Subject: MN: Re: Year 3 Week 4 Proposals

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@u...>
Date: 05 May 99 13:25:10 +0100

Best get back into this... lots to comment on in a patronisingly approving 
way as well. 

The Proposals for Week 4 included: 
> Proposal 705 - The Emperor's New Clothes... [Enactment] 

This is really, really nice... a tremendous example of one good idea 
sparking another. Trellis is going to be hard to award this Week. 

A couple of specific comments, though: 

> Hat (any other) If the player ends eir (non-Passed) Move at a 
> Station of the same type as the Hat being worn, e may collect 1 Blue 
> Token provided that e has not collected that Hat in the same Turn. 

I'm glad to see this one again, having been terribly disappointed when my 
attempt at something similar was voted down. 

>(It 
> should be noted that only one Hat can be worn by any one Player at one 
> time: if the player wishes to wear another, the first must be removed.) 

I agree completely, but this text is rather buried at the moment - it could
do 
with being brought out in the open a bit more since it is a terribly 
significant point. 

>If, for some reason, the Player wears 
> only one Glove ("L"eft or "R"ight) there is no effect: two must be worn 
> for any effects. 

Michael Jackson impression, anyone? 

Hmm. 

> {Comment: Pockets aren't bottomless, hence the suggested limit of 
> four small possessions therein... and losing an Overcoat is not likely 
> considering that it can't be stolen by a Shunt if being worn, and there 
> is no reason to take it off once worn.} 

What about if it's a warm day? 

> Proposal 706 - Timeout On The Grand Scale [Enactment] 

Fair enough, I guess - there are a fair long term Inactive Players kicking 
around. 

> Proposal 707 - You Have 10 Minutes To Clear This Building... [Amendment] 

> *Amend "Any Player" to "Any Player who is fewer than <n> stations 
> away, where <n> is that Player's LV" in the restrictions on detonating 
> the Package: and change the Action to Post-Move (it is currently 
> Neutral.) 

I'm not sure about the range of a remote control being limited by LV... I 
suppose it makes some kind of sense in terms of playability, although not a 
great deal as far as physical analogues go. 

> "A Player may perform the Action of [Defusing Package] [...] 

Pleasing. 

> Proposal 708 - Blocks, Impediments and Gaps [Multiple] 

> *Renumber the Bulkheading rule (1.7.26) into Section 1.9 

I remember being a little surprised at the time when Bulkheads turned up in 
section 1.7... ah well. 

> Proposal 709 - *Boing* (Chalk Farm Ruleset) [Enactment] 

Interesting... not terribly sure how useful it is, but it might be
instructive 
to see how it plays. One query: 

> (3) The Shunted Player does not travel along the same Line in the 
> opposite Line Direction to that which the Shunting Player arrived. 

This seems very opaquely worded to me - I can see what it means, but it took
me several readings to sort through it. 

I think the problem is that this (and indeed most of the numbered points) is
actually a restriction on perfoming the rebound rather than a consequence. 

In other words, I would say that this Proposal needs restructuring. 

> Proposal 710 - Token Table Change [Amendment] 

I have a strange feeling of deja vu... 

I'm glad to see this, but we do seem to be going round in circles on this. 

> Proposal 711 - Walking In The Night [Amendment] 

> Game Time 'skips' the time between 0000 and 0500, and this 'skip' 
> advances the day of the game time by one day. Thus, if Rushton's Turn 
> finished at Wednesday 2340 and Garden's Turn takes 40 minutes, then 
> Garden's Turn ends at Thursday 0520. An exception to this 'skip' is 
> the Action [Walking]. [Walking] can occur between 0000 and 0500. 
> Thus, if Rushton began [Walking] at Wednesday 2350, this Action would 
> end at Thursday 0020. The next non-[Walking] Action could not begin 
> until 0500. 

Er... why, though? 

> Proposal 712 - Lost and Found [Multiple] 

This in combination with Proposal 705 is splendid. 

I'm still unconvinced about the lengthy duration, deeply significant or not.

> Proposal 713 - Ever-Rolling Stream [Multiple] 

A lot of very perspicacious amendments, with one solitary caveat... 

> 3. Long Lunch [Action] 

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Action Phase Rule Dur Cost Gain 
> 
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> [Duration: +0x00] Neut 1.7.x Varies 
> 
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

This makes such manipulations free, whereas the the current [Game Time]
Action 
costs one Blue Token per hour. This may seem a pointless objection when 
Farkling is always free, but then you can't do anything else at the same
time 
as a Farkle. 

> Proposal 714 - Time Again [Action] 

Better, but it's still not clear (I think) from the wording of the Proposal 
that this is a padding Action but does not itself extend the duration of the
Turn. In fact, I'm not convinced this meaning is even present without the 
passage of Proposal 713 above. 

> Proposal 715 - A Pressing Special Need [Multiple] 

I'm going to come back to this later - I need to go over the current 
implementation again. 

> Proposal 716 - Quick Change [Amendment] 

A very perceptive little amendment. 

> Proposal 717 - Slight CAMREC Rumblings [Multiple] 

> Replace the last paragraph of Rule 4.2.4 (Checks and Balances) with:- 

> If only one Player remains in the Game, e is the Winner. 

Oh, I suppose. 

It's interesting this - this not only fixes a broken bit of wording (which I
accept unreservedly and with gratitude) but also takes away that way of 
winning. 

My intention was to allow a Player to win by moving eir Commuter to MC. 
Unfortunately, I blew it on the wording - I was so busy trying to get the
chess 
bits sorted out that I rather forgot about moving to MC. 

Oh well. It's no loss. 

> Proposal 718 - Uncharged [Repeal] 

> Repeal Rule 2.1.2 (No Charge). 

> { Comment: That Rule doesn't exist any more. } 

This is mine. 

It's been pointed out to me that this coment can be somewhat misleading. The
purpose of this Proposal is to remove a reference to Rule 1.19.3 which was 
repealed some time ago - the comment confuses the issue, since it can be 
misread as meaning that Rule 2.1.2 doesn't existi any more. 

Sorry about that. 

-- 
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/group/l-nomic-d
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

---

From: kevan@d...
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 12:46:13 -0000

Just a brief response to a comment from Dunx (forgive the formatting on this one, but the eGroups text editor has, as ever, ideas of its own):-

> > 3. Long Lunch [Action]

Nng. It was meant to be, of course, one Blue per hour, again. Making it fairly identical to the Game Time Action, if you use the free Waiting Action to pad out the spare hours.

Expect an email shortly with an update to the Proposal, Dunx.

Kevan