Subject: MN: Proposal musings

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 15:39:58 +0100 (BST)

>Proposal 456 - Through a glass clearly [Amendment]
>
>Add the following paragraph to Rule 1.16.3 - Appeals and Judgements.
>
>"If the judgement requires a Judge to clarify an ambiguity in a Rule, the
>Speaker shall have discretionary powers to immediately reword the Rule at
>issue, in collaboration with the Judge to reflect the Judge's decision." 

A wise enough step. Maybe suspect in that it's still "one person's view
affecting a potentially major rule aspect", but nevertheless something
that needs to be done.

>Proposal 457 - Reverse Straddles... [Amendment, Enactment: Action]
>
>"[...] The movement of
>the Piece and location of the Token Stack in the Reverse Straddle is the
>exact reverse to that outlined above for the Straddle. [...]"

My brain's too tired to work out whether "exact reverse" is a dangerous 
wording there, or not. Either way, I think this might be a bit too
powerful, particularly when there are a lot of six-high Stacks in play
and you can Reverse Straddle to one of several each Turn.

>Proposal 458 - Emergency Brakes [enactment, action]
>
>A Player may perform the Pre-move action 'Emergency Braking' to reduce eir LV
>by 3. This action may be performed in conjunction with a normal 'LV-X' action
>to reduce LV by up to 7 in a single turn.

Er, six, surely?

I think it's a fair enough restriction, anyway - if you're jetting about
the place at a high speed, it's tough luck if you need to stop somewhere
nearby on the way. Players can usually spin around a few Interchanges to get
where they need to be, anyway, irrespective of LV.

>Proposal 459 - One-man Band [amendment]

All very entertaining, and probably a fair-enough way to get Tokens. The
loss of instruments to Shunts is a reasonable hazard, I suppose.

>Proposal 460 - Red Card [other, multiple]

Sad to see it go since it was one of my babies from a fair while ago, but
it's lack of use is perhaps cause enough to smite it.

>Proposal 461 - Rezoning [Amendment]
> 
>Amend Rule 1.4.11 (Token Running) so that its last sentence reads thus: 
> 
> "No Player may Run a Token from the same Terminus more than once per 
> Game, nor from any Terminus in Zone 1." 

Indeed, yes. Tsk.

>Proposal 463 - Deny Everything! [Enactment, Action]

Ingenious! This seems to be bringing the Game a lot closer to what it should
be, and I welcome the Rule's impact. We probably need it changed to "[Denying
<Player's> <Gambit>]" for clarity, but yes - bravo.

Incidentally...

>448 Windsor Castle 2 7 2 - Fails

Er, was there really anything wrong with it? It didn't actually do anything
other
than tidy the "Game never actually ending if you Win with a Straddle" loophole,
did it? Tsk.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"Anyone can sympathise with the sufferings of a friend, but it
requires a very fine nature to sympathise with a friend's success."
-- Oscar Wilde, "The Soul of Man under Socialism"