Subject: MN: Year 2, Week 14: Proposals

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:37:18 +0100 (BST)

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

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

Proposal 447 - Millennium Drone [Amendment]

1. Brian, Where's The Pollen? [Amendment]

Reword Rule 1.15.1 (Nyurmenyurmenyurmen) to read:-

In each Game of Mornington Crescent, there shall be a Player known as
the Drone, with a name of "Drone". When it is the Drone's Turn, if
any Player is carrying the Drone Stick, that Player may submit the
Drone's Turn.

If the Drone Stick is carried by the Drone, or by an Inactive Player,
or if the Drone Stick is not in play, the Drone is treated as being
Inactive.

The Drone has no Home Station, may not perform the "[Home:]" Action,
and is exempt from any Rules defining penalties or bonuses for having
a Home Station.

The Drone may not Win the Game.

2. Here, Boy [Enactment]

There exists a type of Small, Unique Possession known as the Drone
Stick.

Any Player may perform the Action "[Claiming Drone Stick]", unless the
Drone has not taken a Turn since the Drone Stick was created or last
taken from another Player.

Upon performing this Action, the current holder (if any) of the Drone
Stick loses that Possession, and the Actioning Player gains a Drone
Stick.

{ Comments : Slightly amusingly, the current wording of the Drone Rule
states no actual effect for performing the "[Drone Keeper]"
Action...

But still. Non-Sticky so that the Stick can be Discarded
to relinquish control of the Drone, and left free of "may
not be stolen in Shunts" to make play more interesting (it
*is* small, so can be Nantucketed at the cost of not being
able to move the Drone that Round)... }

3. Unique Opportunity [Enactment]

Certain Possessions may possess the "Unique" attribute. If, for any
reason, more than one instance of a single Unique Possession is in
play, the most recently-created instance is immediately destroyed.

If more than one instance of a Unique Possession is created
simultaneously, all but one of those instances are immediately
destroyed.

4. Superceded By Technology [Amendment]

Throughout the Ruleset, replace the "[Drone Keeper]" Action with the
"[Claiming Drone Stick]" Action.

5. Fetch [Amendment]

Remove the sentence "The current Drone Keeper shall possess the Drone
Stick." from Rule 1.4.12 (The Luggage), if present.

6. Nobody Loves Me Any More [Amendments]

In Rule 1.1.2 (A New Game), remove "There is no Drone Keeper." from
the list of new Game aspects, and mention of "Drone Keeper" from
Rule 1.2.0 (The Game State Document).

7. The Drone Ranger [Amendment]

Reword Rule 1.21.1 (D'ya wanna be in my gang?) to:-

The Drone's Team is considered to be that of the Player which
holds the Drone Stick. If the Drone Stick does not exist, or is
held by the Drone, the Drone has no Team.

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

Proposal 448 - Windsor Castle [Amendment]

In Rule 1.1.1 (How to Win), replace:

"If a Player has made a Move to Mornington Crescent"

with:

"If a Player has won the Game"

{ Comments: Not terribly drastic, but arguably a sticking point. }

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

Proposal 449 - The Dark Side [Other, Multiple]

1. The Podume of Infinite Darkness [Enactment]

There shall exist a Small, Unique, Sticky Possession known as the
Podume of Infinite Darkness, which may be present on the Map; a
PoID's presence is indicated as a Token Stack with the text "PoID",
at that Station.

If there is no PoID in play, any Player may perform the Action of
"[Forging PoID]" to bring the PoID into play, in eir Possession.

If a Player is carrying the Podume of Infinite Darkness, e may not
be the target of any Action which directly targets a Player (ie.
any Action with the String "<Player>"), nor may e Move to
Mornington Crescent or pass through Holy Stations.

If a Player carrying the Podume of Infinite Darkness ends any Turn
at a Holy Station, the Podume is destroyed.

If a Player is carrying the Podume of Infinite Darkness, e may
perform the post-Move Action of "[PoID on <Station>]" to place the
PoID at a Station, where "<Station>" is any Station which the
Actioning Player's Piece has passed through this Turn, or started
or ended its Move at.

If the Podume of Infinite Darkness is located at a Station:-

* No Player may perform the Action "[LV+X]".
* No Player may perform an Action which targets another
Player (ie. any Action with the String "<Player>").
* All Holy Stations are treated as being Blocked.

If a Player has passed through the Station containing the PoID
during eir Turn, e may perform the Action "[Collecting PoID]"
to place the PoID in eir Luggage.

{ Comments : My Delphi lore is particularly rusty, and I can't remember
the Podume cropping up much at York - I hope this doesn't
contradict too much. }

2. Alchemy [Amendment]

To Rule 1.17.5 (Post-Move Actions), add:-

[Collecting PoID] 1.7.x none 
[Forging PoID] 1.7.x 30 mins -4 Bk -2 Si

3. Another Unique Opportunity [Enactment]

Certain Possessions may possess the "Unique" attribute. If, for any
reason, more than one instance of a single Unique Possession is in
play, the most recently-created instance is immediately destroyed.

If more than one instance of a Unique Possession is created
simultaneously, all but one of those instances are immediately
destroyed.

This Rule shall Repeal itself if a Rule called "Unique Opportunity"
exists within the Ruleset already. Otherwise, this paragraph shall
remove itself from the Rule upon its Enactment, and the Rule shall
be renamed to "Unique Opportunity".

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

Proposal 450 - The Dirty Two Dozen [Amendment]

Amend Rule 1.14.3 so that in its third paragraph the number 'twelve' is 
replaced with the number 'twenty four'. 

{ Comment: 
I don't think twelve is enough, that's all. 
} 

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

Proposal 451 - I was young and foolish then... [other, multiple]

{Comment: a reworking of the Radioactivity proposal without the stuff about
Non-voting, since I presume (or rather, I hope) it was that which caused it to
fail, and with some tidying up. All in all it should be a finely honed
proposal, but I'm bound to have overlooked something...}

1. Radioactivity Mk II [amendment]

Rename Rule 0.3.1 to 'Players and Player States' and amend it to read as
follows:

Anyone may apply to join Mornington Nomic by sending a request in an email to
the Speaker (see Rule 0.3.2) stating that they wish to join the game, and
giving a one-word Name by which they wish to be known. The Speaker will then
determine whether the application is successful. Any successful applicant
becomes a Player. The Speaker's decision is final in this matter.

There are two Player States: Active and Inactive. A Player may change eir
Player State at any time by sending a message to the list announcing the
change, which will take effect immediately. New Players are Active by default.

A Player may at any time post a message to the mailing list announcing a desire
to change the Name e uses in Mornington Nomic. This change shall take effect at
the end of the current Game Week or after three days, whichever is later,
provided that no other Player objects to the change of Name before then.

All Players must always abide by all the Rules.

2. The Speaker [enactment]

{Comment: I'm (still) working on the assumption that if enacted this will
become 0.3.2 (see above)}

One Player shall hold the office of Speaker. The Speaker's role is to maintain
the ruleset, distribute proposals and voting results, and perform various other
functions as specified by rules.

If the Speaker is unable, unwilling, or prevented by a rule, from fulfilling
any of eir tasks, e may desginate a Deputy to take responsibility for those
tasks (either temporarily or permanently). Any other Player who is willing and
able is a valid candidate for the role of Deputy Speaker. Throughout the
Ruleset, the term 'Speaker' shall be read as meaning the Speaker or Deputy
Speaker, as appropriate.

{Comment: perhaps the current Speaker's name and email address should be listed
here for the convenience of newcomers?}

3. Inactivity [enactment]

When a Player's Player State changes to Inactive, an asterisk is marked next to
eir name in the Game State Document of any Games in which e is currently taking
part and eir turn is skipped until e changes eir state back to Active.

4. Fight for the Right [amendment]

Rename Rule 0.5.2 (How to Vote) to "Voting and Proposal Adoption" and amend it
to read as follows.

All Active Players may cast votes on current Proposals by sending eir votes in
an email to the Speaker with a subject line of 'MN: Votes'. If the email does
not have this subject line, votes may be considered invalid. Inactive players
may not vote. Any votes cast by Inactive Players are invalid.

Valid votes are FOR, AGAINST or PASS. Any other vote is invalid. No votes may
be revealed by the Speaker before the end of the Nomic Week in which they are
cast. Each Voter has exactly one vote per Proposal. If a Player attempts to
vote for a single Proposal more than once, only the latest valid vote shall be
counted.

In order for a Proposal to be adopted, it must achieve Quorum and receive more
votes FOR than AGAINST.

5. Your Presence is Required [amendment]

Rename Rule 0.5.4 (Quorum) to "Abstentions and Quorum" and amend it to read as
follows:

Any Active Player who does not vote or who submits an invalid vote shall be
deemed to have abstained. Inactive Players are never counted as having
abstained. If the total of abstentions exceeds the total of valid votes (i.e.
votes FOR, AGAINST or PASS), the Proposal fails to reach Quorum.

6. Apathy Rules, ho hum! [amendment]

Renumber Rule 0.10.2 to 0.3.3 and amend it to read as follows:

Each Active Player shall have an Apathy Level, with a default value of zero.
Each Player's Apathy Level shall be detailed in the Voting Results document
every week.

For each Week in which an Active Player casts no valid Votes (unless all that
Week's Proposals were eir own), eir Apathy Level increases by one. For each
Week in which an Active Player casts any valid Votes (or if all that Week's
Proposals were eir own), eir Apathy Level decreases by one, unless it is
already zero. If a Player's Apathy Level reaches three, that Player loses all
of eir Kudos and becomes Inactive.

7. Dead Wood [repeal]

Repeal Rule 0.8.1 (Inactivity)

8. More trimming [repeal]

Repeal Rule 0.5.3 (Rule Adoption)

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

Proposal 452 - Winners take Drugs [amendment]

Amend the first sentence of Rule 1.1.1 (How to Win) to read as follows:

The object of the game is to be the first Player to reach Mornington Crescent.

{Comment: I'm just not happy with the current wording. I propose the above as a
much more elegant solution, though whether or not it succeeds in that aim is
for you the voters to decide. I think the stuff about pieces resting at MC is
for one thing a bit dodgy and for another thing superfluous, since all the
conditions for winning are described throughout the ruleset anyway.}

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

---

From: kenningd@w... (L'homme a tete de choux)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:30:48 +0100

>Proposal 447 - Millennium Drone [Amendment]

Nice -- I didn't like the idea of the Drone Stick at first, but I'm coming
round, especialy if the Drone Stick can be stolen, lost, dropped, whatever...

Actually, I've been thinking if rather than a stick, there should be something
like a remote control device...

> taken from another Player.

The only bit I don't like is the thing about the drone stick being 'created' --
surely it's there (somewhere) at the start of the game, just unowned? we don't
have the capacity in the rules to go round 'creating' things (yet -- that will
change if the PoID proposal passes). Anyway, I'd be inclined to vote for this
one and tamper with it later -- maybe change the last sentence to 

>3. Unique Opportunity [Enactment]

This really ought to be in a separate proposal.

>Proposal 452 - Winners take Drugs [amendment]

These two don't conflict do they? Good, but...

> "If a Player has won the Game"

Shurely the point is that the player hasn't won the game *until* other players
have conceded? Thus, the proposal doesn't work. Hmmm. I may be wrong here. I'm
not sure -- someone convince me.

>Proposal 449 - The Dark Side [Other, Multiple]

Wooo-ooooh!

> * All Holy Stations are treated as being Blocked.

Players would have to be extremely careful not to lose too much LV, or the game
could end up in a serious impasse -- only wilds, homes and passes would be
valid moves which means no-one could reach MC. BRILLIANT! This one deserves the
Mrs Trellis award, even if it is Kevan's proposal.

>3. Another Unique Opportunity [Enactment]

But what if neither proposal passes?

> I don't think twelve is enough, that's all. 

But is 24 perhaps too many?

dave

---

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 21:05:04 +0100 (BST)

>surely it's there (somewhere) at the start of the game, just unowned?

Possibly belonging to the Drone itself, I suppose.

>we don't
>change if the PoID proposal passes).

Well, all Possessions are "created" from nothing when they're purchased,
so I don't see this as being too much of an issue.

>Anyway, I'd be inclined to vote for this

To...?

>This really ought to be in a separate proposal.

Well, it's useless without any Unique Possessions existing; I thought it
better to tack it onto the Proposals dealing with such things rather than
put it through by itself and hope it all got through.

>not sure -- someone convince me.

The amended bit deals with when a Game ends; the Winningness is defined
in the first paragraph ("The Winner of a Game is the first Player whose
Piece rests at Mornington Crescent at the end of eir Turn."). This is
just to clear up the rather nasty flaw of a Player Winning through a
Straddle, but the Game never ending because it wasn't a "Move" to MC.

Semantic twiddling of something Dunx is planning to rework anyway, I
admit. Tish.

>valid moves which means no-one could reach MC.

Well, we could always Walk or munch through Victuals. And you'd
never really get to an impasse, since someone need only Wild to
the Podumed Station (or Wild near it and Walk, if it's too close
to the Crescent), and pick it up to end the effect. Hmm.

>But what if neither proposal passes?

Then we have no need for Unique Possessions to be defined. If
another comes up, then tack on another Enactment to define them.
Having superfluous definition in the Ruleset isn't really that
desirable.

>But is 24 perhaps too many?

I think twelve is sufficient, really. It's true that the Game can
stagnate when all the Stacks are full, but (as Ben Elton said in
the days when he was still funny) it'd be like putting a new rubbish
bin next to your existing one - you'd just end up with two full
ones that you can't be bothered to take out.

I suspect that a better way to eliminate Token Stacks would be
preferable to allowing more of them, myself.

>Proposal 451 - I was young and foolish then... [other, multiple]

Excellent stuff, yes - the "non-Voting" was my only quibble with
it (although I think I voted FOR anyway); this will be getting my
approval again.

>The object of the game is to be the first Player to reach Mornington Crescent.

Hmm. Rather fuzzy wording, in that it could be taken as "the first
Player to move past Mornington Crescent". Perhaps I've just been
playing too much Nomic today, though (Super-Sleuth-edition Cluedo
is infinitely more entertaining when you create an entirely new
ruleset and have to perform the murder rather than solve it).

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"And after Monday night's archery, a fellow cellar-
hopper lent to me a Willie Rushton biography..."
-- Half Man Half Biscuit, "C.A.M.R.A. Man"

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 29 Jul 98 09:51:01 +0100

>Straddle, but the Game never ending because it wasn't a "Move" to MC. 

Exactly. This is currently a duplicate definition of winning, which can 
be picked at by those who are so inclined in precisely the manner Kevan 
points out. 

>Semantic twiddling of something Dunx is planning to rework anyway, I 

Indeed. It was in my sights, although I hadn't sorted out the wording I 
was going to use since I've been aiming at easier targets in other areas 
of the ruleset. Bravo. 

>ones that you can't be bothered to take out. 

Yes, I suppose. 

>preferable to allowing more of them, myself. 

Hmm... 

>ruleset and have to perform the murder rather than solve it). 

Granted that this is fuzzy, but I find the wording objectionable because 
it reinforces the Piece/Player confusion that was mentioned the other week. 
Is it the Player or eir Piece which gets to MC? 

-- 
Dunx 
IRL: Duncan Ellis, On Holiday

---

From: kenningd@w... (L'homme a tete de choux)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 10:27:52 +0100

>Player to move past Mornington Crescent".

Except that it doesn't say that. If it meant that, it would say that. I see
what you're getting at, but I don't agree that the supposed ambiguity exists.

>Is it the Player or eir Piece which gets to MC? 

Well, both, in so far as the Player's Piece represents the Player's position on
the playing area (the 'board', the 'map'). Just to go back to my Monopoly
analogy again, if you have the little dog and you move it to a Chance Square,
and then draw a card which tells you to 'Go Back to Old Kent Road', is it you
or the piece which goes back to Old Kent Road? How would you envisage a
situation where you went back to Old Kent Road, but your piece remained at
Chance? Sounds daft to me.

I think the distinction is not only misleading, it is utterly ridiculous, and I
reiterate that if you can have such post-move position modifiers in Monopoly
without the nonsensical verbiage in the rules and without any hint of ambiguity
(well, maybe I should go back to the Monopoly rules to check for sure, but it's
never been a problem in the past), then why can't we manage it in Mornomic?

dave

---

From: kenningd@w... (L'homme a tete de choux)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 10:45:32 +0100

>Player to move past Mornington Crescent".

The objection is fair, so I've just checked in two dictionaries (Oxford and
Collins) to make absolutely sure, and there is no sense of reach given that
means 'pass' -- the only contextually relevant definition is 'arrive at or get
to'.

dave

---

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:32:33 +0100 (BST)

>means 'pass' -- the only contextually relevant definition is 'arrive at or get

Well, a Player *reaches* MC if he goes via it from Euston to Camden Town; he
just doesn't stop there. I think the "Piece resting there at the end of the
Turn" clause is an important one.

>Chance? Sounds daft to me.

Oh, quite - it's just preferable to have consistent wording when you're
playing a game where the ruleset is frequently referred to. Once you've
got the hang of Monopoly you rarely need consult the rules again (and
most people learn by example anyway), but since Mornomic involves
looking at the Ruleset quite closely every Week, consistency is more
important.

The Player/Piece business is more a consistency than a critical rule
aspect - it's preferable to have the whole ruleset referring to Players
or Pieces than to have a mish-mash, just as it's preferable to have it
all in English and written left-to-right.

>never been a problem in the past), then why can't we manage it in Mornomic?

Monopoly has two striking differences to Mornomic - for one, it's much,
much simpler, with all complex game mechanics being written on cards,
requiring no real consultation of the ruleset once you get going. And
for second, it was produced by Waddingtons many years ago, has been
playtested to death and is a finished game.

And the latter is the key, really. If we were to pick up Monopoly and
try to continue it as a Nomic, I expect we'd be able to build on it
quite easily, because it already has a very sturdy and robust set of
rules (although admittedly if we tried to introduce any drastic new
game mechanics, we'd probably have to deal with timing issues). As it
stands, Mornomic is rather flailing and ambiguous, being the combined
thoughts of a dozen or so people over a year and a quarter, so it
needs a lot of trimming and tidying before it's properly playable.

And the excess verbiage in the Ruleset is becoming a thing of the
past, really - I generally try to halve the size and complexity of
any Rules I have a go at, and I'd say that if anything the Ruleset
was getting smaller and tighter. This does make for a lot of
varyingly dull discussion and Proposal about what a Move is or
what a Turn is, but if it makes for unambiguous play (a very
important aspect, as demonstrated by the reverse-Straddling
imbroglio), I think it's an important and beneficial thing.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"If I had three lives, I'd marry her in two."
-- The Whitlams, "Melbourne"

---

From: kenningd@w... (L'homme a tete de choux)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:50:54 +0100

>so I don't see this as being too much of an issue.

I've always thought of them as being purchased from London Underground, but
that's just the hopeless romantic in me.

>>one and tamper with it later -- maybe change the last sentence to 

"Always read your emails to check they're finished before sending."

dave

---

From: kenningd@w... (L'homme a tete de choux)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:32:47 +0100

>just doesn't stop there. 

I suppose that could be taken as a possible interpretation.

>playing a game where the ruleset is frequently referred to.

Indeed, but I don't see how "consistent" is synonymous with "verbose".

>just as it's preferable to have it

It's debatable whether or not it currently fulfills even these criteria.

>past, really

Also debatable. The issue is really over individual notions of how best to
explain things, different views on what is important and necessary. We could
argue the toss on the matter until we're blue in the face, but I don't suppose
we'll ever reach total agreement.

What would perhaps be the best way forward would be to freeze the rules as they
currently are and put them in for their 18 month service -- give the whole lot
a major overhaul in one fell swoop. Time consuming though.

dave

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 31 Jul 98 00:02:20 +0100

>a major overhaul in one fell swoop. Time consuming though. 

Indeed. 

As you already know from your own efforts, and as I am painfully aware from 
various token cost and timing changes (not to mention the Move stuff and 
Piece v Player I'm working on at the moment), this sort of fine-toothed 
comb is difficult, time consuming, and error prone. 

Quite fun though, in a brick wall/head kind of way.