Subject: MN: Year 2, Week 22: Proposals

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 17:21:14 +0100 (BST)

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

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

Proposal 496 - Tournament Play [Special Ruleset]

{ Comments : I think it was Grimace who made a passing comment about
Tournament play, in some private email many months ago - this
is an attempt at introducing such a thing. I expect we can
probably manage to fit the 1998 Tournament in quite neatly
before January...

Grief knows what this approach to Tournament play is called;
I had considered an "everyone play three Games against random
people and calculate the Winner on a points basis", but I
think this "quarter-final/semi-final/final" approach should
be quicker, and rather more dramatic. }

1. Tournaments [Enactment]

A Tournament consists of a number of Rounds, each containing a number of
two-Player Games.

When a Tournament is declared, at least four Players must sign up to it
before it may commence, and it should not commence until all Active Players
have indicated whether or not they wish to partake.

When a Tournament commences, all Players signed up to it are considered to
be Competing Players for that Tournament. The first Round then commences.

2. Doing the Rounds [Enactment]

When a Round commences, the Speaker randomly pairs up all Competing
Players in that Tournament. If there are an odd number of Competing
Players, the remaining Player is considered to have automatically passed
that Round.

For each pair of Competing Players, a new Game is started. All Games within
a single Tournament shall be of the form "<Number><Letter>", where
"<Number>" is the same for all Games of the Tournament, and "<Letter>" is a
unique identifier.

When a Game is finished, its Loser ceases to be a Competing Player.
When all Games in a Round are finished, a new Round begins.

If, after a Round, only one Competing Player remains, that Player is
considered to have Won the Tournament.

3. Silence on the Floor [Enactment]

To avoid excess traffic on the mailing list, all Tournament Games other
then the Final (the Game played when only two Competing Players are left)
should be played over private email.

Where a Turn is Buzzed and judgment is required, it should be brought to
the attention of the Speaker, and a Referee shall be selected as normal.

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

Proposal 497 - Give Up Completely, Just Like That [Multiple]

Repeal 1.7.32 (No Smoking) and remove the "[Smoking Cigar]" Action from Rule
1.7.16.

{ Comments : I'd quite forgotten about this... Cigars were a one-off present
from dave some months ago; although they had a bit of self-
repealing for when all the Cigars were gone, a few drabs were
left. }

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

Proposal 498 - Mob Injustice [Amendment]

In Rule 2.6.1 (Team Games), reword the final paragraph from:-

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

to:-

"A Team Game may only commence if each Team has an equal number of Players
and if there are at least five Players in the Game (including the Drone).
This may be overruled if all Players in the Game agree to the its
commencing."

{ Comments : Team Games would now only begin if all Teams had the same number
of Players, or if everyone agreed to unbalanced Teams. (A
'PaulWay vs. The World' Game, or what have you.) }

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

Proposal 499 - Token Cascade Rethink [Multiple]

1. That zappy thing from 'Men In Black' [Repeals]

If proposal 490 (Token Cascades) passed, repeal any rules 
and remove any actions enacted by it.

2. Token Cascade actions [Actions]

Pre-move action: [Token Cascade] : 15 mins : -4 Re/Bu/Bk
Post-move action: [Cascade Kill] : 10 mins : -2 Re
Post-move action: [Cascade Steal] : 10 mins : -3 Re

3. Token Cascading [Enactment]

A Player may perform a [Token Cascade] action, and become the
focus of a Token Cascade, if all the following are true:

* Eir piece is situated on or inside the Circle Line.
* E owns no tokens of one (or more) plastic token colour(s).
* There is no Token Cascade currently in effect.

While a Cascade is in effect, each player must transfer X plastic
tokens to the Actioning Player, where X is the number of piece moves
made since the [Token Cascade] action was played.
This transfer takes place at the beginning of every player's turn,
before any pre-move actions are made. The current focus Player of the
Cascade is not required to make such a transfer.

If a Player has insufficient tokens to make this transfer, e must
instead choose the colour of plastic tokens e owns most of - if
multiple colours qualify, e must choose between them - and transfer
all such tokens to the Cascade focus Player. The Cascade immediately
ends.

4. Stealing and Killing Cascades [Enactment]

A Player may steal a Token Cascade, in order to focus the benefits 
of the Cascade onto emself, and may kill the Cascade to end it 
completely. Both these actions may only be played if a Cascade is
already in effect.

If a Player plays a [Cascade Steal] action, that Player becomes the
focus of the current Token Cascade. 

If a Player plays a [Cascade Kill] action, the Cascade immediately ends.

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

Proposal 500 - Peg Doubt [Multiple]

[Enactment: Peg Leg] 
A Station may be Pegged. A Pegged Station may be passed through during a 
Turn, but its contents may not change. Viz: 

* no Piece may rest at a Pegged Station. Hence a Pegged Station may 
not be used as the destination of a Move, Straddle, Shunt, Wild, 
or any other Action which modifies the position of any Piece 
where that is final destination of the Piece 
* no Possessions, Game objects, or artefacts may be placed on or 
removed from Pegged Stations 

A Pegged Station may freely (or at least as freely as other Rules allow) 
be passed through, used as the jump off point for a Straddle, Shunted 
past, Blocked, or otherwise used as the subject of an act which does not 
leave a Piece or other Game object resting at it. 

A Player may Peg a Station by playing the Neutral Action [Pegging 
<Station>] on any Station which eir Piece starts at, passes through, or 
is adjacent to at the end of eir Move provided that the Station is 
unoccupied. 

A Station is Unpegged by the Neutral Action [Unpegging <Station>] which 
may be played on any Pegged Station which the Actioning Player's Piece 
passes through or is adjacent to at the end of eir Move. 

{ Comment: 
Pegging is intended to disable a Station without closing the Line 
Segment it is on, acting as a kind of inverse Maelberg Variance. 

The final bullet point is intended to cover in general terms all Token 
Stack manipulation, Shunting of Stacks and Packages, dropping of 
Railcards (which obviously isn't germane any more but would have been 
covered) and anything else we come up with in the future. 
} 

[Action: Pegging] 
Name: Pegging 
Type: Neutral 
Text: [Pegging <Station>] 
Duration: 10 minutes 
Cost: 1 Bu 

[Action: Unpegging] 
Name: Unpegging 
Type: Neutral 
Text: [Unegging <Station>] 
Duration: 10 minutes 
Cost: 1 Bk 

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

Proposal 501 - Very Witty, Wild [Multiple]

[Repeal: Born Free] 
Repeal Rule 1.11.1 (Born to be Wild). 

{ Comment: The discussion about how Wilding works (ie teleport v LU 
traversal) made me think about just how much Wilding has been done 
recently and, more to the point, how it appears to have been replaced 
conceptually by other things: Stupid Compass Tricks, Strile, even 
Straddle. 

Fundamentally, Wild is obsolete and should be removed. It's primary 
benefit to the Player, that of circumventing defences, has been 
declared moot (not much use if a Block will stop it). Wilding has 
never been a particularly tactically rich Action anyway, simply because 
whatever Wild Station you want to go to can be forced off the bottom of 
the list by other Players, a spoiling Action which takes no skill. 

The rest of this Proposal deals with the fallout from the above Repeal. 
Note that this includes the immediate repeal of two as yet unused Rules, 
but I still don't think that their presence alone makes Wild as a whole 
more relevant. 
} 

[Repeal: He Looks Pretty Well Spung to Me Already] 
Repeal Rule 1.7.35 (Spanging Offence). 

[Amendment: Angry Young Game] 
Amend Rule 1.1.2 (A New Game) to Remove the Wild bullet item. 

[Amendment: Wild? I Was Livid!] 
Amend Rule 1.2.0 (The Game State Document) such that its third paragraph 
reads as follows: 

"The GSD shall also include the following information in an appropriate
format: 
the Game's Knip Status (see Rule 1.8.4) and Bridges Status (1.8.3); Game
Time; 
Token Stacks; Courier Pick-up and Destination Stations." 

[Amendment: Wild Away the Time] 
Amend Rule 1.5.0 (Valid Moves) to remove the Wild bullet point from 
section 3. 

[Amendment: Sweeping Majestically Across the Plains] 
Amend Rule 1.7.2 (Pre-Move Actions) to remove the [Wild] Action. 

[Amendment: Bang! Bang! You're Prince Philip's Lunch] 
Amend Rule 1.7.15 (Post-Move Actions) to remove the [<Station> Wild] 
and [Spanging <Player>] Actions. 

[Amendment: The Importance of Just Being] 
Amend Rule 1.7.10 (Walk the Walk) such that its last paragraph reads as 
follows: 
"The Walking Action is considered to occur after all other Actions, but may 
not be combined with other Actions which either modify the Player's 
position (eg Straddle) or which are aggressive." 

[Repeal: Hitting the Buffers] 
Repeal Rule 2.2.1 (End of the Line). 

{ Comment: this is probably the saddest thing, since it hasn't been tried 
out, but without Wild it's meaningless. } 

[Amendment: Pass the Water Wings] 
Amend Rule 2.2.2 (You Can't Swim) to read as follows: 

"When a Player is in Spoon, e may not cross the River Thames by any 
means other than [Home] or [Strile] moves, unless eir move contains the 
action [Unspoon] and no other Actions other than adjustment of LV or 
exchanging [Gold to Silver, Bronze or Blue] or [Silver to Bronze] 
Tokens." 

{ Comment: 
Replacing Wild with Strile. 
}

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

Proposal 502 - Wait Your Turn [Amendment]

Amend Rule 0.7.1 (Emergency Proposals) so that its third paragraph reads 
as follows: 

"After twenty-four hours have elapsed (excluding weekends), 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." 

Add the following paragraph at the end: 

"When announcing the results of voting on the Emergrncy Proposal, the 
Speaker must distribute a record of how the votes were cast." 

{ Comment: 
Removing the 'first three votes' clause, effectively making an EP just 
a faster Proposal without Quorum. As has been said before, the three 
votes clause effectively disenfranchises all but the first three voters 
and could easily be abused (not that such abuse is likely, merely that 
it would not be difficult to perpetrate). 

The voting results distribution is intended to make EPs equivalent to 
normal Proposals in their transparency, not merely to make more work 
for the Speaker! 
}

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

Proposal 503 - I Toff my Hat at you, Sir! [Multiple]

1. Toffing action [Action]

Neutral Action: [Toffing <Player> with <Hat>] 10 mins -3 Re

2. How to Toff [Enactment]

A Player may Toff another Player that is in the same Zone and Quadrant
by performing the [Toffing <Player> with <Hat>] Action, where <Player>
is the Player being Toffed and <Hat> is a Hat that the Toffing Player
owns. The Toffing Player then takes a Gold Token, or its equivalent
under any combination of the Token Conversion Actions enumerated under
rule 1.17.21, such that the denomination of the tokens is the lowest
possible denomination. For instance, four bronze would be taken if
available, but if the Toffed Player had two bronze and one gold, then
the gold would be taken. The Hat used is destroyed at the end of the
Player's Turn.

Example:

Barry has one gold, two silver and three bronze tokens.

Barry : Highbury and Islington (VC)
Willie: Kentish Town (NT) [Toffing Barry with BR Hat]

{Comments:
Willie gets two silver tokens from Barry as a result of the Toff.
}

{Changing the main source of objection, the agreement of the players,
to be a simple grab, but still making it such that gold can't be taken
if silver is available, and so forth.}

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

Proposal 504 - Beaking [Multiple]

1. One for the birds [Action]

Neutral Action [Beaking <Player>] 20mins -2Re, -1Bu

2. Birds of a feather... [Enactment]

A Player may Beak another Player by performing the [Beaking <Player>]
Action, where <Player> is the player being Beaked. The Beaked Player
and the Beaking Player must both be at different Park stations on the
same Line. The Beaking Player may then take one Small item from the
Beaked Player's Luggage, or up to three Blue Tokens from the Beaked
Player (providing the Beaked Player has at least this number of Blue
Tokens).

{Adding that it must be a Small item, which prevents Parcel Beaking,
and changing the 'and' to an 'or' to make it nicer to the player being
Beaked.}

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

Proposal 505 - More renumbering!

Renumber Section 1.4

{Comments: 1.4.1 - 1.4.19 - 1.4.20 - 1.4.18 - how is a player to find
what rule e wants?!}

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

Proposal 506 - Mentor Centre [Multiple]

{ Comment: Cheeky proposal here. I nicked this one from Garden Nomic
where I'd also proposed it, as it seems like a damn fine idea. It is
probably much more useful here as the ruleset is quite large indeed.
}

1. Welcome to the Underground [Enactment]

Upon joining Mornington Nomic, any new player may choose to 
have a Mentor assigned to assist em with the Nomic for as long 
as they feel necessary to get aquainted with the game. The Mentor
will introduce em to the concept of Nomics as well as helping em to
understand the existing Mornington Nomic ruleset and procedures.

When a Mentor is requested, one will be assigned at random by the 
Speaker from the pool of available Mentors unless a specific
Mentor is requested by the new player. If no Mentors are available,
the Speaker will fill the roll of Mentor until one becomes available.

Upon enactment of this rule, any existing Player who feels e could
benefit from a Mentor may email the Speaker with eir request and 
one will be provided for em. This paragraph will then remove itself
from the ruleset.

2. We want YOU! [Enactment]

Any Mornington Nomic Player who feels e is experienced enough to help
new players with the learning of the Nomic rules and procedures
may appeal to the Speaker to become a Mentor. The Speaker will
then decide if e is veteran enough to take on the position and assuming
e is successful, e will be added to the Mentor list which will
be maintained on the Mornington Nomic web site by the Speaker.

If at any time a Mentor feels e cannot fulfill eir role, e may 
mail the Speaker and request removal from the list.

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

Proposal 507 - Award of the State [Multiple]

1. Ye Old Trout and Owl [Amendment]

Move Rule 0.4.14 - (Fish and Fowl) to Section 0.9 (Kudos) and amend to read:-

Each Nomic Week, on completion of Voting, the Speaker may give out 
discretionary bonus Kudos Awards, as specified by this Rule. Each Award may
be made no more than once per Nomic Week, though if the Speaker feels that 
no Player or Proposal deserves a particular Award in any given Nomic
Week, e may
decline to award it that Week. For Proposal Awards, no Player may receive
more 
than one Award for each Proposal.

The Award counts towards the Kudos score for that Nomic Week of the
Player. The 
Speaker may not give emself any Awards. However, each week the Speaker shall 
receive the 'For E's a Jolly Good Fellow' Award, a bonus +3 Kudos points,
for 
doing a grand job.

The Awards are as follows:

* Ruttsborough Award for Grandiosity

Awarded for Proposals that are particularly ambitious in scope and scale.
Each vote FOR this Proposal shall score +1 Kudos points for the Proposer.

* IMCS Clarity Award

Awarded to Proposals that are particularly clear and concise. The Proposal
need not be short, but its wording must be particularly clear and
unambiguious. The Proposer shall receive a bonus +3 Kudos points.

* CAMREC Cleanup Award

Awarded to Proposals that make particularly pertinent or perspicacious
Amendments to the ruleset, e.g. fixing a loophole or a broken Rule. The 
Proposer shall receive a bonus +3 Kudos points.

* Mrs Trellis Award for Entertainment

Awarded to Proposals that are particularly entertaining, amusing or just
plain daft; Proposals that add to the fun of playing Mornington Nomic.
The Proposer shall receive a bonus +4 Kudos points.

2. Well Played, Mate [Amendment]

To the Rule (Fish and Fowl), append the following Awards:-

* Who's a Clever Bear? Award

Awarded to a Player who has played a particularly clever or cheeky move 
sequence in the past Week. The Player shall receive a bonus +3 Kudos
points.

* Down-Underground Award

Awarded to PaulWay for each first attempt, non-buzzed move he makes each
Week. Any Pass or Forced Pass move does not count as a valid move in this
instance. PaulWay may receive a bonus +1 Kudos points for each of these
valid moves in a Week.

{ Comments:
Sorry Paul, I couldn't resist it =) At least you'll be immortalised in the
Mornington Nomic ruleset now. Heh.
}

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

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 22 Sep 98 18:24:06 +0100

>Proposal 496 - Tournament Play [Special Ruleset] 
What a marvellous, marvellous thing. 

This made me smile though... 

> I expect we can 
I seem to remember that's more or less what Starbug said about the World 
MC Championships around the middle of last year. Fifteen months later, 
and the 1997 WMCC is still going on... 

>Proposal 499 - Token Cascade Rethink [Multiple] 
Better. But... 

>made since the [Token Cascade] action was played. 
Should this say "X plastic tokens of a single colour"? I ask because 

>Proposal 500 - Peg Doubt [Multiple] 

An amusing typo - 
>Text: [Unegging <Station>] 
Removing the yolk of tyranny, no doubt. 

If I could raise a PoO to correct that please? 

>Proposal 503 - I Toff my Hat at you, Sir! [Multiple] 
Again, much better - much more public. 

Small factual error: 
> For instance, four bronze would be taken if 
>available... 
That should be *eight* bronze: 1 Go = 2 Si = 8 Br 

>Proposal 506 - Mentor Centre [Multiple] 
What a pleasant idea. 

> If no Mentors are available, 
^^^^ 
Cheese and onion? Or the egg that was removed earlier? 

(it should be "role") 

-- 
Dunx the Pedant 
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, 23 Sep 1998 11:25:00 +0100 (BST)

>Turn, but its contents may not change.

Hmm. Interesting idea - I'm not sure if it'd be neater to implement it
as just "the Station may not be targetted by an Action (viz. chosen as
the "<Station>" for any Action involving Stations, other than
Unpegging)" and ban Moves to it as well, since the current wording is
a shade confusing. (I can't see how you'd ever be able to Straddle from
a Pegged Station if you can't Move there and can't have a Station Pegged
while you're sat there, for instance).

>passes through or is adjacent to at the end of eir Move. 

Probably a post-Move one, then, really.

>Cost: 1 Bk 

Hmm. Perhaps a tad on the cheap side. Although I suppose its very
post-Moveness makes it fiddly enough for the effort to be enough of
a cost.

A nice idea, anyway. My only real quibble is the old "keeping track
of which Stations have been Pegged" thing, since an early-Pegged
Station is likely to be forgotten about. Perhaps another "word in
the Token Stack" thing would be worthwhile. Minor griping, though.

>Repeal Rule 1.11.1 (Born to be Wild). 

But... but...

Tish, Wilding has always seemed a very integral part of Mornington
Crescent, a feature mentioned perhaps more than any other in the
ISIHAC games. It'd be a shame to lose it without giving some form
of alternative implementation, I feel. To respond to the comments,
though...

> declared moot (not much use if a Block will stop it).

I'd always seen the primary benefit as "being able to get to a
distant Station very quickly". That if someone's faffing about
Token Running at the arse end of the DLR, while everyone else
is bickering around Heathrow, it gives a handy shortcut. That
it provides a swift route back into central play if you've done
your deeds in distant Zones. A quick path to Bank once you've
got your Hats. Less sneaky than Straddling or what have you in
that you need to declare it a Turn before, so Players have a
Turn to adjust, to wonder if you're bluffing or not.

> Wilding has 

Oh, I don't know - yes, if someone does an obviously Game-winning
Wild, the other Players can conspire to shove it off the top of
the list (which *does* take skill, in the spotting of the plan).
The trick is to Wild to Stations which aren't immediately
beneficial, or to somehow prevent other Players from ruining the
Wild list.

>Repeal Rule 1.7.35 (Spanging Offence). 

Tsk. I'd rather see this amended than blindly repealed.

All in all, a very neat Wildectomy and an excellent collection of puns
for the sub-Proposals, but Wild seems too integral and traditional a
part of the Game to be struck out so harshly.

>"After twenty-four hours have elapsed (excluding weekends), [...]

Much better, yes.

> normal Proposals in their transparency, not merely to make more work 

Indeed. As dave was saying, I think Eprops could benefit from being
distributed anonymously, as an aid to impartiality.

>{Comments: 1.4.1 - 1.4.19 - 1.4.20 - 1.4.18 - how is a player to find

I just search for the necessary word or Rule number, or use the HTML
Ruleset, myself. I think most people are probably just getting their
text editor to search for a Rule number, rather than wading through
looking for it, aren't they? I suppose if you work from a printed
Ruleset it's a bit of a pain in the arse, but I can't imagine anyone
going to the bother of running off a new one each Week.

And in response to Dunx's comments:-

>and the 1997 WMCC is still going on... 

Well, with a tournament of eight Players or less, it'd just mean
having quarter-finals, semi-finals and a final; since two-Player
games tend to be quite swift, we should easily finish before the
year is out.

> [...]

Not really superfluous; if I lack, say, the five Plastic Tokens
required at step five of the Cascade, I have to surrender all
three of my Blacks. A bit odd that I don't just surrender all of
my Plastic Tokens instead, but not really superfluous.

>If I could raise a PoO to correct that please? 

Indeed. Amended.

>Again, much better - much more public. 

Still a bit too scary for me, though - that there's very little
possible defence (I'd be happier if the Toffee, as it were, was
required to be wearing the same Hat as that used by the Toffer),
that it's potentially devastating when you consider that
everything inside the Circle Line is in the same Zone and
Quadrant. Tish.

>That should be *eight* bronze: 1 Go = 2 Si = 8 Br 

...and should reference Rule 1.7.21, not Rule 1.17.21. Still.

>>Proposal 506 - Mentor Centre [Multiple] 

Indeed; I do rather pity anyone trying to work out the complexities
of the Ruleset without a guide.

>Cheese and onion? Or the egg that was removed earlier? 

Perhaps someone's just trying to get me to make their sandwiches.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"Many an ancient lord's last words had been,
'You can't kill me because I've got magic aaargh.'"
-- Terry Pratchett, "Interesting Times"

---

From: kenningd@w... (I am the Water Boatman)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:24:15 +0100

>distributed anonymously, as an aid to impartiality.

Well, that's not quite what I was saying -- I only really meant that the
protocol regarding author's identity and voting results should be the same for
both emergency and regular proposals. I don't mind either way whether authors
are identified or not (in fact, if I were to express a preference it would be
*for* identification) just that we exercise some consistency.

>looking for it, aren't they?

I use my browser's search facility to find a key word, particularly useful if
you can remember the name of the rule.

>of the Ruleset without a guide.

Never mind newbies, I've been playing the game for over a year and I still have
trouble.

dave

---

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:35:37 +0100 (BST)

>both emergency and regular proposals.

Careless wording on my part; the impartiality was just one of my
thoughts on the subject. Consistency is certainly more of an issue,
though.

>I don't mind either way whether authors

I think identification is fairly superfluous, really - I'm sure we
can all usually guess who proposed what, simply going by the writing
style. I did have a small amount of fun on Thring by intentionally
writing my Proposals in the style of other Players, so as not to
draw attention to my scams, but in a Nomic like this it doesn't make
a lot of difference. Most of us comment on all Proposals other than
our own, anyway, and freely say "this was mine" at various junctures.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"I will be here - oh, believe me. I will be here. Believe me."
-- Morrissey, "Angel, Angel, Down We Go Together"

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 23 Sep 98 16:19:30 +0100

>Probably a post-Move one, then, really. 

Dash it, yes. I'm still thinking in terms of Move Actions which 
disappeared yonks ago. 

>the Token Stack" thing would be worthwhile. Minor griping, though. 

Well, yes. But then again, no... I agree that there are limitations in 
the text format of the game (as opposed to having a board to hold a lot 
of this state information) but I don't really see that doing a quick 
search of the GSD for pegging references is any harder than looking at the
top 
of the page. 

>But... but... 

Okay, so I'm trolling slightly here. That doesn't mean that this is a 
frivolous Proposal, though. 

>of alternative implementation, I feel. To respond to the comments, 

I can see that - tradition is very important in Mornington Crescent. 
However, I would cleave to my primary point which is that no Wilding 
has been done in MN for some time - there are no recent examples, and 
overall usage has been light: 
Game Wild Moves 
---------------------- 
1 1 
2 0 
3 3 
4 3 
5 0 
6 1 
7 0* 
8 0 
9 0* 
10 0* 

* in progress 

Obviously there are immediate flaws in this argument: if disuse were 
sufficient to kill a Rule, then Striles, Tithing, Marmalade Sandwiches, 
and much else in the Game would have disappeared long ago. 

Also, that argument fails to take account of the Wilds that might have 
been, those which were considered but discounted, or which were hoped 
for but foiled. I don't doubt that the presence of Wilds has shaped 
the tactics used by all of us. 

>Turn to adjust, to wonder if you're bluffing or not. 

Hmm. I hadn't really seen that role for it. 

>beneficial, or to somehow prevent other Players from ruining the 

I suppose what I mean by 'tactically rich' is capable of being used 
with finesse... I agree that spotting a stratagem employing Wild takes 
skill, but there isn't any need to do so - a trivial defense against 
Wild strategies is for Players to specify a new Wild Station each 
Turn. To my mind, that negates any aubtlety which might be employed. 

I suppose what would be needed is to make Wild declaration harder, or 
to allow for some form of fixative to ensure a Wild Station hangs around 
for a decent interval. Hmm. 

>Tsk. I'd rather see this amended than blindly repealed. 

Fair comment. I think the name alone should ensure its preservation. 

>part of the Game to be struck out so harshly. 

I did consider merely moving the concept of Wild into Chalk Farm '84 
(since that Special Ruleset contains two variant Rules which use Wild) 
but decided against it since I thought that was a rather weak approach. 

All the same, thanks for acknowledging the good points of a Proposal 
you dislike. I'll endeavour to show the same tolerance. 

I guess I've talked myself out of this Proposal - Wild still has a role 
to play, albeit a greatly reduced one. I'll step away from the edge now. 

-- 
Dunx