Subject: MN: Year 2, Week 10: Proposals

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 18:02:36 +0100 (BST)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORNINGTON NOMIC

Proposals for Voting on in Year Two, Week Ten
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 423 - Line Velociraptor [Other, Multiple]

1. Line Velocity of an Unladen Swallow [Amendment]

Amend Rule 1.6.1 (Line Velocity) to read:-

Each Player has a Line Velocity (abbreviated to "LV"), being an integer
number between zero and ten, which represents the speed at which eir
Piece is moving around the Map. A Player's LV remains unchanged from the
end of eir Turn until the start of eir next Turn, unless modified during
another Player's Turn.

If a Player's LV is ever less than zero, it immediately becomes zero. If
it is even more than ten, it immediately becomes ten.

{
Comments:

The zero-LV for Inactivity seemed unfair, especially if a Player nips off
for a few days and doesn't actually miss eir Turn. As for prolonged delay -
missing Turns is enough of a penalty, I think. It just strikes me as a
"something less than intuitive to remember" thing, is all.

As for the list of Actions which set LV to zero - these are duplicated in
the Action Rules themselves; I think they're best left there, really.
}

2. Greg! The Stop Sign!! [Enactment]

A Player may perform the pre-Move Action of "[LV+X]" or "[LV-X]", where
'X' is an integer number between one and three, to adjust eir Line
Velocity appropriately, or the pre-Move Action of "[LV=0]" to set eir
Line Velocity to zero.

Only one of these three Actions may be performed by a Player during eir
Turn.

{
Comments:

Split into an Accelerating and Decelerating Action, since the current
"[LV?X]" looks a bit too odd (and I tend to miss it when trying to
search for "[LV+X]"). The one-such-Action-per-Turn prevents the
marginally suspect "[LV=0] [LV+X]" combination, which strikes me as
a little too powerful (in that you can get to any LV from an LV of 7).
}

3. Keeping Two Chevrons Apart [Amendment]

Amend Rule 1.5.2 (Passing) to read:-

If a Player plays "Pass" as eir Move, or has a Forced Pass played for
em, eir Line Velocity is set to zero. Any references to eir "previous
Move" should be taken as referring to the last Station e played as eir
Move.

{
Comments:

Moving the LV change to here, and mentioning Forced Passes also.
}

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

Proposal 424 - Starting Again [Other, Multiple]

{
Comments:

Just tidying up the New Game stuff a bit, as well as permitting Players
to take part in multiple Games - I see no reason to stop people playing
as many as they wish, if they feel they have the time and enthusiasm
for it.
}

1. New World Order [Amendment]

Reword Rule 1.1.2 (A New Game) to:-

The Speaker may, at any time, start a New Game by announcing this fact
on the mailing list. This Game shall have a Game Number one higher than
the previous new Game.

This New Game may be a Normal Game (using only the 1.x Mornington
Crescent Rules), or a Special Rules Game (using one or more 2.x
Mornington Crescent Rules, in addition to those of the Normal Game).
Such a Game type is specified when the Speaker starts that Game.

When a new Game begins, the following initial conditions apply to that
Game:-

* Game Time is randomly selected by the Speaker.
* No Stations are Wild.
* Bridges are Down.
* The Game is not in Knip.
* There is no Drone Keeper.
* The Drone exists as a Player in that Game.
* The Drone is at Mornington Crescent.

When a Game has at least three Players (including the Drone), the Order
of Play is determined at random by the Speaker and announced to the
list. That Game then commences.

2. Border Control [Enactment]

Events in one Game may not directly influence the state of other Games, or
affect Player details in other Games. All Rule references to Game and
Player aspects within Games are taken to refer to aspects within that Game
only.

3. Joining In [Enactment]

Any Player may apply to Join a specific current Game by mailing the Speaker
with eir intention. Unless the Speaker turns down eir application (in which
case e must explain eir decision, which may be challenged with an Emergency
Proposal), that Player is assigned a place in the Playing Order of the
specified Game, and is considered to be Playing from the point at which the
Speaker announces eir Joining.

When a new Player joins a Game already in progress, eir position in the
Playing Order shall be determined by random selection. The Playing Order
shall be reflected in the sequence of the Game State Document's Token
Table, and may not be amended except by the addition of further new
Players and the resignation of old ones.

When a Player joins a Game:-

* E has no defined Home Station.
* E has two Black Tokens, no Blue Tokens, two Red Tokens, two
Bronze Tokens, no Silver Tokens and no Gold Tokens.
* E is carrying no Possessions.
* Eir Line Velocity is zero.
* Eir Piece is not situated on the Map.

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

Proposal 425 - Circling Vultures [Other, Multiple]

{
Comments:

Initially just a thing about Electrifying the Circle Line to Block all
Stations on it, I decided to combine it with the Clockwise and
Anticlockwise stuff (which, upon reading, strikes me as a little odd
in its "you can't set it anticlockwise until someone's set it clockwise"
aspect). The Pass requirement has been removed to make it a little more
usable strategically, and the costs have been altered to reflect the
correct attributes of Token colours.
}

1. Circle Line States [Enactment]

The Circle Line has four possible States - Normal, Clockwise, Anticlockwise
and Electrified. These are represented on the GSD by the symbols "<->",
"-->", "<--" and "***" respectively.

{
Comments:

+|CIR|+ We could use a little box like that one, on the GSD somewhere.
| <-- | In fact, I think having a complete example GSD in an appendix
+-----+ somewhere might be a wise step towards coherence.

}

A Player may play the post-Move Action of "[Circle: <State>]" to set the
State of the Circle Line to any of the above States, provided that eir
Piece is situated at a Station which is on the Circle Line.

While the Circle Line is in a Clockwise State, a Move which involves
traversing any Line Segment of the Circle Line (or a Line Segment which
touches the Circle Line) in an Anticlockwise direction shall be considered
Invalid. The same applies for traversing such Line Segments in a Clockwise
direction while the Circle Line is in an Anticlockwise State.

While the Circle Line is in an Electrified State, all Stations on the
Circle Line are considered Blocked if the Moving Player is carrying any
Metallic Tokens at the start of eir Movement Phase.

Line Segments which touch the Circle Line are defined as:

* Paddington to Aldgate East (HC)
* Edgware Road to Earl's Court (DS)
* Tower Hill to Earl's Court (DS)
* Baker Street to Aldgate (MN)

{
Comments:

This does provide escape routes along the Jubilee Line Extension and
(more controversially) Warren Street to Euston - I'll leave this for
possible future Amendment, though.
}

2. Circle's Start [Amendment]

Add the following condition to the list in Rule 1.1.2 (A New Game):-

* The Circle Line is in its Normal State.

3. Circle of Protection: Coherence [Amendment]

Upon Enactment of this Rule, the Circle Line in all Games shall be set to the
Normal State. This Rule shall then Repeal itself.

4. Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow [Repeals]

Repeal Rules 1.7.18 (Swings and Roundabouts) and 1.7.19 (Ever Decreasing
Circles).

5. Action Image Exchange [Amendment]

Remove the following Move Substitution Actions:-

[Inverting the Circle Line] 1.7.19 20 mins -2 Bk -2 Si
[Polarising the Circle Line] 1.7.18 20 mins -2 Bk -2 Si

Add the following post-Move Actions:-

[Circle Line: Normal] 1.7.x 20 mins -2 Bu
[Circle Line: Clockwise/Anticlockwise] 1.7.x 20 mins -2 Bu -1 Si
[Circle Line: Electrified] 1.7.x 20 mins -2 Re -2 Bu
-1 Si

{
Comment: Black becomes Blue, since Black Tokens are only really meant to
be used for Actions which affect none but the Actioning Player.
Electrifying costs Reds as well, since this is arguably
aggressive. Finally, the Silver cost has been halved, since this
seems a little high, particularly now that Blues are required.
}

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

Proposal 426 - Boast Ye Not! [Amendment]

{ Comment: A trivial little amendment to get rid of one thing which has 
never been used, and something else which isn't appropriate any more. } 

Amend Rule 1.1.5 (The Boasting Wall) so that its final paragraph reads as 
follows: 
"The Boasting Wall shall also include a link to a copy of the final Game 
State Document submitted to the mailing list, for that Game." 

{ Comment: 
... and thus does the Adjusted Kudos score die. Removing a record of 
Kudos at end of Game is just being tidy - the linkage between Kudos and 
Game was broken a long time ago. 

For those who think this seems familiar, I included an amendment to 
remove the Adjusted Kudos score in my earlier Proposal on removing 
Kudos entirely, but don't hold that against it. 
} 

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

Proposal 427 - Parallel Play [Other, Multiple]

{ Comment: Currently, we are limited to only playing in one game at once 
(with the exception of team games) which basically means that we have all 
these Special Rulesets lying around and no Players to play them. 

This Proposal seeks to remove this restriction. Frankly, I'm sure that 
we can manage being in more than one game at once. 
} 

[Amendment: It's Not *That* Complicated!] 
Amend Rule 1.1.2 (A New Game) by making the first paragraph read thus: 
"The Speaker may start a New Game by announcing it on the mailing list. 
The Game shall have a Game Number one higher than the previous new 
Game." 

Make the fourth paragraph read thus: 
"Initially the new Game has only one Player - the Drone. Players may 
opt to sign up to the Game by announcing this fact on the mailing 
list." 

{ Comment: there is a slightly troubling singular in paragraph five, but 
I don't think it's actually wrong. As it stands. } 

[Amendment: I Just Said That] 
Amend Rule 1.20.3 (Team Colours and Players) such that its last paragraph 
reads as follows: 
"A Player may take part in no more than one current team game." 

{ Comment: no need to explicitly allow participation in team game 
concurrently with an individual game any more... } 

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

Proposal 428 - Taxing Stuff [Other,Multiple]

{ Comment: This is a reworked (and renamed) version of Croupe. It's called 
Tithe now. 

To reiterate, the goal of this Proposal is to replace Septimus Divergence 
with something which has a similar function but which fits into the current
game better. 

Apart from the name, I've pretty much taken Kevan's suggestions on board 
unchanged, with the exception that the scope of a Tithe is still on Zones 
only. I agree that there should be Tithes on Stations and Lines (perhaps 
even Quadrants?), but adding all that in one go seems a bit much. 

I've gone for the name Tithe because it conveys the toll-gathering effect 
of the Action more effectively, and also because I put forward a Pegging 
Proposal a while back (Prop 84, Y1W9). It was to do with partial blocking 
of Stations rather than toll-gathering, and it was far too complicated, 
but I still have this vague unease about reusing a bit of wording in such 
a completely different way. 

Anyway - enough of my lexicological peccadilloes... 
} 

[Enactment, Action: Tithe] 
Action: Tithe 
Cost: 8 - Zone Blues 
Duration: 20 minutes 
Type: Neutral 

Players may Tithe a particular Zone by playing the Action "[Tithe <Zone>]" 
where <Zone> is a London Underground Zone. 

The Tithing Player is permitted to gather a Tithe of a single Token from each 
Token bearing entity within the Tithed Zone at the beginning of eir Turn 
following that in which the Tithe Action was performed. If the Tithing Player 
has missed a Turn through Inactivity following the Tithe Action, then the 
Tithe may not be gathered. 

Token bearing entities are Player Pieces and Token Stacks. The Tithe for a 
Player Piece is a Token of the Tithing Player's choice. The Tithe for a Token 
Stack is its topmost Token. 

A Player may only Tithe a single Zone at any given time, and each Zone may 
only be Tithed by a single Player at any given time.

{ Comment: 
The costing is intended to make it very expensive to Tithe inner Zones, 
since they would be by far the most lucrative. I did wonder about a 
chunkier sliding scale a la Zone Passes, but that could be added later 
if these costings seem too prohibitive. 

The wording is intended to prevent Players going Inactive to extend the 
Tithing duration, then subsequently going Active with a metaphorical cry 
of "Surprise!". 
} 

[Repeal: Diverging Opinions] 
Repeal Rule 1.7.5 (Septimus Divergence). 

[Amendment: Collateral Damage] 
Amend Rule 1.7.15 to remove reference to Septimus Divergence. 

{ Comment: Hmm, that really is much tidier isn't it? } 

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

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 01 Jul 98 16:09:44 +0100

>Proposal 423 - Line Velociraptor [Other, Multiple] 

I don't honestly see the point of this Proposal - it just appears to be 
footling with the ruleset for no particular reason, with some minor 
adjustments to wording and the odd mildly useful effect. Viz: 

> for a few days and doesn't actually miss eir Turn. 
Granted. I seem to remember the thinking was more or less that if you go 
inactive you are effectively silently passing for the duration of your 
inactivity, but it might be seen as unfair. 

>The one-such-Action-per-Turn prevents the 
A fair point, but this is already prevented by the existing ban on multiple 
Actions of the same type without explicit permission. From Rule 1.2.0: 

"Multiple Actions are permitted, provided that there is only one example 
of a particular Action type in the set" 

I don't know - there's nothing definitely wrong with this Proposal, it just 
seems to make the ruleset larger by expressing virtually the same thing in 
more words. Although there's no particular reason to vote AGAINST, there 
also doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to vote FOR either. 

Sorry. 

>Proposal 427 - Parallel Play [Other, Multiple] 

Typical isn't it - you wait ages for a bus and then two come along at once! 

These two are broadly compatible, despite 427 doing some rewording on 
a paragraph which is removed by 424. Although 424 is generally a more 
thorough Proposal (it handles the game joining part better, for instance), 
427 includes an amendment to the Team Game rule which 424 omits. 

>Proposal 425 - Circling Vultures [Other, Multiple] 
Hmm... rather nice. Yet more guff at the top of the GSD, but a nicely 
implemented concept. 

-- 
Dunx 
IRL: Duncan Ellis, Senior Software Engineer, Business Modelers, Oracle 
<I work for Oracle, I don't speak for them>

---

From: Graeme Jefferis <Graeme.Jefferis@f...>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:21:44 +0100

>adjustments to wording and the odd mildly useful effect.

I would imagine this is to nudge the ruleset a step further on it's
path to legibility. The 'introductory paragraph followed by a more
detailed description' approach Kevan mentioned a while back.

-Graeme.

---

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 09:08:14 +0100 (BST)

>inactivity, but it might be seen as unfair. 

I think the fact that you can't claim free Tokens for passing is enough
of a drawback; killing Inactive Players' LV just strikes me as another
Thing to Remember (Or, More Likely, Forget), is all.

> of a particular Action type in the set" 

Oh, absolutely, but it can be argued quite soundly that "[LV=0]" is a
different Action type to "[LV?X]".

>also doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to vote FOR either. 

Well, it's just tidying up and clarifying, really - currently we've got a
page and a half that explains what LV is, how to change it, how it limits
Moves, what to do in your first Turn, how to change it again, what to do
in your first Move again, and which Actions set it to zero.

The Proposal aims to have a Rule stating what LV is, another one saying
how to change it, and an *amendment* that says what effect a Pass has on
LV. The limit on Moves is now documented in the Valid Move section, the
first-turn stuff also, and the zero-LV Actions mention the zero-LV bit
themselves (which is the best place to detail them, really - Players are
unlikely to think "Oh, I wonder if that Action sets my LV to zero - I'd
better check the LV Rule").

The Proposed changes will actually takes up less than half the space the
existing LV Rule does. Twice as many Rules, I admit, but since they deal
with quite different aspects of Line Velocity, I think this is preferable.

>Sorry. 

Oh, tish. A world preferable to you just voting AGAINST without thinking
to discuss it.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... -- http://www.cms.dmu.ac.uk/~c94kd -- UIN: 5998366
"If God had meant for us to work, then I'm sure he would have given us jobs."
-- Half Man Half Biscuit, "A Lilac Harry Quinn"

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 02 Jul 98 09:17:05 +0100

>better check the LV Rule"). 
Fair enough. I should have checked the existing ruleset structure more 
thoroughly. Relying too much on my mental picture of how the rules work
rather 
than the precise wording. 

>with quite different aspects of Line Velocity, I think this is preferable. 
Looks good then. 

>Oh, tish. A world preferable to you just voting AGAINST without thinking 
Now *there's* an unlikely prospect!