Subject: MN: Year 2, Week 13: Proposals

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:43:45 +0100 (BST)

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

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

Proposal 441 - Unattended Luggage [Other, Multiple]

1. Discarding Possessions [Enactment]

Any Player may perform the Action "[Discarding <Possession>]", where
"<Possession>" is any Possession that e is carrying (provided that
it is not Sticky). Upon performance of this Action, that Possession
is destroyed.

This Action may be performed more than once per Turn.

2. Drop It [Enactment, Action]

[Discarding <Possession>] 1.7.? none 

3. Stick 'Em Up [Amendment]

Add the sentence "Spoon Clamps are Sticky Possessions." to the first
paragraph of Rule 1.7.4 (Open the Cutlery Drawer, Mrs Higgins).

{ Comments : Ideally this could be tied in with a reworked "Suspect
Package" approach (with Parcels, certainly), but I can't
think of a good way to implement it at the moment. Tsk.

The Drone Stick cries out to be Sticky, of course, but
this would be a bit of a bugger to implement neatly, and
I'll deal with it whenever I get around to rewording the
Drone Rule (remove the term "Drone Keeper" entirely and
just going by the Stick owner). }

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

Proposal 442 - Red Card [Amendment]

Remove the second two paragraphs of Rule 1.4.5 (Railcard).

{ Comments : That whole "leave your Railcard somewhere but still be
able to use it, and teleport back to get it whenever you
wish" thing just seems far too weird, to me, I'm afraid. }

And reword the first from:-

If a Player owns a Railcard, all Token costs and penalties that result in a
loss of Bronze Tokens are reduced by one Bronze Token.

to:-

If a Player owns a Railcard, all Token costs and penalties that result in a
compulsory loss of more than two Bronze Tokens (as opposed to those where the
Player chooses Tokens to discard) are reduced by two Bronze Tokens.

{ Comments: This makes Knip a bit too bizarre, otherwise. And let's make
it a two-Bronze discount, since nobody seems to be bothering
with these things... }

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

Proposal 443 - Spinning Jenny [Amendment]

Reword Rule 1.7.6 (Straddling Nancy) to:-

A Player may, after Moving eir Piece normally, Straddle from a
Station that has a Token Stack, permitting em to continue on to
another Station. This Straddle may be from the Player's Piece
position (a "Standing" Straddle), or from a Station adjacent to
eir Piece position in the Line Direction of its last Move Segment
(a "Running" Straddle).

Straddling is performed with the post-Move Action of "[Straddling
to <Station>]", where <Station> is a valid Straddle Destination.

A Straddle Destination is valid if its distance from the starting
location is less than or equal to the number of Tokens in the Stack
at the starting location. In addition, Running Straddles may only
be performed in the Piece's Line Direction.

Although not considered to pass through any intervening Stations,
the Straddle Destination must be a valid Move with respect to all
of the "Blocks, Impediments and Gaps" restrictions in Rule 1.5.0.

If a Player performs a successful Straddle during eir Turn, e may
perform no Aggressive Actions (those requiring Red Token
expenditure) for the remainder of that Turn.

{ Comments : Rewording with little loss - the "considered to occur
after all other Actions" seemed a little strange and
didn't appear to add anything positive; the aggressive
limit seems wise, though, and has been kept. }

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

Proposal 444 - Indicator possessions [Enactment]

{Comment: This proposal, which I failed to propose last week, is a 
reaction to the possibility of states such as Spoon Clamp and Drone 
Stick being stolen or blown up: however it brings in a new object 
class - indicators - for compatibility with future single-player 
states. 
}

Certain possessions are Indicators; each such Indicative possession 
must be linked to one or more single-player state(s). These 
possessions indicate that the owner is in the related state(s).

No Indicator possession may be owned by a Player not in the related 
state, and all Players in a State must possess at least one of the 
possessions related to that state.

Indicator possessions may not be passed between players or destroyed 
by any means other than as explicitly stated by the rules regarding 
that specific possession.

The following indicative possessions are defined here, and elsewhere 
in the ruleset:

Possession | Related state(s) | Rule(s)
---------------+------------------------+-------------
Spoon Clamp | Player is in Spoon | Rule 1.7.4
Drone Stick | Player is Drone Keeper | Rule 1.15.1

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

Proposal 445 - Sticky Situations [Other, Multiple]

{Comments: Rewording the Drone Stick a little, and fixing it a little}

1. Luggage mixup [Amendment]

Remove the sentence 'The current Drone Keeper shall possess the Drone 
Stick.' from rule 1.4.12 (The Luggage)

{ Comment: What's that doing there?}

2. Sticking points. [Amendment]

Amend 1.15.1 (Nyurmenyurmenyurmen) as follows:

Remove 'the holder of which shall be detailed on the Game State 
Document' from the first paragraph. In it's place, add the words: 
'indicated on the Game State Document by the Drone Stick possession. 
Only one Drone Stick may exist in any Game at any one time.'

Append 'The Actioning player gains the Drone Stick.' to the second 
paragraph.

In the third paragraph, replace the sentence: 
'The Drone then becomes Inactive and the next Player to take a Turn 
should update the Game State Document appropriately.', 
with this sentence:
'The Drone then becomes Inactive and the next Player to take a Turn 
in the relevant Game should remove the Drone Stick possession from 
the relinquishing Player.'

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

Proposal 446 - Boast Pox [Amendment]

{ Comment: Boasting never really seems to have caught on, so this Proposal 
removes it whilst maintaining the requirement for records of completed 
Games. } 

{ Speaker's Comment: Expect an all-new Game Archive section for the Web page
to appear later today, by the way; I took the old one
down pending its rewriting, if any of you wondered
where it had gone. }

Amend Rule 1.1.5 (Boasting Wall) so that it reads as follows: 

"There shall exist an Official Document known as the Game Archive. For 
each Game that has ended, the Game Archive shall include a link to a 
copy of the final Game State Document submitted to the mailing list 
for that Game." 

Rename Rule 1.1.5 to "Game Archive" 

{ Comment: 
Apologies for the removal of whimsy here, but as I say the whole concept 
of Boasting doesn't really seem to have taken off. 
} 

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

---

From: kenningd@w... (L'homme a tete de choux)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 16:11:14 +0100

>Proposal 442 - Red Card [Amendment]

When was the last time anyone actually bought a railcard? I've always felt the
benefits didn't justify the cost, which is why I proposed the teleport thing,
but that turned out to be useless too -- didn't do anything to increase the
popularity of railcards -- so I'm all for this proposal, but why not just get
rid of railcards altogether?

>Proposal 444 - Indicator possessions [Enactment]

This is pure nonsense. Unnecessarily complicated to the point of
incomprehensibility. Sorry.

Surely it would just be so much simpler to do away with drone sticks and spoon
clamps and go back to the old ways?

dave

---

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 16:31:56 +0100 (BST)

>rid of railcards altogether?

One of my ideas that seemed a good one at the time. A one-off payment
to make certain costs cheaper seemed quite a good idea - whether it's
disuse is because of its uselessness, people's apathy or mere
oversight, I can't say. I've tried to go for one a few times, but the
Game's ended before I got the Bronzes together.

>clamps and go back to the old ways?

I think having a Drone Stick instead of a Drone Keeper position is
probably a good thing - it clears up space on the GSD, and doesn't
affect things too much. Spoon Clamping's benefits are arguably
minimal, but the clarification they give doesn't come at too great
a cost, so I'm for it.

This Proposal does seem superfluous, though. And personally I quite
like the idea of Player's stealing the Drone Stick off of each
other. If we make it a Small Possession, then it can always be
Nantucket'd at the expense of not being able to Move the Drone that
Round...

> removes it whilst maintaining the requirement for records of completed 

[nods] Pity that nobody ever used it much, yes, but still. Probably
wise to snip it away.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"Don't ask me what I'm doing; there's no career that I'm pursuing."
-- David Devant and his Spirit Wife, "I'm Not Even Going To Try"