Subject: ackanomic Digest V4 #134
From: [email-masked]
To: ackanomic digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 00:00 EDT

ackanomic Digest	Sunday, May 23 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 134

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

From: blank <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Still Cooking with Gas?
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 09:52:40 -0400 (EDT)

Hya All,

Is Ackanomic still alive? Activity has been steadily dropping since late
last year, to such a point that I would have no problem classifying
Ackanomic as dormant ... if not dead. However, the voting patterns on
recent proposals seem to indicate that there is still interest in
playing nomic, yet proposal submissions, in-game activities (and voting?
Sorry I haven't been paying enough attention lately :) don't really seem
to reflect this.

Why? What's holding everyone back? Prevailing opinion (by which I prolly
mean my own ;) seems to be that the rule set has become too complex and
cumbersome to be playable. Learning the rules consumes a sizeable
portion of a person's "nomic time" such that there is little left for
other activities. Similarly potential new players are prolly going
elsewhere rather than having to do battle with our monstrous rule set.
If size is the main problem, how small would the rule-set need to be (or
appear to be cf /dev/joe's recent RFC) to encourage activity? Only 13
rules from the current set are really "necessary" - apart from those the
sky's the limit... Personally I would like to retain a little more of
the current rule set tho.

Hands up who's in favour of continuing to play Ackanomic, what's
stopping you at the moment and how can we get the ball rolling? (
assuming your hand is in the air of course :)

* Rules necessary for operation as a nomic (most of these would need to
be significantly altered): 1, 1-1, 2, 2-1, 2-3, 3, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 4-1,
4-2, 6-4-1, 99

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

From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Speaker
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 14:40:00 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 20 May 1999, Gavin Logan wrote:

> Since no one is helping me out on this I've went and read the rules myself
> <sulk>. Ok, I'm assuming that r-attila the farce is currently acting
> Speaker. Now, Acting officers are not actually considered to "hold" their
> office therefore the office of speaker is technically vacant. So: I hereby
> call a nomination for the office of speaker. This should be conducted by
> President IdiotBoy. Is this correct?

Seems that way to me.

Slakko
-- 
Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/    Ackanomic     | U. of Cambridge
Web-Harfer, Clerk of the Court, Map-Harfer, Justice | 2nd Year PhD(PMa)

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

From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Just a query...
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 14:40:06 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 17 May 1999, Gavin Logan wrote:

> 
> >BTW
> >     As COTC is there a web page or anything that I have to maintain
> online?
> 
> I don't think so, though you have to keep track of the CFJ ineligibility
> list. There's probably a fairly up-to-date copy accessible from the web
> page. (Try to say that and keep a straight face.)

Actually, there is also the little matter of the CFJ Archive.  It should
be fairly easy to keep track of and update.

Slakko
-- 
Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/    Ackanomic     | U. of Cambridge
Web-Harfer, Clerk of the Court, Map-Harfer, Justice | 2nd Year PhD(PMa)

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

From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Still Cooking with Gas?
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 14:41:38 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 23 May 1999, blank wrote:

> Hya All,
> 
> Is Ackanomic still alive? Activity has been steadily dropping since late
> last year, to such a point that I would have no problem classifying
> Ackanomic as dormant ... if not dead. However, the voting patterns on
> recent proposals seem to indicate that there is still interest in
> playing nomic, yet proposal submissions, in-game activities (and voting?
> Sorry I haven't been paying enough attention lately :) don't really seem
> to reflect this.

People get busy.  I've been far too busy in RL to do anything more in Acka
than update the webpages (and that on a fairly hefty lag).  Acka is still
going - in fact it still has a loyal core of players.

> Why? What's holding everyone back? Prevailing opinion (by which I prolly
> mean my own ;) seems to be that the rule set has become too complex and
> cumbersome to be playable. Learning the rules consumes a sizeable
> portion of a person's "nomic time" such that there is little left for
> other activities. Similarly potential new players are prolly going
> elsewhere rather than having to do battle with our monstrous rule set.
> If size is the main problem, how small would the rule-set need to be (or
> appear to be cf /dev/joe's recent RFC) to encourage activity? Only 13
> rules from the current set are really "necessary" - apart from those the
> sky's the limit... Personally I would like to retain a little more of
> the current rule set tho.
> 
> Hands up who's in favour of continuing to play Ackanomic, what's
> stopping you at the moment and how can we get the ball rolling? (
> assuming your hand is in the air of course :)
> 
> * Rules necessary for operation as a nomic (most of these would need to
> be significantly altered): 1, 1-1, 2, 2-1, 2-3, 3, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 4-1,
> 4-2, 6-4-1, 99

The hard bit is agreeing on what rules define Acka's Ackaness, and
therefore deserve to be kept.

Slakko
-- 
Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/    Ackanomic     | U. of Cambridge
Web-Harfer, Clerk of the Court, Map-Harfer, Justice | 2nd Year PhD(PMa)

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Still Cooking with Gas?
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 15:56:40 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 23 May 1999, blank wrote:
> Why? What's holding everyone back? Prevailing opinion (by which I prolly
> mean my own ;) seems to be that the rule set has become too complex and
> cumbersome to be playable. Learning the rules consumes a sizeable
> portion of a person's "nomic time" such that there is little left for
> other activities. Similarly potential new players are prolly going
> elsewhere rather than having to do battle with our monstrous rule set.
> If size is the main problem, how small would the rule-set need to be (or
> appear to be cf /dev/joe's recent RFC) to encourage activity? Only 13
> rules from the current set are really "necessary" - apart from those the
> sky's the limit... Personally I would like to retain a little more of
> the current rule set tho.

For me it's just been a lot of stuff in RL sapping my time.   However, I
also agree that the rules have gotten cumbersome and that there is a lot
of cruft in there.

> Hands up who's in favour of continuing to play Ackanomic, what's
> stopping you at the moment and how can we get the ball rolling? (
> assuming your hand is in the air of course :)

I'm still interested, and in fact have been voting for most of the
proposals to dramatically alter/reduce the rules.

--JT

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

End of ackanomic Digest V4 #134
*******************************