
> > Bee flight. Oh well.

> If "publically" is in [either] official dictionary, then none of those
> replacements happen, by my reading of rule 342.  My don't have telnet
> now, so I cannot check it.

I confess that I only checked the one, the Webster's, since I have a local
copy.  Let me check the other...

Damn.  The wretched nonword is considered valid by the second one.  I guess
that all that work was for nothing.  Something else for the Proposal, I
suppose.

There is _no_ reason by "publically" should be a word.  "Publical" is not a
word.  "Public" is an adjective, and adding -ly to it gives "publicly".  If
anyone can present me with a counterexample of a word in "-ally" for which
there is no "-al" form, and for which the base is an adjective, then...

I am creating a trinket called The Public Ally, worth A$29.  Its
description is as follows:

This altruistic-looking fellow looks like he's your friend, but his status
is based entirely on misperception.  He is wearing unusually thick clothing
to protect him from bee stings, and carries a bag of fake plastic Scrabble
tiles.

I am burying The Public Ally; the portion of the Map I am revealing
consists of the third paragraph preceding this one.  (Don't worry; if no
such word exists that I find acceptable, I have another clause that will
keep the Ally from being lost forever.)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Gordon Lightfoot:Summertime Dream
Current Book--Robert Silverberg:The New Springtime
The lab just called...your brain is ready.

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 16:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Spelling Bee Corrections

Besides the acceptability of "publically" (and I agree with Alfvaen
that it looks ugly, but rules are rules), there are a few other
Stingings that I believe are impermissible.

> Rule 412, change "records of the who owns" to "records of who owns"
> in a).

The Spelling Bee is not allowed to delete entire words.

> Rule 424, change "all-conclusive" to "all-inclusive".

The Spelling Bee may not change a word.

> Rule 1001, change "7 days conduct" to "7 days to conduct" in 3).
> 
> Rule 1131, change "the option acting" to "the option of acting" in
> the section paragraph of Section II
> 
> Rule 1080, change "to valid calls" to "to be valid calls" in 1.c.
> 
> Rule 1250.14, change "recognizable as form" to "recognizable as a
> form" in III.B.1), and "may not scope" to "may not have scope".
> 
> Rule 1303, change "When there more" to "When there are more" in 6.,
> "Profits are defines" to "Profits are defined as"

The Spelling Bee is not allowed to insert words.

> Rule 1001, change "resupublically" to "results publicly" in the
> second paragraph of 5.
> 
> Rule 1230.2, change "re-imbursement" to "reimbursement" in 2.D.,

These are marginal. I'm not sure if they're allowed or not.

With the possible exception of the last two (and leaving out the
"mispelled" Stinging on the assumption that Vulcan was successful in
undoing it), I think the full list of Stingings that were permissible
are as follows:

> Rule 218, change "occurences" to "occurrences" in the
> first(square-bracketed)paragraph, and "dealine" to "deadline" in the
> fourth paragraph.

> Rule 258, change "transferrence" to "transference" in the second
> paragraph.

> Rule 371, change "occured" to "occurred" every time it occurs (four
> times in the first paragraph, once in the third).

> Rule 412, change "Priveleges" to "Privileges" near the bottom.

> Rule 425, change "appoinment" to "appointment" in II.

> Rule 428, change "acccurate" to "accurate" in (a)

> Rule 505, change "concering" to "concerning" in III.

> Rule 509, change "unambigously" to "unambiguously" in the third paragraph

> Rule 516, change "remainer" to "remainder" in 1)b)

> Rule 620, change "infintesimal" to "infinitesimal" in the final paragraph.

> Rule 713, change "impossiblility" to "impossibility", "occurrance"
> to "occurrence", and "preceeding" to "preceding" in the third
> paragraph.

> Rule 843, change "relevent" to "relevant" in 6)

> Rule 846, change "Sumptous" to "Sumptuous" in the table.

> Rule 850, change "occurrances" to "occurrences" in VII.

> Rule 1001, change "seperately" to "separately" in the last paragraph
> of 5., and "alloted" to "allotted" twice in 3).

> Rule 1080, change "empower" to "empowers".

> Rule 1081, change "Comittee" to "Committee" in the title, and
> "anounces" to "announces" in the body.

> Rule 1082, change "logded" to "lodged" in the first paragraph

> Rule 1118, change "Paranoral" to "Paranormal" in the second
> paragraph.

> Rule 1131, change "Rulespresent" to "Rules present" in the second
> paragraph of Section I, change "Missle" to "Missile" and
> "Prresident" to "President" in the first paragraph of Section II,
> "Missles" to "Missiles" each time it appears(twice in the first
> paragraph and once in the second paragraph of Section II).

> Rule 1213, change "possesion" to "possession" three times in Rule
> C., and change "maintenence" to "maintenance" in the second
> paragraph of Rule H.

> Rule 1230.2, change "begining" to "beginning" in 3.A., "Privelege"
> to "Privilege" in 4.A., and "Swingers's" to "Swingers'" in 3.D.

> Rule 1230.18, change "controling" to "controlling" in 3.

> Rule 1240.14, change "Brueprint" to "Blueprint" in the second
> paragraph.

> Rule 1250, change "maintaiined" to "maintained" and "seperate" to
> "separate".

> Rule 1250.1, change "unambiguosly" to "unambiguously" in III.c.,
> "priveleges" to "privileges" in VI.c), "dissatisified" to
> "dissatisfied" in X., and "satisfiying" to "satisfying" in XI.

> Rule 1250.9, change "dicitonary" to "dictionary" in the third
> paragraph of 4.(3)

> Rule 1250.10, "Fictionary": change "inticing" to "enticing" in the
> opening square-bracketed text, "competion" to "completion" in the
> third paragraph of IV., "defintions" to "definitions" in IV.3) and
> IV.3b), and "recieve" to "receive" in IV.5b)

> Rule 1250.11, change "accorance" to "accordance" in the first
> paragraph of Rule 3.

> Rule 1250.12, change "crahses" to "crashes" in the third
> non-indented paragraph of IV.

> Rule 1250.13, change "correpsonding" to "corresponding" in IV.5)

> Rule 1250.14, change "athough" to "although" in III.A., "notifiying"
> to "notifying" in III.B.4), "unambigious" to "unambiguous" in
> III.B.8), "occurrance" to "occurrence" in III.D., "seperately" to
> "separately" in the second paragraph of IV., "replacment" to
> "replacement" in the first paragraph of V., and "beoming" to
> "becoming" in the fourth paragraph of V.

> Rule 1250.16, change "assignes" to "assigns" in Rule 1.

> Rule 1303, change "which was more" to "whichever was more" in the
> second paragraph of 8.

> Rule 1320, change "recieve" to "receive" in the third and fourth
> paragraphs, and "stoped" to "stopped" in the fifth paragraph.

> Rule 1321, change "suctions cups" to "suction cups" twice in the second
> paragraph.

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 17:51:32 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Tailor and Treasure Query

I am using my power as Beldin's Tailor to change the word "Beldin's", in
the phrase "Beldin's Parka", to "The".

Now, a query.  I've had an idea or two for web-based Treasures, where
participation in the Treasure would require WWW access, and perhaps a good
deal of surfing.  My questions are: Who does not have WWW access, and is
not likely to in the near future?  Who does not have _convenient_ WWW
access?  Who would be interested in such a Treasure?  And does anyone have
any good ideas for what I can do to make things more equitable for those
who have no Web access(a Treasure only for them, perhaps?)

Also, in semi-private email there was mentioned the possibility of forming
an Organization to hunt for the Runestones of Jukkasjarvi Treasure.  Anyone
who is interested in participating in this, let me know.  /dev/joe and I
have already sort of informally been cooperating.  I don't know if the
Rules allow Organizations to find Treasures; perhaps they should be able
to.  (And here I shot down Rex Mundi's suggestion of allowing them to be
able to _bury_ them...)

(This message is sent to acka-priv for convenience of email reply.  Keep
that in mind if you want the reply to go back to the list...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Gordon Lightfoot:Summertime Dream
Current Book--Robert Silverberg:The New Springtime
Thanks to brains, the new wonder head-filler!--Bluebottle

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 17:40:06 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: acka : Otzma - not yet RFC

> 1. OCID -  I see  no good use for them.  I thought they might make
> tracking of uses and counter uses easier, but we can do that without
> OCIDs. eliminating OCIDs might be a good idea.

Yes, definitely.  Unless some attributes of cards varies with OCID's,
they're pretty useless.

> 2. LSAP - I want to keep that. Mostly I want to keep anything that would
> tie the creation to the Game State. So other criteria would do. But this
> one, together with the additional ways we have of creating Otzma Cards,
> seem like a good idea.

Okay.  I believe that the "Burning Chrome" proposal made this one easy to
calculate by looking through the Proposal archives, but it should maybe be
a Duty of the Runemaker to keep track of this value.

> 3.Creation process - this is the real monster of this rule.
> I propose the following  - which would still leave an element of
> randomness, and give the RuneMaker some discretion

> 4. For each Card created there is a 50/50 chance between Determinsitc and
> Probablistic. Deterministc is trivial, the RuneMaker can create any Card
> for which an instance limit has not been reached.
> For Probablistic
> All cards have a default probability of Normal. All Cards that reached
> their instance limit the probability is 0.
> Cards may have a probability of Rare or Common.  Rareprobability is 1/3
> Normal Probability, Common Probability is 3 times Normal Probability. This
> is no more compicated than the Potato Determination as affected by the
> Lamb, or the Purple Robeof Justice effect.

Yes, this sounds much easier.  I'd probably support such a Proposal.  I
might even run for Runemaker.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Gordon Lightfoot:Summertime Dream
Current Book--Robert Silverberg:The New Springtime
History repeats itself because nobody listens.

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 17:59:32 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee Corrections

> > Rule 424, change "all-conclusive" to "all-inclusive".

> The Spelling Bee may not change a word.

Section 5c); "Replacing correctly spelled words with the word that was
intended".  "All-conclusive" is not only meaningless in general, if it even
exists, but was certainly not appropriate for the context.  I feel that
this one should go through.

> The Spelling Bee is not allowed to insert words.

> The Spelling Bee is not allowed to delete entire words.

Very well, then.  There will _definitely_ be a Spelling Bee proposal going
through here sometime; I realize that adding and deleting words in Rules is
something we don't want to make easy to do, but sometimes it just needs to
be done.  Maybe it's a CSR thing...:-)  Maybe there should at least be an
approval/disapproval process.  If I can't think of an easy way to change
the Rule to make it easy and yet mostly safe, I'll just submit them as
ordinary Rule changes in a Proposal.  Or several.

> > Rule 1001, change "resupublically" to "results publicly" in the
> > second paragraph of 5.

> > Rule 1230.2, change "re-imbursement" to "reimbursement" in 2.D.,

> These are marginal. I'm not sure if they're allowed or not.

The former, you're right; replacing misspelled word with _two_ correctly
spelled words is impermissible.  The latter, I believe that the former is
misspelled, and that it can be considered a single(hypenated)word.

> With the possible exception of the last two (and leaving out the
> "mispelled" Stinging on the assumption that Vulcan was successful in
> undoing it), I think the full list of Stingings that were permissible
> are as follows:

[deletia]

I guess I'll have to remove the non-permitted stingings on the Web page,
then.  And get to work on that Proposal.

So, since you're not just setting up Acrobot...are you going to give it a
new name?  I vote for "IdiotBot", if only because I always mistyped
IdiotBoy's name that way...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Gordon Lightfoot:Summertime Dream
Current Book--Robert Silverberg:The New Springtime
With great weakness goes great irresponsibility.

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 17:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee Corrections

>>> Rule 424, change "all-conclusive" to "all-inclusive".
>> 
>> The Spelling Bee may not change a word.
> 
> Section 5c); "Replacing correctly spelled words with the word that was
> intended".  "All-conclusive" is not only meaningless in general, if it even
> exists, but was certainly not appropriate for the context.  I feel that
> this one should go through.

Read, however, item (g) on the list of impermissible stingings, which
supersedes the first list. I don't think that you can argue that this
was a "spelling error or mistyped word".

The Spelling Bee is certainly not allowed to alter the meaning of a
Rule; its purpose is to change what is already covered by Rule 340.

> Very well, then.  There will _definitely_ be a Spelling Bee proposal
> going through here sometime; I realize that adding and deleting
> words in Rules is something we don't want to make easy to do, but
> sometimes it just needs to be done.

These kinds of changes should be done by proposals. /dev/joe has done
a series of "Things the Bee Can't Touch" proposals. (I had one in mind
myself, but by the time I was done with my list, the rules had changed
too much.)

>>> Rule 1001, change "resupublically" to "results publicly" in the
>>> second paragraph of 5.
>>> 
>>> Rule 1230.2, change "re-imbursement" to "reimbursement" in 2.D.,
>> 
>> These are marginal. I'm not sure if they're allowed or not.
> 
> The former, you're right; replacing misspelled word with _two_ correctly
> spelled words is impermissible.  The latter, I believe that the former is
> misspelled, and that it can be considered a single(hypenated)word.

I marked it as questionable because I'm not sure that unnecessary
hyphenation can count as a spellling error.

> So, since you're not just setting up Acrobot...are you going to give
> it a new name?  I vote for "IdiotBot", if only because I always
> mistyped IdiotBoy's name that way...:-)

That's a good one, but you may have noticed that I've already given it
the name "nomicbot". (After Wayne's nomicbot, the original one.)

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 20:39:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee Corrections

> I guess I'll have to remove the non-permitted stingings on the Web page,
> then.  And get to work on that Proposal.

I would recommend one big CSR as opposed to a proposal.  Fixing spelling
and grammar is not proposal material, IMO.

I propose the following longer term solution:

1) create the office of rulekeepor (not necessarily with the agoran accent)
2) nuke the spelling bee
3) along with the traditional duties one would give to a rulekeepor,
give them spelling bee privs.  It would be like merging the rulekeepor
and the spelling ex-exchequer

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 20:53:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee Corrections

On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > I guess I'll have to remove the non-permitted stingings on the Web page,
> > then.  And get to work on that Proposal.
> 
> I would recommend one big CSR as opposed to a proposal.  Fixing spelling
> and grammar is not proposal material, IMO.

Well, public sentiment seems to be in favor of a CSR for this.  I will see
what I can do, but I'm kind of busy right now.  Also, um, spelling and
pseudo-spelling errors are ubiquitous in the ruleset.  I can guarantee
that I will miss lots of them (I don't ahve the best reputation for
spelling and typos anyway:).  So for those of you who actually care, try
making a note of any of them that you find, and when you have a dozen or
two, send it on to me.  When I do start in on this kind of thing though,
it will probably only be a century or two of the rules at one time, no 15
page spelling correction messages from me.

> 
> I propose the following longer term solution:
> 
> 1) create the office of rulekeepor (not necessarily with the agoran accent)
> 2) nuke the spelling bee
> 3) along with the traditional duties one would give to a rulekeepor,
> give them spelling bee privs.  It would be like merging the rulekeepor
> and the spelling ex-exchequer
> 
> Malenkai
> 

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 18:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee

> There is _no_ reason why "publically" should be a word.  "Publical"
> is not a word.  "Public" is an adjective, and adding -ly to it gives
> "publicly".  If anyone can present me with a counterexample of a
> word in "-ally" for which there is no "-al" form, and for which the
> base is an adjective, then...

I wanted to provide a full twenty-six, but this is the best I could do
for now:

alcoholically
basically
civically
domestically
empathically
frantically
gothically
hypnotically
impressionistically
journalistically
kinetogenetically
laconically
melodically
neurotically
osmotically
pessimistically
realistically
schematically
telepathically
undemocratically
volcanically

Needless to say, I found many, many more such examples.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 21:21:41 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee Corrections

> Well, public sentiment seems to be in favor of a CSR for this.  I will see
> what I can do, but I'm kind of busy right now.  Also, um, spelling and
> pseudo-spelling errors are ubiquitous in the ruleset.  I can guarantee
> that I will miss lots of them (I don't ahve the best reputation for
> spelling and typos anyway:).

I wasn't exactly suggesting that *you* do it.  In the old
days, players other than the CSRR officer would submit CSRs
to the CSRR officer as if e was a promoter.  I did that all the
time if I though the proposal was too cheap to submit as a 
modest proposal.  Acka has kinda drifted away from that though.
If spelling and grammar changes, and other changes that do not 
change the way the game is played start going through the
proposal Q, then we should prolly nuke the CSRR; what would 
be the point.  I guess that was all I was trying to say.

My thought has always been -- proposals change the way the game
is played, CSRs do not.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 21:29:10 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee

> > There is _no_ reason why "publically" should be a word.  "Publical"
> > is not a word.  "Public" is an adjective, and adding -ly to it gives
> > "publicly".  If anyone can present me with a counterexample of a
> > word in "-ally" for which there is no "-al" form, and for which the
> > base is an adjective, then...

> I wanted to provide a full twenty-six, but this is the best I could do
> for now:

[deletia]
> basically

Well.  Obviously the weight of evidence is against me.  I can't deny the
existence and suitability of "basically" as a word, or that "basic" is an
adjective, or that "basical" isn't.  I guess that breadbox has found the
Public Ally.

Now I wonder why the practice caught on.  Hmmph.  Did people just think
"basicly" looked bad, or was it folk etymology on other "-ally" forms from
actual adjectives in "-al"?  I should go do some research on this one.  (Or
someone else can, if they want to...:-)

For the Treasure-Harfer, the map was something like(I hadn't written down a
hard-and-fast form for it...):

Anyone who can present a valid word to Alfvaen such that a) it ends in
"ally", b) the rest of the word is a valid adjective, and c) there is no
valid word remaining when the "ly" ending is removed, shall find the Public
Ally.  Alfvaen shall be the sole judge of what is a valid word[although I
won't be too picky about this].  If this treasure should remain unfound for
too long a time, due to a lack of such words, then the Public Ally shall be
found by the person to first find a Treasure buried by Alfvaen after he
decides the first part of this map is hopeless.

Obviously the second part wasn't necessary, but I don't want to ever bury a
Treasure whose condition it may be impossible to satisfy...and I think that
Rule 1217 implicitly forbids changing the Map after a Treasure is buried.
Not that anyone could tell, except possibly a Map Custodian from before the
change...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Rhythm, Country & Blues
Current Book--Robert Silverberg:The New Springtime
The Klein bottle is half empty, which is why I take all those colourful pills.

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 23:45:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee

> Now I wonder why the practice caught on.  Hmmph.  Did people just think
> "basicly" looked bad, or was it folk etymology on other "-ally" forms from

Why did people decide "golden", "redden", and "olden" were
cool, but bluen and chartreusen were right out?  There is actually
quite a bit of discussion of this sort of thing in the literature,
but the reason I am replying is to test my new 'net connection and
mail client, which I expect will produce unreadable gizz until I spend
countless years playing with arcane configuration params.

Please let me know if this has all sorts of line breaks, especially
in the quoted material.  My *own* mailer should be able to read it
fine, so I'll never know.  It seems whenever you upgrade, they make
things more complex, with little added value.

Malenkai
who wonders how redden became a verb

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #277
*******************************