Subject: MN: Re: Year 2, Week 46 Proposals

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@u...>
Date: 24 Mar 99 12:29:43 +0000

Week 46's Proposals included: 
>Proposal 653 - Let's go Loop the Loop [Multiple] 

I rather like this - it also has a lot of potential. 

>Proposal 654 - Voting Comments [Enactment] 

Fair enough - I think we should see how it works, although I don't know that
there would necessarily be anything which a Voter might say privately which 
wasn't already going to be expressed on the list. 

Perhaps we should institute some small Kudos reward to encourage comments in
this form? 

>Proposal 655 - Day Tripper! [Enactment] 

Ooh, lovely. 

>Proposal 656 - Let's Do the Sidestep Again [Multiple] 

Despite Paul's implication, I don't think this is entirely incompatible with
653 above. After all, the costs remain unchanged and the effect of this 
Proposal is to offer a discount on Sidestep if you're going fast enough. 

I would accept that this should be broadened should 653 pass, though. 

>Proposal 657 - Burnt Offering [Multiple] 

PaulWay said: 
-- We may need more people around to make a proposal limit of five 
-- worth its while. 

Possibly, but as far as I can see one of the justifications for the Rewrite 
Proposal type is to allow more change (or at least fixes). 

Now, I'm quite keen to kill Rewrites because they're a pain to administer.
You 
wouldn't have thought this would be the case (I certainly didn't at the
time), 
but a Rewrite requires the Speaker to very carefully evaluate each Rewrite 
Proposal for whether it changes the sense of the rule it is purporting to
only 
reword - granted that this process could be performed after Proposal 
publication, but I feel it is incumbent upon me not to issue an invalid 
Proposal in the first place. 

Given that the Rewrite idea was passed into the Ruleset by a large majority,
I 
thought a reasonable quid pro quo for removing this avenue for increasing 
Kudos would be to allow more Proposals. 

For myself, I can't fill my three Proposal quota each Week so an increase
will 
not affect me. After all, there is no *compulsion* to submit up to the
quota. 

Still - that's rather more than two pennorth, but those are my views. 

>Proposal 658 - Gold Rush [Action] 

Hilarious. That *will* be fun to play with. 

>Proposal 659 - God Help Us [Multiple] 

All fair enough, I think - I still think you shouldn't be offered sanctuary 
while you're picking up Pigeons though. 

>2. Papal Bull [Amendment] 

>In Rule 1.10.1 (A Shunting We Will Go), replace "neither Dollis Hill nor a 
>Holy Station" with "not Dollis Hill". 

This points to a minor hole in Loop the Loop - this should refer to Trap 
Station, I would have thought. 

>Proposal 660 - Loan Clamps [Action] 

Yikes. 

A very entertaining and amusing idea (unles you are the victim of course), 
offering a good way of forcing Players with Money Belts to spend Golds. It
has 
two, I think fatal, flaws: 

1. it is far, far too cheap to initiate. Since Bronze is as common as water 
(slight exaggeration, but you see my point) this would undoubtedly
become 
the primary offensive Clamp. 

A Red or Green component would be more appropriate, I would have
thought. 

2. as the Proposal is written, if you do not have the Tokens you can never 
dispose of the Clamp: 

> At the end of any Turn of a Player carrying a Loan Clamp, if that 
> Player has not performed an Action of "[Paying Interest]" during that 
> Turn, all of eir Tokens are destroyed. 

Yes, but you retain the Clamp?! 

I can see the point of this (you lose all your tokens, and scramble
around 
looking for a Gold), and I can see a thriving Token Gift market 
developing, but not only does it seem appallingly Draconian it is
entirely 
out of step with how other Token loss states behave (cf Token Cascade, 
particularly). 

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/l-nomic-d
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com