Subject: MN: Year 2, Week 29: Proposals

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:57:30 GMT

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

Proposals for Voting on in Year Two, Week Twenty-Nine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 545 - Playing the Spoons [Amendment]

{ Comments : An idle rewording of the Spoon rule, since nobody's ever
used it. It just removes the Turn-duration-halving (rather
superfluous if you can't perform most Actions), takes away
the strange Token-doubling and imposes, as more befitting a
Clamp, an LV restriction. }

Reword Rule 1.7.4 (Open the Cutlery Drawer, Mrs Higgins) to:-

"A Player may perform the Action of "[Spooning <Player>]", where "<Player>"
is a Player adjacent to the Actioning Player's Piece position. A Spooned
Player gains a "Spoon Clamp" Possession. Spoon Clamps are Indestructable
Possessions.

If a Player is carrying a Spoon Clamp, e may not perform any Action which
involves the expenditure of Blue, Red, Silver or Gold Tokens, and if eir
LV is ever above four, it becomes four.

A Player may destroy a single Spoon Clamp which they are carrying, by
performing the Action of "[Unspoon]" whilst at any Station in Quadrant
Zero."

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

Proposal 546 - Walk? Don't Walk [Multiple]

{ Comments : More or less random editing, here - I'm just wondering if we'd
be better off without Walking; it seems too much of a wishy-
washy escape from Power Failures, and an easy (easily overlooked)
way to sneak around between Lines.

I'm not vehemently against it, just trying to simplify the
Ruleset a bit, trying to tighten the Game to a few powerful
elements rather than a collection of get-out-clauses. }

1. A Short Pier [Repeal]

Repeal Rule 1.7.10 (Walk the Walk).

2. Don't Walk Away From Me [Amendment]

Remove the "Walking" Action from Rule 1.7.3 (Move Substitution Actions).

3. I Haven't The Power [Amendment]

Replace the second paragraph and bulleted list of Rule 1.7.8 (Power Failure!)
with:-

"Moves that start, end or pass through any Stations on a Line that
has suffered a Power Failure are Invalid."

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

Proposal 547 - Shadow Boxing [Amendment]

To Rule 1.7.25 (The Coming of Shadows), add the paragraph:-

"A Player may not Shadow and Shunt a Player during the same Play."

{ Comments : Being able to Shadow a Player to gain eir LV and a Token, and
then to Shunt them with that new LV and claim something *else*...
A shade overpowerful and unsporting, I think. }

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

Proposal 548 - Didn't They Used to Make Computers? [Action]

A Player must play the Post-Move Action [Atari], if e believes that e can 
win on eir next Turn. Playing Atari when it is impossible to win on the 
next Turn is Illegal. 

There is no requirement to explain how a win might be achieved when 
playing [Atari], although an explanation may be needed if the Action is 
challenged. 

A winning Play shall be deemed Illegal unless the Player has played an 
Action of [Atari] on the Turn prior to that of eir otherwise winning Play. 

Name: Atari 
Type: Post-Move 
Cost: none 
Duration: none 

{ Comment: 
Borrowing an idea from Go (and, to a certain extent, chess) of giving 
fair warning when something bad is about to happen. 

Atari would prevent serendipitous victories, but it would also stop 
stealth victories which (I seem to recall) was an objection to the 
Charge idea. It might also help to undermine gross misinterpretation of 
the Rules. 

Note that there is no cost associated with playing Atari, nor is there 
any penalty for playing Atari and then not winning. The only penalty is 
for playing Atari when you cannot, in fact, win. 
}

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

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 10 Nov 98 15:27:31 +0000

> Proposal 545 - Playing the Spoons [Amendment] 
Better. I seem to recall that the one time someone was actually spooned, 
the token doubling effect was so catastrophic that there was some 
dreadfully unsporting collusion to remove it. 

A shame really, since the token doubling effect was intended as some sort 
of recompense for not being able to attack. 

This form might actually get used, although the catastrophic nature of the 
token doubling has certainly been reduced now that Token Running has gone. 

> Proposal 546 - Walk? Don't Walk [Multiple] 

*shrug* 

Again, disuse suggests it's not worth hanging onto. 

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

---

From: kenningd@w... (kenningd)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:42:42 +0100

>Again, disuse suggests it's not worth hanging onto. 

A similar philosophy has got me considering submitting a proposal to do away
with game time. There was only that one incident when a quick win was scuppered
by MC being closed, and apart from that the chance of trying to move to a
station and actually finding it closed is fairly small anyway.

Obviously, there is the turn duration aspect of time to consider, but that can
be converted into points (say a move may not have a total points value more
than 60, rather than a duration of more than one hour).

I can't think of any other serious implications of getting rid of game time,
and the only reason I haven't submitted a propsoal already is that it's going
to be a mighty big one just to make sure everything is covered and no loopholes
are left.

Of course, if it's not going to be a popular idea, I won't bother proposing it
-- what do folk think?

dave

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 10 Nov 98 16:40:28 +0000

>station and actually finding it closed is fairly small anyway. 

Actually, that's not entirely true - there were certainly tactical moments
in 
the team game where the opennes or otherwise dictated what went on - Grimace 
was stuck at Kensington (Olympia) for a few turns, and I know Kevan was 
manipulating Game Time to ensure that continued for as long as possible. 

I suspect that the effect of Game Time is largely invisible: people just
don't 
do things that would conflict. In this respect I think it's quite similar to 
the turn duration rules, in that these act as a control on how many things
can 
be done but they've resulted in very few buzzes (in fact I can think of only 
one instance, and that was when something that should have been buzzed
wasn't). 

>than 60, rather than a duration of more than one hour). 

Indeed. I've thought about using counters to represent durations for each 
Action to try and make a live action version of this game work. 

>to be a mighty big one just to make sure everything is covered and no 

There are other aspects though: 
- Sunday rules, such as the Holy Stations toll (not serious, I'll grant) 
- damaged station repairs are linked to the turning over of a day. I suppose 
this could be tied to Round passage instead, but it seems interesting. 

... and those are just off the top of my head. It would be a *big* job. 

And we might have to rename Carol Vorderman's Revenge: it makes no sense 
without Richard Whiteley there too. 

>Of course, if it's not going to be a popular idea, I won't bother proposing
it 

I agree that maintaining Game Time can be onerous, but for myself I still 
rather like it and it does introduce a certain tactical flexibility.

---

From: kenningd@w... (kenningd)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 17:23:57 +0100

>Actually, that's not entirely true - there were certainly tactical moments in 

Ah. I missed that. Must have been while I was away.

>In this respect I think it's quite similar to the turn duration rules,

I suppose so, but to a much lesser extent.

>- Sunday rules, such as the Holy Stations toll (not serious, I'll grant) 

I don't think we'd miss that too much.

>this could be tied to Round passage instead, but it seems interesting. 

Hmmm. Could be a bit trickier to get round that one.

>without Richard Whiteley there too. 

I've got that covered -- I'll post a draft for comment before submitting the
final proposal.

>rather like it and it does introduce a certain tactical flexibility. 

OK, fair enough. I personally think it doesn't contribute that much to the
game, but if the majority are of your opinion, then I'll leave well alone.

dave

---

From: "Wayper, Paul" <WayperP@p...>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 15:53:17 +1000

On Wednesday, November 11, 1998 12:43 AM, kenningd@w...
[SMTP:kenningd@w...] wrote:
> A similar philosophy has got me considering submitting a proposal to do
> away with game time. There was only that one incident when a quick
> win was scuppered by MC being closed, and apart from that the chance
> of trying to move to astation and actually finding it closed is fairly
small
> anyway.

And we've played, what, four or five games with game time being a factor? I
don't think this is a good enough trial. Besides, it's very useful for
things like station damage and holy station tolls.

That's my thoughts, anyway

Paul Wayper -- DPI ITS Computer Systems Officer
_____________________________________________________________________
SigClean 1.5a prevents all errors in transcription, transmission, and
reception of eMail, destroys sig and email viruses, and stops flames.
If it doesn't seem to work, contact me and I'll fix it. (c) 1998 PJW

---

From: riffraff@n... (RiffRaff)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:25:42 -0500

>That's my thoughts, anyway

Personally, I like the game time for it's wossname. (Thematic appropriateness.)
Not having actually played in a game yet, I don't have an opinion on its
usefulness, but it certainly adds more color to the game than "Turn Points"
would, imo.

(Gosh, my first Mornington Nomic post. I feel like I should bronze it.)

--Riff

"I wouldn't be so judgemental if you weren't such a _sick freak_."
--Diablo, "Goats" (www.goats.com)

---

From: Graeme Jefferis <se98gj@d...>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:38:06 GMT

> Proposal 545 - Playing the Spoons [Amendment] : FOR
> Proposal 546 - Walk? Don't Walk [Multiple] : FOR 
> Proposal 547 - Shadow Boxing [Amendment] : FOR
> Proposal 548 - Didn't They Used to Make Computers? : AGA

Grr. AFAICS, the main reason for [Atari] is to warn against
approaching stealth victories. Why? If a player wins, e
wins; if eir gambit wasn't noticed, more power to eir
metaphysical elbow, say I.

Oh. No proposals once more. Time to pull out my fingers.

Ta,
-Graeme.

---

From: Graeme Jefferis <se98gj@d...>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:02:07 GMT

Hell. Somewhere between brain and keyboard, some strange mail amalgamation
took place. Ah well.

Sorry about that,
-Graeme.

---

From: riffraff@n... (RiffRaff)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:25:42 -0500

--Riff

---

From: Graeme Jefferis <se98gj@d...>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:38:06 GMT

Ta,
-Graeme.

---

From: Graeme Jefferis <se98gj@d...>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:02:07 GMT

Sorry about that,
-Graeme.