Subject: MN: Year 2, Week 15: Proposals

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 15:08:18 +0100 (BST)

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

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

Proposal 453 - There's An Emergency Going On [Other, Multiple]

1. It's Still Going On [Amendment]

Reword Rule 0.7.2 (Emergency Proposals) to:-

If a Player is concerned about serious aspects of the Ruleset, e may
make an Emergency Proposal. This is effectively identical to a normal
Proposal, and should be emailed to the Speaker along with indication
that it is an Emergency Proposal. This email should have a subject
line of 'MN: Emergency Proposal' - if it does not, it may be considered
invalid.

Instead of being Voted upon normally, the Speaker forwards the Eprop to
the mailing list. Any Player other than e who made the Eprop may submit
a Vote on that Proposal, emailing it to the Speaker.

After twenty-four hours have elapsed (excluding weekends) or after at
least three Players have Voted, the Votes are tallied for the Emergency
Proposal. The Eprop is treated as a normal Proposal for the purposes of
determining enactment, with the exception that Quorum is ignored.

If the Proposal passes, it takes effect immediately.

{ Comments : Far fairer than allowing one random Player to make the call,
I think. Best of three seems a wiser course, with a 24-hour
limit there just in case.

We can do away with the Kudos modifiers too, really, leaving
the standard "+1 FOR/-1 AGAINST" bit to deal with it. }

2. It's Still An Emergency [Amendment]

Remove "Failure to Judge or refuse Judgement of..." from the Kudos
table in Rule 0.9.1.

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

Proposal 454 - Team Shake-Up [Other, Multiple]

1. New Start [Amendment]

Rename Rule 1.20.1 (Team Games) to "Starting a Team Game", and reword it to:-

Whenever a Player joins a Team Game, e may choose a Colour for eir Team.
This may be a Colour another Player has already chosen, if e wishes to
join that Team, or a new Colour if the Player wishes to start a new
Team.

A new Team may not be created if it would share an initial letter with
another Team, and a Player may not join a Team if another extant Team
has a smaller number of Players, or if there is only one Team.

Players may only join a Team Game midway through if all Players in that
Game agree to the new Player's arrival and choice of Team.

Team Games require a minimum of five players, including the Drone, before
play may commence.

{ Comments : Choosing our Teams, the number of Teams and our Team Colours
seems nicer than having the Speaker pick them at random. }

2. Bzzzt! Repetition. [Repeal]

Repeal 1.20.2 (Team Rules).

{ Comments : Making this a Special Ruleset means that we needn't state this
explicitly any more. }

3. Whites of their Eyes [Amendment]

Rename Rule 1.20.3 (Team Colours and Players) to "Colouring", and reword
it to:-

The initial letter of each Player's Team shall be noted in brackets next
to eir name in the Token Table in the Game State Document.

4. Come on, Gang [Amendments]

Move all remaining Rules from sections 1.20, 1.21 and 1.22 to a new Special
Ruleset entitled "Team Games".

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

Proposal 455 - Unconsidered Trifles [Other, Multiple]

{ Comments : Most of the Nomic half of the Ruleset is, if you look at it, a
complete bloody nightmare. I suppose we never really look at it
because we've all gotten used to how that side of the game works,
but the fact that we've got reams of paragraphs explaining a
rather simple number of facts strikes me as rather appalling.
Turning eyes just to the "Proposals" section, here's what we've
got... }

1. I Know Your Type [Amendment]

Rename Rule 0.4.1 (Proposal Types) to "Proposals", and reword it to:-

Each Proposal submitted by a Player should have a name (typically summing
up the aim of the Proposal in a few words, usually in the form of a very
bad pun), a Type, any amount of text stating what the Proposal should do
if it is Voted through, and any amount of commented text explaining
anything the Proposer feels the need to explain.

Proposals may be of the following types:-

* Enactment - To create one new Rule to be added to the Ruleset.
* Amendment - To change the wording of one existing Rule in the 
manner detailed in the Proposal.
* Repeal - To remove one Rule, as specified by the Proposal, 
from the Ruleset.
* Renumbering - To renumber all the Rule Numbers in a particular
Subsection, or to renumber a single Rule.
* Multiple - Any combination of any number of the above.
* Special Ruleset - As "Multiple", but all Enactments are placed in a
new Special Ruleset section unless otherwise
specified.

Commented text is signified by surrounding it with curly braces, and
is entirely ignored if the Proposal passes and alters the Ruleset.

{ Comments : The "Action" sub-Enactment stuff is rarely used and vaguely
worded, and generally easier all-round to put in as a cut-and-
paste Amendment to the Action lists. Special Ruleset works
better as an alternative Multiple, also, I feel, since it
doesn't make very much sense as it stands . }

2. Proposal Submission [Amendment]

Reword Rule 0.4.3 (Proposal Submission) to:-

Players may submit up to three Proposals per Week, emailing them
directly to the Speaker. This email should have a subject line of
"MN: Proposals" - if it does not, the Proposals may be considered
invalid.

Players may, at any time prior to the Week-End, withdraw or reword
Proposals they have made during that Week, by emailing the Speaker
with such a request.

3. Proposal Distribution [Amendment]

Reword Rule 0.4.4 (Proposal Distribution):-

At the end of each Week (or at least four days before the end of the
next Week), the Speaker distributes to the mailing list a copy of all
Proposals submitted for that Week, numbering them sequentially.

4. Serial Repealing [Repeals]

Repeal Rule 0.4.2 (Adopting Proposals), Rule 0.4.6 (Proposal Limit),
Rule 0.4.7 (Proposal Names) and Rule 0.4.8 (Multiple Proposals).

{ Comments : Nothing that's not said in Rule 0.5.3 and - now - 0.4.3
and 0.4.1. }

5. Reenactment [Amendment]

To Rule 0.4.5 (Proposal Enactment), add the paragraph:-

When a new Rule is Enacted, it takes the name of the Enactment
Proposal (or Proposal section) that Enacted it.

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

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." 

{ Comment:

This is to stop newcomers to a Rule misinterpreting a
rule in which an ambiguity has already been spotted and
a ruling made by a Judge. The ambiguity is removed then
and there.
}

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

Proposal 457 - Reverse Straddles... [Amendment, Enactment: Action]

1. Add the following paragraph to the end of Rule 1.7.6 - Straddling
Nancy:

"The Action Reverse Straddle, of form [Reverse Straddling to <Station>] is
a Pre-Move Action which occurs before all other Actions. 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. The conditions
for a Straddle to be valid still apply."

2. Add the appropriate entry in the list of pre-move actions for [Reverse
Straddling to <Station>], with same duration and cost as [Straddling to
<Station>].

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

Proposal 458 - Emergency Brakes [enactment, action]

Action: Emergency Braking
Type: Pre-move
Duration: 30 mins
Cost: 2 Bk

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.

{Comment: we have measures to bump LV up (eating chocolate etc), but apart from
Passing or 'LV=0' we have no ways to reduce it quickly -- eg if you're
hurtling along with 10 LV and want to slow down to LV 4 in a hurry, but don't
want to stop completely. The long duration is to prevent this being used too
frequently}

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

Proposal 459 - One-man Band [amendment]

{Comment: expanding the scope of the busking action -- I thought about adding a
clause about getting extra tokens for busking in a silly costume, but it's too
complicated. I seem to remember originally the busking action had to be
preformed with a move of Pass, but that seems to be no longer the case --
intuitively it should be, but I've left it out for now to keep the proposal
simple; I've deliberately lost the permission to perform the action more than
once on the same turn -- this can be put back in easily enough if people feel
strongly about it}

1. Add the following possessions to the list in Rule 1.4.18 (The Emporium):

Posession | Cost | Qualities
----------+------+-----------
Drum | 2 Br | Musical
Casiotone | 3 Br | Musical
Guitar | 4 Br | Musical
Violin | 4 Br | Musical
Saxophone | 5 Br | Musical

2. Amend Rule 1.7.20 - Busking to read as follows:

A Player may perform the action 'Busking' provided that e is carrying a Musical
Possession and that Game Time is currently during Peak Hours. If e has more
than one Musical Possession, e must specify in eir comments which instrument e
is using. A Player successfully performing this Action gains a number of Tokens
depending on the type of musical instrument used, as follows:

Harmonica 3 Bronze
Drum 2 Black, 1 Red, 1 Bronze
Casiotone 1 Black, 1 Blue, 1 Red, 1 Bronze
Guitar 2 Black, 2 Blue, 1 Bronze
Violin 2 Black, 2 Red, 1 Bronze
Saxophone 2 Blue, 2 Red, 2 Bronze

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

Proposal 460 - Red Card [other, multiple]

{Comment: doing away with railcards, as previously discussed}

1. Ace of Spades [amendment]

Remove following sentence from Rule 1.4.18 (The Emporium):

"Railcard discounts do not apply to Possessions which cost less than three
Bronze Tokens."

and remove the Railcard possession from the table.

2. Nine of Diamonds [amendment]

Remove the Railcards from the sample Luggage Rack in Rule 1.4.12 (The Luggage)

3. Queen of Hearts [repeal]

Repeal Rule 1.4.5 (Railcard)

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

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." 

{ Comment: 
Merely correcting something which appears to have been lost. I seem to 
recall that the only place the Zone 1 restriction was mentioned was in 
the Token table, which was then reorganised... 
}

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

Proposal 462 - Specialisation [Amendment]

Amend the Section 2.1 (Special Rulesets) to remove the list of recognised 
Special Rulesets leaving only paragraph 1. 

{ Comment: 
This is a funny one because it's not really an amendment to a Rule 
per se. 

Anyway, the list of Special Rulesets in the section header is out of 
date already. Since it's duplicate information from the contents 
section at the top and it's just another thing to remember to change, 
I suggest removing it. 
} 

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

Proposal 463 - Deny Everything! [Enactment, Action]

Action: Denying 
Cost: 1 Re, 1 Bu 
Duration: none 
Action Type: Post Move 

If it can be seen that a Player is on the verge of completing a Manoeuvre, 
another Player may play a Move or Action that they think will prevent that 
Manoeuvre from being completed and may in addition explicitly Deny the 
Manoeuvre by playing the Action 

[Denying the ______ Manoeuvre] 

or 

[Denying the ______ Gambit] 

Such a Denial Action may only be played after the Player who is attempting 
to complete the Manoeuvre has played the penultimate Move in that 
Manoeuvre ie there is only one Move remaining before completion. The 
Denying Player gains half the reward for completing the Manoeuvre (rounded 
down to the nearest whole number). 

If a Denial is played and is unsuccessful (that is, the Manoeuvring Player 
was still able to complete the specifically Denied Manoeuvre despite the 
Denial) then the Player completing the Manoeuvre doubles their reward for 
its completion. 

{ Comment: 
It occurs that, whilst it is possible to stymie a Manoeuvre, there is no 
reward for doing so. Naturally, there should be some risk in doing it 
wrong. 
} 

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

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 04 Aug 98 17:30:42 +0100

>Proposal 453 - There's An Emergency Going On [Other, Multiple] 

Sound idea. It should also cut down on the 'missing Judge' syndrome which 
has been an issue on occasion. And of course any Red Dwarf reference is a 
good thing in my book. 

I'm a little puzzled by some of the comments, though - 

> the standard "+1 FOR/-1 AGAINST" bit to deal with it. } 
Not a problem, but why is it mentioned in such a definitive way and not 
implemented? 

>Proposal 454 - Team Shake-Up [Other, Multiple] 

Moving this into the Special Rulesets is eminently sensible. 

>Proposal 455 - Unconsidered Trifles [Other, Multiple] 

Good bit of rewording. I'm a little sad about the "Enactment, Action" 
thing, since I at least have been using it and it allowed the introduction 
of a new Action to be achieved with just a simple Proposal rather than 
requiring a multiple. Still... 

This seems a good rewording though, and my Luddite whinging isn't really 
a reason to kill this. 

>Proposal 457 - Reverse Straddles... [Amendment, Enactment: Action] 

Kevan's already raised one objection to this idea, but this seems far too 
powerful also because of the possibility of Reverse Straddling to a Token 
Stack, then Straddling away again after playing a Move of Pass. 

Fundamentally, it is too easy to Reverse Straddle - the only restriction 
placed on the Player is eir Piece must be within Straddling distance of a 
Token Stack. This is going to be most of the map after a few rounds of 
play. If the cost were higher, or if the Reverse Straddling condition 
were that the Piece were exactly the same distance from the Stack as the 
height of the Stack, but not as it is now. 

I like the wording of this Proposal (making it a pre-Move Action is a 
particularly nice touch) but introducing this Action would completely 
unbalance the game. 

>Proposal 458 - Emergency Brakes [enactment, action] 

Oh look, an Enactment Action - and not one of mine, either. 

Kevan's already taken sufficient pot shots at this - I'l just nod. 

>Proposal 459 - One-man Band [amendment] 
Very nice indeed. 

>I seem to remember originally the busking action had to be 
No, that's not true - Busking was Proposed in Week 3 of this Year 
(Proposal 360) and there is no mention of requiring a Move of Pass. 

>simple 
I see what you mean (I think) but the Busking Action does have a very long 
duration which limits what can be done in conjunction with it. 

>I've deliberately lost the permission to perform the action more than 
You'll get no argument from me - I don't think it should be allowed multiply 
at all. 

My only problem with the bonuses themselves are that several of the 
instruments when busked with gain blue tokens, which could then be used to 
extend the Turn and effectively negate the the long Duration of Busking 
(not that I have a problem with the idea of extending the Turn and Busking 
as well, just the notion of Busking in order to gain the Tokens needed to 
extend the Turn in which the Busking was done). 

>Proposal 460 - Red Card [other, multiple] 
Fair enough. I suppose that's what happens when something doesn't get used. 

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

Kevan pointed out - 
:We probably need it changed to "[Denying 
:<Player's> <Gambit>]" for clarity, but yes - bravo. 

Oh, splot, yes. Would a Point of Order to reword it be permissible? 
Basically, replace 
"[Denying the ______ Manoeuvre]" 
with 
"[Denying the ______ Manoeuvre by <Player>]" 
and similarly for Gambit. 

(actually, a subsequent Amendment would probably be alright since the 
Proposed format is unambiguous except in the unlikely circumstance where 
more than one Player is trying for the same Manoeuvre and is at the same 
stage) 

Incidentally, congratulations to Kevan on the redesigned MorNomic web 
site - very pleasing. 

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

---

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 10:44:02 +0100 (BST)

>Not a problem, but why is it mentioned in such a definitive way and not 

It's already in there. You get +1 Kudos for every FOR Vote one of your
Proposals receives; it seems reasonable to assume that this goes for
Eprops as well as normal Proposals.

>Oh look, an Enactment Action - and not one of mine, either. 

A fair enough comment; I think I was just subconsciously eager to do
away with them because it means about thirty seconds' extra ruleset
formatting for me. I'll bring them back whenever I'm stuck for a
third Proposal, unless anyone else beats me there.

>(Proposal 360) and there is no mention of requiring a Move of Pass. 

It's just the fifty-minute duration that tends to require it, and
the few cases where it's been used have been after a Pass. The only
other time you can use it is after a Move with no LV change, which
is perhaps a bit odd and needs spannering.

>You'll get no argument from me - I don't think it should be allowed multiply 

I just left that one in as a vague "Blue to Bronze" convertor for
anyone who fancied frittering their Tokens away on extending Game
Time.

>Oh, splot, yes. Would a Point of Order to reword it be permissible? 

Might as well, yes; nobody's Voted, after all, and it's nothing too
drastic and counter-intuitive. [tinkers] Done.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"Angel, oh, angel; here to brighten up my darkest day."
-- Space, "Avenging Angels"