-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MORNINGTON NOMIC Proposals for Voting on in Year Two, Week Two -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 338 - Non-Psychic News [Amendment] Amend Rule 0.4.5 (Proposal Enactment), from:- "A newly enacted Proposal takes effect only at the moment of the completion of the Voting on that Proposal, when that Proposal passes the voting requirements. No Proposal may have any retroactive effect, explicit or otherwise. The wording of the Proposal has no effect until the completion of the above Vote." to:- "A newly enacted Proposal takes effect at the moment at which end-of-Week Voting Results are published on the mailing list by the Speaker (or, in the case of Emergency Proposals, the moment at which the Judge declares eir Vote). No Proposal may have any retroactive effect, explicit or otherwise. The wording of a Proposal has no effect until it has enacted." { Comments: Having the Week draw to a close at midday Thursday and changes to the Ruleset not published until a day later is rather unhelpful. And until the Speaker gets eir typing speed up to infinity, the original wording is always going to be somewhat unrealistic and problematic. } -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 339 - Another Mundane Stacking Job [Other, Multiple] Reword Rule 1.14.1 (Stacks of Fun) to read:- In a Game of Mornington Crescent, Tokens may be Stacked in a pile at certain Stations, either for future collection or to achieve some other defined effect. A Game's Token Stacks should be listed in a section of the Game State Document, Tokens themselves ascending left-to-right, with the following example format:- +--------------------+--------------+ +--------------------+--------------+ | Dollis Hill | BrSiGo | | Euston | ReSi | | Finchley & Frognal | GoSiBrReBuBu | | Morden | BlBlBl | +--------------------+--------------+ +--------------------+--------------+ (i.e. For Dollis Hill, the top Token in the Stack is a Gold.) Stacks of Tokens may be Shunted as though they were Players. This is performed in the usual way; the Name of the Stack being 'Token Stack'. It is illegal to shunt Token Stacks to Stations which already have Token Stacks on them. Reword the Rule "Token Dropping"; Any Player may perform the Move Action of "[ Token on ]" to place a Token onto a Token Stack, where "" is a colour of Token which the Player possesses, and "" is the location of the Actioning Player's Piece. When a Token is placed upon a Token Stack, it is removed from Token Table in the Game State Document, and added to the top of the specified Stack. A Player may not place a Token on a Stack if it already has six Tokens in it, or if it would be the first Token of a Stack and there are already twelve Token Stacks in play. If this means that there are no valid locations for a Token to be dropped, that Token is destroyed, as are the bottom Tokens of all Token stacks. Reword the Rule "Token Claiming"; Any Player may perform the Move Action of "[Claiming a Token from ]" to claim the top Token from a Token Stack, where "" is the colour of the Token claimed, and "" is the location of the Actioning Player's Piece. This Action may be performed more than once during a Turn, but not for the same Station. When a Token is claimed from a Token Stack, the top Token is removed from the Token Stack, and added to the appropriate row and column of the GSD's Token Table. { Comments: A second stab at rewording the whole Token Stack bit to something a bit more intuitive and sense-making... } { Speaker's Comments: After last Week's "Mundane Stacking Job" was Voted through despite discussion of it being quite rubbish and broken, a Point of Order has amended "Enact a new Rule" to "Reword the Rule", and adjusted the reference to Rule 1.14.1, in this new Proposal. } -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 340 - Synchronise Watches [Amendment] Amend Rule 1.13.1 (The Richard Whiteley Experience), replacing:- "Each active Player subsequently adds 1 hour to the Game Time on the Game State Document when e makes eir Move." with:- "Each active Player subsequently adds 1 hour to the Game Time on the Game State Document at the start of eir Turn, prior to any Pre-Move Actions." { Comments:- Neater to put it forward at the start of the Turn, I think - "when e makes eir Move" is a trifle ambiguous, from the point of view of Lines being closed at certain times, and things. Thinking about it, we could really use a bulleted "You must (or may) do these things in this order during your turn" list, along the lines of the one I had sketched for the old HTML ruleset ("Perform any number of pre- Move Actions. Make your Move. Perform any number of post-Move Actions. Collect Token Bonuses."). I'll perhaps put a proper Proposal together for next week, when more time avails itself. -- Kevan } -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 341 - For the Sake of Tradition [Other, Multiple] [LURK] Certain terms of reference are specific to the Game of Mornington Crescent, and although regarded as archaic in some quarters their use should be encouraged (although the standard terms of reference, for the purpose of these Rules, shall be the modern ones.) Thus, it is proposed that a player who uses any of these archaic terms shall receive 1 Kudos Point per game per term. Current archaisms are: Tokens - "Podumes". Shunting a Token Stack - "Blonking" that Stack. Passing, with a Comment attached to the Move of Passing - "Farkling". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 342 - On Behalf of the MCC [Enactment] Create a new Rule, numbered 2.0.1, titled "Club Structure", with the following CLUBBY-delimited text: CLUBBY Mornington Crescent, being a game played by groups of people, has developed a club structure. Any player of Mornington Nomic may state that they are a member of a particular club. If more than two people are members of the same club at the same time, then their club membership shall be recorded, ideally in a Webpage available from the main Mornington Nomic webpage. Note: This rule is designed to encourage development of club structure, to aid in Partnership and inter-Club Play. CLUBBY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 343 - It's Quicker Than Walking [Other, Multiple] [Enactment: The One With the Copper-Coloured Top] There shall be a Pre-Move Action of Using Batteries which a Player may use to move eir Piece along a section of Line which has suffered Power Failure by expending Tokens to power the train. The Action is played as follows: [Using Batteries to ] where is a Station on the line suffering Power Failure, or on a connecting line also suffering Power Failure. The Action may only be played on a Line or Lines suffering Power Failure. The maximum number of Stations which may be travelled in this manner is the same as the maximum Line Velocity increase defined in Rule 1.6.1. If the Player makes a normal Piece Move after a Using Batteries Action, the maximum increase in Line Velocity is reduced for that Piece Move by the number of Stations traversed by Using Batteries. Movement Using Batteries is governed by the same Rules as normal Piece Movement with respect to route validity and Token costs and bonuses. Line Changes are permitted during Using Batteries movement, provided that the Line changed to is also suffering Power Failure and that other rules governing Line Changes are also satisfied. The Player's LV after Using Batteries is always zero. For example, here Rushton cannot increase his LV by more than two upon reaching the Central Line (assuming a maximum LV increase of three): Rushton: Russell Square (PD) Garden: Green Park (PD) [Power Failure (PD)] Rushton: [Using Batteries to Holborn] [LV+2] Oxford Circus (CN via PD) { Comment: Using Batteries is Pre-Move to allow the Player to move away from the section of line which has suffered the Power Failure onto a normally powered section. The LV change limit is there to stop people extending the Turn with Blues and playing Using Batteries to go a long distance, then doing a normal Move as well. The downside with making this Pre-Move is that a Player cannot Move onto a section suffering Power Failure, then play Using Batteries to move a little further. However, the Power Failure Rule prevents this manoeuvre in any case, so it's not really much of a loss. There's nothing here to prevent a Player Using Batteries to Mornington Crescent. This is entirely deliberate. } [Amendment: That'll Be Four Ninety Five, Please] Add a row to the Action table in Rule 1.7.2 (Pre-Move Actions) expressing the information that [Using Batteries to ] has a duration of 20 minutes per Station traversed, and a Token Cost of 2 Bronze Tokens per Station traversed. { Comment: I'm with Jonathan on this - Power Failure is too crippling right at the moment. The rationale behind the long duration is that if a Player has to keep changing batteries that it's going to take a while. I know this is yet another use for the already overloaded Bronze Token, and that Black Tokens would be a more appropriate Token type in terms of the Token classifications, but somehow the idea of Bronze batteries just seems so right } -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 344 - Kudos Rework [Amendment] Amend Rule 0.9.1 (Kudos) by inserting the following paragraph after the first: "A Player's Kudos score for each Week is calculated by determining the Kudos earned for that Week and adding that to half of the previous Week's Kudos score. If a Player is Inactive at the end of the Week, no changes shall be made to eir Kudos." Further, amend paragraph 3 (formerly 2) of the same Rule to read: "When a Player joins the game of Mornington Nomic, e starts with a Kudos score of zero and is considered to have had a Kudos score of zero in the previous Week also." { Comment: The motivation for this change is simple - there is currently no way for those who have joined recently to catch up in their Kudos scores since the primary mechanism for resetting Kudos scores (that of setting Kudos to zero at the end of a Game) was removed when we went to a multi-game structure. This isn't a perfect formula, but it has the benefit of reflecting the recent Kudos activities of the Player whilst reducing the significance of deeply historical incidents. The ideal basis for this calculation would (in my view) be some kind of rolling average of the last five Weeks' Kudos scores, but this requires that the last five Weeks' Kudos scores be maintained somewhere for every Player. Obviously, this could be gathered from the previous Voting Results document, but it would be an onerous activity. } -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 345 - Mixed Messages [Other, Multiple] { Comment: This Proposal is intended to expunge the conflicts remaining between the modified token costs following the great Token reorg and the Rules defining the Actions (as discussed on the list). The basic approach is to remove references to Token costs from the defining Rules entirely so that the Token/Action tables not only become the final arbiters, but also the only place where such things are recorded. There are already many Rules in the Ruleset which contain no reference to their cost, either because it was deliberately omitted during formulation of the Rule or because a cost has been introduced retrospectively, and they seem quite happy. I can only apologise for the length of this Proposal, but it is changing many existing Rules and I thought it fairer to try to include complete paragraphs rather than asking Kevan to re-format based on sentence changes. { Speaker's Comments: Fair, wise, and appreciated. } } [Amendment: Listen to ME!] Amend Rule 1.4.1 (Token Gesture) by adding the following text immediately prior to the token table: "Token costs defined in this token table and in other similar tables within this ruleset (for instance the Action tables described in Rule 1.7.1 et seq) take precedence over token costs defined elsewhere." { Comment: An element of back-covering, partly in case I've missed anything and partly to avoid future enactments buggering it all up. } [Enactment: Token Play At That Game] "Where Proposals define or modify Token costs or gains in Rules other than the Token table in Rule 1.4.1 or other similar tables, the Speaker is empowered to remove those references to Token costs within the Proposals provided that these costs are recorded in an equivalent entry in a suitable table." { Comment: I've made this a separate enactment for two reasons: because I'm unconvinced that this bit of text should be in Rule 1.4.1 when it refers directly to the Speaker and Proposals (as it must do); and in order to preserve the title as a Rule name! The wording on removal of Token costs from Proposals may seem a little mealy-mouthed, but the intention is to allow the Speaker to *not* move a cost if necessary (cf note on 1.4.10 below). } { Comment: the following amendments not only have outstandingly unimaginative names, but also mostly remove reference to token costs. This is consistent with many other Rules which cost Tokens but do not make reference to such costs in their text. The exceptions are where removing reference to cost would destroy the meaning of the Rule, or where special explanation is required. There is a naming convention of sorts - a Proposal ending in 'Cost' only removes a Token cost reference; one ending in 'Miscellany' does something else as well (only small things, I promise!) Note that these amendments are in numerical order of the Rules they're amending. } [Amendment: Railcard Cost] Amend Rule 1.4.5 (Railcard) so that its first sentence reads as follows: "A Player may perform the Action of "[Buying Railcard]" if e has Played a Move of "Pass" during that Turn." [Amendment: Hat Knocking Cost] Amend Rule 1.4.6 (You Can Leave Your Hat On) so that its last paragraph reads as follows: "Any Player may perform the Action [Knocking Hat off ]. Knocked Hats are discarded and may not be kept by the Player performing the Hat-Knocking Action." { Comment: Note of omission - Rule 1.4.10 makes reference to a 50 token cost (as well as a 3 Gold gain) but it's integral to the structure of the Rule so this cost reference has not been removed. } [Amendment: Black Belt Cost] Amend Rule 1.4.13 (Black Belt in No-Kan-Du) so that its first paragraph reads as follows: "Any Player may perform the ten-minute neutral Action of "[Purchasing Money Belt]", at any Station." BUGBUG Need to update Action table to reflect this cost. { Comment: Note of omission - Rule 1.4.14 contains a table defining the costs. Seems best to leave that, really. } [Amendment: Septimus Cost] Amend Rule 1.7.5 (Septimus Divergence) so that its first paragraph reads as follows: "A Player may perform the action "[Septimus Divergence]" is e has Moved to Seven Sisters during eir Turn." [Amendment: Gapminding Miscellany] Amend Rule 1.7.7 (Gapminding Cost) so that its first paragraph reads as follows: "A Player may perform the Action "[Mind the Gap]" or the Action "[Ignore the Gap]"." { Comment: note that this amendment also removes some conflicting timing information - originally Gapminding was a Post-Move Action, but has been changed now to be Neutral. } [Amendment: Power Failure Cost] Amend Rule 1.7.8 (Power Failure) so its first paragraph reads as follows: "During eir Turn, any Player may perform the post-Move action "[Power Failure! ()]", where "" is the Line Code of the Actioning Player's most recent Move." [Amendment: British Rail Travel Cost] Amend Rule 1.7.9 (British Rail Travel) as follows - Change the first paragraph to read thus: "A Player may perform the Action of "[Visiting ]", where Place is any British Rail Station in Great Britain. This Action may only be performed if the Player is at an Overground Station, and has played "Pass" as eir Move this Turn." Change the third paragraph to read thus: "A Player may perform the Action of "[Late Arrival from ]", where Place is any British Rail Station in Great Britain." [Amendment: Maelberging Cost] Amend Rule 1.7.17 (Maelberg Variance) as follows - Change the first paragraph to read thus: "A Player may perform the post-Move Action of "[Maelberging ]", provided that "" is a Station which the Actioning Player's Piece has passed through during eir Turn." Change the second paragraph to read thus: "A Player may perform the post-Move Action of "[Un-Maelberging]", provided that eir Piece is situated at a Maelberged Station. The Actioning Player gains the number of Tokens paid by the Maelberging Player when e performs this Action." { Comment: Can't really refer to token gains in the Token costs table... } [Amendment: Dollis Hill Cost] Amend Rule 1.8.1 (Dollis Hill Loop) so that the second bullet point reads as follows: "* Play a [Dollis Sidestep] Action." [Amendment: Proctor & Gambol Cost] Amend Rule 1.8.2 (Parks and Greens Cascade) so that its third paragraph reads as follows: "If a Cascade is in effect during eir Turn, that Player must play a Station that is a Park or a Green Station, or play a [Cascade Sidestep] Action." [Amendment: Bridges Cost] Amend Rule 1.8.3 (Bridges) so that its third paragraph reads as follows: "A Player may, during eir move, perform the Action of "Bridges Up" or "Bridges Down", changing the Bridges state accordingly." [Amendment: Knip Cost] Amend Rule 1.8.4 (Knip) so that its second paragraph reads as follows: "A Player may, during eir move, perform the Action of "[Into Knip]" or "[Out of Knip]", changing the Knip State accordingly." [Amendment: Wild Cost] Amend Rule 1.11.1 (Born to be Wild) so that its second paragraph reads as follows: "Any Player may Move directly to a Wild Station, signifying this manoeuvre with the Action "[Wild]". A Player may not perform a Wild Move to a Wild Station if that Station is occupied by another Player, if that Station is Blocked, or if it is another Player's Home Station. The Player moves directly to the Wild Station and has eir LV set to zero - this takes precedence over any Rules which would make Moving to the Station an illegal Move." [Amendment: Time Miscellany] Amend Rule 1.13.2 (Get a Move On) to read as follows: "Any Player may pay to perform the pre-Move action of advancing Game Time by n hours; this action is expressed in the format [Game Time: +0n00]. This Action shall have the effect of extending the permitted length of the Player's Turn by n hours of Game Time." { Comment: I've also taken the opportunity to fix a mistake in this Rule about Player Turn extension, where it should really extend the turn by n hours rather than just the one. } [Amendment: Drone Cost] Amend Rule 1.15.1 (Nyurmenyurmenyurmen) so that its second paragraph reads as follows: "Any Player except the drone may perform the action "[Drone Keeper]" provided that the current Drone Keeper has played the Drone's Move since e last became Drone Keeper." [End of Mixed Messages] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 346 - Ghost Stations, rule 1.7.11, to be deleted and completely re-written - seriously major [Other, Multiple] *Rule 1.7.11 (Ghost Stations) Completely rewritten: delete tyhe entire text and replace with the following: "There are certain stations on the Underground which have closed, and are known as Ghost Stations. These are as follows: Aldwych (PD, separate branch, must interchange at Holborn to reach, 1 stop away) North Weald (CN, must change at Epping, 1 stop away) Blake Hall (CN, must change at Epping, 2 stops away) Ongar (CN, must change at Epping, 3 stops away) Brompton Road (PD, between Knightsbridge and South Kensington) British Museum (CN, between Holborn and Chancery Lane) North End, otherwise known as Bull&Bush (NT, between Hampstead and Golders Green) A player may move to one of these provided eir LV is correct, declaring [Ghost] as a Move Action and paying 2 Black Tokens. No player may Straddle to a Ghost Station, or from a Token Stack at a Ghost Station. Ghost Stations may not be declared Wild, nor may a player move to a Wild Station from a Ghost Station. If a Player begins a turn at a Ghost station, e may move to any other Ghost Station as if it were Wild, at a cost of 2 Silver Tokens instead of the usual 2 Black Tokens and declaring eir Move Action as [Ghost to Ghost]. No Player or Token Stack may be Shunted while at a Ghost Station, or to a Ghost Station, nor may a Player move to Ghost Station which is occupied by another Player. A Player may move to a Ghost Station to ignore the effects of a Dollis Hill Loop or Parks and Greens Cascade: in such a case the Loop or Cascade continues as if the Ghost player's move was Dollis Hill, or a Park or Green, respectively, and the next Player must follow the Cascade or Loop. There is one exception to the above: if a Dollis Hill Loop is in progress, Ongar may be played as if Wild (i.e. standard Ghost Station cost of 2 Black Tokens, plus the 1 Red token of a Wild move), with the Move Action [Ongar Denial]. The Loop is terminated, and all Players may play moves as normal. The game may not be put into Knip, nor any Player into Spoon, until the player of the Ongar Denial has played at least one more Move, Pass or Forced Pass: and the Game becomes Out Of Knip if it is in Knip, and all Spooned Players are Unspooned with immediate effect when an Ongar Denial is played. A player may only place down and pick up Tokens from a Ghost Station by actually landing there. If a move passes the location of a Ghost Station without terminating there, the Ghost Station is ignored as if it did not exist - no Tokens may be dropped at, or picked up from, a Ghost Station in such a Move, nor may a Ghost count against a player's LV when working out the number of stations e can Move. Ghost Stations are considered to be in no Zone, and have no classification (i.e. may not be considered Terminus, Overground, A-Z, Compass or anything else that would be appropriate were the station not a Ghost.) A player who chooses to Pass at a Ghost Station may not gain any Tokens for doing so." {Comments: This brings some of our favourite stations onto the map, and one of the more traditional moves in the standard MC game. I think I've also found reasons to use Ghosts without making them too powerful - there are plenty of reasons *not* to use them as well.} This Proposal, if carried, will require the following Amendments to existing Rules, as follows: *Amend the Tokens Table in rule 1.4.1 so the last entry reads "Playing "Pass" as eir Move, while at a non-Ghost Station and not forced to Pass by any other Rule - 2 Red, 2 Black or 2 Blue Tokens." *Also amend the tables 1.7.3 and 1.7.14 if the Ghost Stations rewrite passes: [Ghost] is now a Move Action, not a Move Substitute Action, and costs 2 Black Tokens.} *Rule 1.8.1 (Dollis Hill Loop) Amendment, to be amended only if the proposed amendments to Rule 1.7.11 (Ghost Stations) also pass: add " with the exception of Rule 1.7.11" immediately between "and any Rules" and "which permit the Player to move to a Station other than Dollis Hill." *Rule 1.8.2 (Parks/Greens) Amendment, to be amended only if the proposed amendments to Rule 1.7.11 (Ghost Stations) also pass: add "or move to a Ghost Station as detailed in Rule 1.7.11: this sidesteps, but does not end, the Cascade. If a Player can do none of these, then e must Pass, but may perform other actions which do not change eir location." This entire text is to be added immedately after the words "...at a cost of one Blue Token." {Comments: All in line with the proposed Ghost Station changes.} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 347 - Striles [Other, Multiple] *Rule 1.7.12 (Striles) Amendment: after"...is the name of a valid Strile destination", insert "A Strile is instead of a Move, not in addition to it, and may be followed by a Straddle from the destination Station. The player's LV is preserved across a Strile, and may not be altered in the same Turn as Striling." Also add, at the end: "A player may not add a Token to, or collect a Token from, any Stack in the same turn as Striling away from that stack. E may, however, add a Token to or take a Token from the destination Stack after arrival." *Also amend the tables 1.7.3 and 1.7.15, if this amendment passes: a Strile is now a Move Substitution Action, not a Post-Move Action, and has *no* token cost. {Comments: At the moment the rule is rather ambiguous - I've just decided to clarify it a bit. Nobody has bothered to play a Strile as yet in any game, so it doesn't affect much. However, it seems clear from MC on York that a strile is instead of a move.} This Proposal, if it passes will require the following Amendments to the following Rules: *Rule 1.7.8 (Power Failure) Amendment: Replace "is forced to play "Pass" as eir move for that turn with "may not play a standard Move or Straddle in that turn, or use a Stub Link or make a Wild or Home move. E may, however, Strile from the station provided that the necessary Token Stacks are present, or play a "Walking" move. Other Actions which do not affect eir Movement are legal as and when the Rules permit them." {Comment: Maybe a little controversial, but Striles will be fairly rare in any case, especially when larger Token Stacks have built up. A Strile isn't a move along standard Underground lines, using Token Stacks instead.} *Rule 1.8.3 (Bridges) Amendment: amend "Players may still be Shunted" to "Players may still Strile, use Stupid Compass Tricks or be Shunted" {Comment: Another use for striles, which will be rare enough anyway. This is unlikely to be used much in any case, but it prevents play becoming too restrictive and encourages ingenuity in Token placement.} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 348 - Peaks and Troughs [Other, Multiple] 1. Cheap Off-Peak Travel [Enactment] At any point when Game Time is not designated Peak Hours, as defined in Rule 1.13.1, it shall be designated Off-Peak Hours. The cost of any Moves or Actions with Black Token Cost performed when Game Time is designated Off-Peak Hours shall be reduced by 1 Black Token. If a Player accidentally pays the usual Token cost under these circumstances, eir move shall not be illegal, but e shall lose those Tokens which e unnecessarily paid. 2. Rush Hour [enactment] The Hours of 0800 to 1000 inclusive, and 1600 to 1800 inclusive shall be designated Rush Hour. The cost of any Moves or Actions with Black Token cost performed when Game Time is designated Rush Hour shall be increased by 1 Black Token. Failure to pay the extra token cost as appropriate during Rush Hour may be regarded as an Illegal move. {Comment: aiming for value for money from the concept of Game Time. Suggest if these are passed they become Rules 1.13.x and 1.13.y} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 349 - Everything in its Place [Other, Multiple] Make the following amendments to Rules 1.7.2 (Pre-Move Actions), 1.7.3 (Move Substitution Actions), 1.7.14 (Move Actions), 1.7.15 (Post-Move Actions), and 1.7.16 (Neutral Actions): 1. Remove the action [Home] from Rule 1.7.3 and place it in Rule 1.7.2 2. Remove the action [Wild] from Rule 1.7.3 and place it in Rule 1.7.2 3. Remove the action [Collecting Hat] from Rule 1.7.14 and place it in Rule 1.7.15 4. Remove the action [ Wild] from Rule 1.7.16 and place it in Rule 1.7.15 {I think there is a slight misplacing of Actions in Rules 1.7.2 etc. -- the definition of "Move Substitution" Action, as I understand it, is an Action performed along with a move of "Pass", so "Home" and "Wild" should really be Pre-Move Actions, and "Collecting Hat" ought to be a Post-Move Action (since you can only collect a hat from a Station you have moved to, not one along the route). There is also the matter of my inadvertently changing " Wild" back to neutral status -- I tried to PoO that one, but Kevan rightly declined.} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 350 - Action Subtypes [Amendment] Append the following text to Rule 0.4.1: 'Enactment' Proposals may be of the subtype 'Action' if the Proposal concerns the enactment of a rule describing a new type of Action. {Comment: that should cover it. I reckon the previously suggested protocol for the format of the proposal/rule content can be established by precedent, as with the format of the GSD, rather than necessarily having to formally make it as a rule} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 351 - Let's Get With The Program [Repeal] Repeal Rule 0.4.10 (the "Old Rule References" rule). {Comment - if you haven't got it now, then it's too late!} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 352 - No Implicit Precedence [Amendment] Replace the text in Rule 0.2.8 ("Rule Conflicts") with: All Rules shall be considered to work together implicitly. Rules shall be evaluated with the specific taking precedence over the general, and the stated taking precedence over the implicit. Rules can explicitly state that they defer to another rule or set of rules, or can state that they explicitly take precedence over another rule or set of rules. Where a deference loop or precedence loop exists (e.g. two rules that claim precedence over the other), this shall be ignored and the other methods of evaluating rule precedence listed in this Rule shall be used. If two or more Rules are in conflict, or the validity or treatment of a particular act in relation to these Rules is not clear or in question, then the Speaker is empowered to raise an Emergency Proposal that will amend as many of the rules as necessary to bring about a resolution of the problem. {Comment: This is a long-standing problem of mine - explicit statements of precedence. In RL rules are not evaluated according to some arbitrary numbering scheme, but by methods outlined above - specific over general and stated over implicit. Hopefully this will eliminate the necessity to state things like "This rule takes precedence over rule x.y.z", because both of them will coexist. } -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 353 - Tidiness In Motion [Other, Multiple] Part 1 - rule numbering Add the following sentences to Rule 0.2.3 ("Numbering"): "A Renumbering Proposal allows the Speaker to rearrange the Rule Numbers in a Subsection. The Rules in that Subsection shall be numbered with the lowest ordinal Rule receiving the Rule Number 1, the next lowest 2, and so on." Part 2 - renumbering proposal To Rule 0.4.1 ("Proposal Types"): Add the type "Renumbering" to the list of Proposal types. Add the action description "Renumbering - renumber all the Rule Numbers in a particular Subsection" to the list of action descriptions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------