Subject: MN: Year 2, Week 34: Proposals

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:56:51 +0000

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

Proposals for Voting on in Week Thirty-Four
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 570 - Walking Back [Amendment]

In Rule 1.7.10 (Walk the Walk), replace

"Two Stations are within Walking Distance if they are adjacent to each
other on the Map."

with

"Two Stations are within Walking Distance if they are adjacent to each
other on the Map, or if they share the same name but are not co-located."

{ Comments : Just putting back a bit accidentally removed by my sweeping
amendment last week. }

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

Proposal 571 - In Case Of Ambiguity, Break Glass [Enactment]

If a part of the Ruleset is ever regarded as being ambiguous, in a
manner which the Speaker feels requires urgent attention, e may ask the
Player responsible for that ambiguity to clarify the wording one way or
another. The Rule or Rules in question shall be immediately updated to
reflect this judgement, the amendment being announced on the mailing
list.

The Player responsible for an ambiguity is e whose Proposal (or other
activity) caused the ambiguity to come into effect. If no Player can be
regarded as being clearly and solely responsible for the ambiguity, the
Speaker may clarify it emself.

{ Comments : Something I proposed for Garden Nomic that'd probably be more
useful over here... }

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

Proposal 572 - Give Up for Australia [Amendment]

Remove the "Down-Underground Award" from Rule 0.9.4 (Fish and Fowl).

{ Comments : A bugger to keep track of, as Speaker, and a fairly insulting
part of the ruleset anyway. }

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

Proposal 573 - Me and My Shadow [Action]

Action: [Bifurcating to <Station>]
Cost: 1 Go, 2 Gr
Time: 30 mins.

A Player may perform the Post-Move action [Bifurcating to <Station>], where
<Station> is a Station adjacent to the Player's current position. The
Player is then Bifurcated, and gains a second Piece, located at the
targeted Station. The Player may then make two Move actions each turn,
according to the following rules and restrictions:

*The two Pieces will be known as A and B, B being the newly-created
Piece. Moves should be labelled, to make it easier to keep track of the
two pieces movements. Example: Rushton: [LV+2] A:Baker Street (BK) B:Angel
(NT via CN, CL)
*Pre-Move Actions must be played before _both_ Moves. Likewise,
Post-Move Actions must be played _after_ both Moves. Neutral Actions may
be played between the two Moves.
*Both Pieces have the same LV, at all times.
*An Action or situation dependant on a Piece resting at a certain
Station is legal if either Piece fufills that qualification. If the action
affects the Piece in some way (i.e., changes its location), it only affects
the Piece that fufilled the qualifications.
*If a Player is forced to move to a certain Station (due to a Parks
and Greens Cascade, for example), both Moves must fufill this obligation.
*If both pieces make moves that involve changing lines, the
[Line Change] action must be played twice.
*Token bonuses for moving through or to certain stations are
applied seperately for each Move. Example: If one Piece moves through two
Interchanges, and the other one moves through three Interchanges, the
Player gains one Red token and one Black token, rather than one Silver
token.
*If either Piece moves to or through a Station occupied by the
other Piece, the stationary Piece is destroyed. If one Piece is Shunted
into the other, the second one is destroyed. The Shunting Player still
gains the bonuses for the Double-Shunt.

*If one Piece is located at Mornington Crescent and the other
isn't, the Player does not win until the other Piece either moves to MC or
is destroyed.
*Although the Player has two Pieces, e still has only one Luggage
Rack. Therefore, Possessions that restrict Movement (such as a Spoon
Clamp) affect both Pieces. Possessions may be picked up by one Piece and
dropped by the other.
*A Bifurcated Player may not perform the actions [Collecting
Parcel] or [Catching Pigeon]. (Schizophrenia is too distracting to perform
such complicated tasks.) E may still perform the Actions [Delivering
Parcel] and [Releasing Pigeons] if e happens to already be in possession of
those objects.
*A Tithe action will affect the Player twice if both Pieces are in
the targeted Zone.
*A Player may have no more than two Pieces at any one time.
*A Manoeuver or Gambit must be performed by a single Piece to be
valid. A Player may not attempt to Deny their own Manoeuver or Gambit.

If a Player is Bifurcated at the beginning of eir turn, e must lose either
2 Bronze Tokens, or 1 Token of any other color, of eir choice. If e cannot

pay, Piece B is immediatly destroyed.

{Comment:

Another Classic MC move that I thought would be fun/interesting if
applied to Mornington Nomic. I tried to cover for all the immediatly
obvious problems and loopholes, but no doubt the list of clauses will
continue to grow as Bifurcation is experimented with. Looks complicated,
but it's actually pretty intuitive, IMO.

}

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

Proposal 574 - Automatic Teller [Amendment]

Add the following lines to the table in rule 1.7.16 (Neutral Actions):

[Blue to Gold] 1.7.21 none -2 Bu
[Bronze to Gold] 1.7.21 none -8 Br
[Bronze to Silver] 1.7.21 none -4 Br
[Silver to Gold] 1.7.21 none -2 Si

{Comment:

Just a fix for a seeming rules oversight. Currently, since the
reverses of the token exchange actions aren't in the action list, and their
times aren't specified elsewhere, they take 10 mins, unlike the original
Actions which take no time to perform. True, they're a bit more powerful
than the regular versions, but I figure that having to be at Bank to do
them is enough of a restriction.

}

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

Proposal 575 - *Pop!* [Multiple]

Repeal Rule 1.7.40, and remove the relevant listing from the Neutral
Actions table.

{Comment:

According to its own text, Rule 1.7.40 should already have been
repealed, since there are no more Confetti-Filled Balloons in any of the
games.

}

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

Proposal 576 - The Squaw On The Hippopotamus [Amendment]

{ Comment: 
Redoing the Quadrant document made me think that the whole Quadrant 
definition wants changing. This Proposal gets rid of Halves entirely 
(they've never been used) and redefines the Quadrants using Lines on 
the Map (that is, nicking the approach used for Quadrant Zero). 
The purpose of this redefinition is to effectively obviate the need for 
the Quadrant document. 
} 

Amend Rule 1.17.2 (Pythagoras Would Have Loved This) to read as follows:

The major compass points North, South, East and West shall be defined 
relative to the current Map when it is being read normally, North being 
up the page. Secondary compass points are those which are a composite 
of two major points eg North East.

Tottenham Court Road shall be treated as the Meridian (ie centre point) 
for both North-South and East-West axes.

The Map shall be considered to be divided into five Quadrants: the 
Compass Quadrants correspond to the four secondary compass points; 
the fifth Quadrant (the Circle Quadrant) corresponds to the region 
of the Map within the Circle.

The boundaries are defined thus:

+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+ 
| Quadrant Boundary | Definition | 
+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+ 
| Circle | On or within the Circle Line | 
| North West / North East | Northern Line (Charing X branch) to | 
| | Camden Town, then due North | 
| North East / South East | Hammersmith & City to West Ham, | 
| | then due East | 
| South East / South West | Northern Line (Charing X branch) to | 
| | Waterloo, then due South | 
| South West / North West | Central Line | 
+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+ 

For ease of reference the Quadrants are numbered as follows: 

+------------+--------+ 
| Quadrant | Number | 
+------------+--------+ 
| Circle | 0 | 
| North East | 1 | 
| South East | 2 | 
| South West | 3 | 
| North West | 4 | 
+------------+--------+ 

Each Station shall have an attribute of Quadrant determined by its 
location on the Map. 

If a Station lies on a Compass Quadrant boundary, it shall be 
considered to reside in both Quadrants adjacent to the boundary. 
Stations in Quadrant Zero reside only in Quadrant Zero. 

{ Comment to Speaker: 
Another redone Quadrant document will follow as needed, although this 
Proposal pretty much removes the need for one. 
} 

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

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 15 Dec 98 13:47:09 +0000

>Proposal 570 - Walking Back [Amendment] 

Thanks, Kevan. 

>Proposal 571 - In Case Of Ambiguity, Break Glass [Enactment] 
Yes - a Good Thing, by my reckoning. 

>Proposal 573 - Me and My Shadow [Action] 
Aha - at last I can remove my own bifurcation draft from my mail client... 

I like this a lot: it's elegant, and one of the main agonies I suffered in 
trying to work out how to implement this idea (that of giving each Piece 
its LV) has simply been abolished. 

Also, an idea which was suggested to make Bifurcation less powerful (that 
of requiring everything to happen within the same Game Time limit as would 
usually be applied to a single Piece) is implicit in this Proposal. Nice. 

Unfortunately, there are issues with this implementation: 
- shunt LV - what happens to the joint Piece LV if one of the Pieces 
is shunted? I would suggest that both should be zeroed, but that 
(or something else more imaginative) needs saying. The same 
question arises if one Piece Passes... 
- Charge - again, this is an attribute which is individually 
determined by the Pieces. I would suggest making it cumulative on 
the two Pieces' movement. And Charge is modified by a Shunt, also. 

There may be others - that's all I can think of at the moment, though. 

>[Blue to Gold] 1.7.21 none -2 Bu 
I'm not happy with this [Blue to Gold] conversion action - the wording of 
1.7.21 implies its existence, but Blue Tokens are not money and never 
should be. 

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

---

From: riffraff@n... (RiffRaff)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 02:09:03 -0500

>usually be applied to a single Piece) is implicit in this Proposal. Nice.

Thanks. :)

> question arises if one Piece Passes...

I would agree that both are zeroed, both in Shunts and Passes. Think of it
like the Corsican Twins, or the Bond between an Aes Sedai and her Warder
(for those of you that read Robert Jordan). Whatever happens to the one
piece is felt by, and affects, the other.

> the two Pieces' movement. And Charge is modified by a Shunt, also.

Ooh, Charge. I knew I'd forgotten something. Well, looking at the rules,
it could be fixed by rewording the charge rules to be "Every Player has a
charge" rather than "Every Piece has a charge". Thus your charge would be
modified my both piece moves, and by shunts.

I could submit that as an proposal next week if this one passes, if
everyone thinks it necessary. Actually, if Proposal 571 passes, we could
resolve it right then, under the anti-ambiguity rules.

>There may be others - that's all I can think of at the moment, though.

I'm positive there are :)

>1.7.21 implies its existence, but Blue Tokens are not money and never

I agree, actually. I hadn't thought of that, the proposal's pretty much
just a time-fix for already-existing actions. We can always repeal the
[Blue to Gold] later...

--Riff

---

From: riffraff@n... (RiffRaff)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 05:06:16 -0500

> The boundaries are defined thus:

Er... Why Hammersmith and City? It's a bit north; Tottenham Court Road
isn't even on it. Why not, say, Central Line to Mile End, then due East?

--Riff

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 16 Dec 98 10:33:23 +0000

>isn't even on it. Why not, say, Central Line to Mile End, then due East? 

I chose the H&C because it's closest to the old Quadrant boundary along 
the section we care about ie outside the Circle Line. Its route west of 
Aldgate East is irrelevant, since that's in Quadrant Zero. I actually 
think the Central's route outside the Circle is too northerly and would 
overload the South East Quadrant. 

Another benefit of the H&C boundary is that it's unequivocal - a pencil 
line drawn due East from West Ham does not cross any other LU lines, 
whereas going from Mile End you cross the DLR and H&C/District which 
leads to the need for an arbitrary decision on which Quadrants Pudding 
Mill Lane, Plaistow, and perhaps even Upton Park are in (exactly the kind 
of nonsense this proposal was meant to eliminate - writing that Quadrant 
document was a bugger, and I've never been happy with Whitechapel's 
status). 

I see what you mean about TCR not being on the H&C, but that's the only 
reason I can see for using the Central, a sentimental bit of reasoning 
which is outweighed by other factors.

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 16 Dec 98 11:40:37 +0000

>piece is felt by, and affects, the other. 

*nods* Sounds about right. 

>modified my both piece moves, and by shunts. 

That's certainly consistent with the LV approach, anyway. 

I find myself with a nagging doubt about transferring LV and Charge from the 
Piece back to the Player, though - I would rather have a similar statement 
for Charge in the Bifurcation rule as is already present for LV... 

Actually, looking again at the Rules, LV is currently given as being an 
attribute of Player rather than Piece. I thought we'd fixed that. 

In that case, modify the Charge rule as you suggest. 

>resolve it right then, under the anti-ambiguity rules. 

Either works for me - although invoking the ambiguity rule would normally 
require some degree of urgency. 

>I agree, actually. 

Oh, good. 

>I hadn't thought of that, the proposal's pretty much 

Righty ho. It needs removing from the ruleset now, so I may dash something 
off straight away.