Subject: Re: MN: Direction needed.

From: riffraff@n...
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 18:41:52 -0500

>These are my views:
>a) Does everything work as it is?
>a) No

Agree.

>b) Do we want a "static" version of the game?
>b) Yes

Yes, mostly. I think it should be possible for new stuff to be added, but
only with full or nearly-full consensus, and only after we've gone through
a couple test games. (Or if it's discovered we're missing something vital.)

Idea:
MC, historically, is an oft-updated game anyway. Suppose, instead of
adding new rules one at a time, we waited until we had a dozen or so, and
called it "The 1952 Updike Revisions" or whatever. Then we also have
instant variations to choose from, just like classic MC. Of course, this
doesn't matter until we have the first revision finished.

>c) Do we want to scrap everything and start again?
>c) Yes

Weeell... depends what you mean. I don't think we should start
_completely_ over from scratch. I think we should go down the list of what
we've got and say "keep it, toss it, keep it, keep it, toss it...", then
make new stuff to fill any gaps.

>d) If yes to (c), do we go down the "one person rewrite track".
>d) I think we need a one-person editor to start with.

If by 'editor' you mean 'scribe', then yes. But I think everyone should
have a say in choosing what stays and what goes.

>e) Do we drop the Nomic side? If so what do we replace it with?
>e) We drop it initially, to make things work fast, once we have a
>reasonable stable ruleset we reintroduce it, but modified.

Agreed in the sense that there won't be new proposals. But everyone should
agree on the changes made.

>
>The plan I would suggest is:
>
>1) Everyone has a good old shouting match about what the game needs
>and what it doesn't. Each person can contribute bits of ruleset
>(including bits of the current ruleset).
>2) Someone is made editor and goes off with all the bits of ruleset
>and tries to tie them up. If there are gaps either e tries to fill
>them eirself or makes a note for everyone to think about.
>3) Everyone looks at the ruleset and we have a vote on whether it is
>acceptable as a starting point. If not goto (1).
>4) We then start up some form of fast-track Nomic system to edit the
>ruleset.
>5) Once the ruleset is "stable" we modify the nomic system so that it
>can only be changed with a large majority.
>6) We play.

This seems needlessly complicated. I think the ruleset we've got is, in
essence, pretty good. It just needs some of the fat trimmed out,
re-organized, and tightened up. No need to start completely over this way.

>I keep using the word nomic in all this, but I am advocating a game
>which is essentially not a nomic, and thus a different game to
>Mornomic.

True. We could fully take up the CAMREC mantle and call it Real Mornington
Crescent.

--Riff

"This calls for a subtle blend of psychology and extreme violence."
--Vyvyan, "The Young Ones"

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 20:53:41 +0100

> agree on the changes made.

It would obviously be preferable if everyone agrees, but I think we
might have to settle for a majority in some situations.

> True. We could fully take up the CAMREC mantle and call it Real
Mornington

Good idea.

Snow
-I can turn myself into money using only my mind.