Subject: MN: Sv: Year 3 Week 7 Proposals

From: "Ole Andersen" <palnatoke@g...>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 00:01:25 +0200

Proposal 752 - Venbacker Ladder [Action]

Moves alphabetically forward (or rather _not_ backwards).
The terminator is a bit hard.

I had originally thought of it as a trestle ladder: first up - then down.
The idea got too complicated, so I cut the 'down' part.

Omissions:
] in the Action table
GSD-entry

I'll post an update.

Proposal 753 - Whimsy Shortfall [Amendment]

I like the awards.

Proposal 754 - Stack In The Mud [Multiple]

This kills the need for one of the sentences in Stribble Me Timbers (744,
just adopted).

Proposal 756 - Soap on the Tracks [Action]

Not a very powerful thing, but I like the picture it created inside my head.

Proposal 757 - Sgronk! [Action]

Sure, it _is_ hard to get out of, though Stribbling helps. But feel free to
invent a [De-Sgronk!].

Sgronk! is, btw, the sound of a train being halted by hitting a Token Stack.

Proposal 758 - Following the Wet Footprints [Action]

The '...is a Valid Move and the Player's Piece is not considered to pass
through any
Stations...' came from one of the Special Moves. In fact, the Backtracking
might be quite a thing if you perform several Special Moves in a row. You
can then Backtrack to where you were before the Special Moves.

Proposal 759 - Volume Control [Amendment]

This is OK, especially if it doesn't prevent having a Full Ruleset file,
too. I know that this is not server-friendly, but Xoom might be able to live
with it.

Proposal 760 - Disruptive Behaviour [Multiple]

Fine. We'll probably learn to navigate the new GSD.

Proposal 761 - All In The Wrist [Multiple]

Quite a dangerous redistributor. Let's try it!

Proposal 762 - To The Bottle Bank [Multiple]

More efficient environmental tech. :-)

Proposal 763 - Quail, Mortal [Action]

Grammar question:

If a Player performs an Action which targets a Player who performed the
"[Cowering]" Action during eir most recent Turn, that Action's cost is
increased by one Red Token.

Doesn't 'that' point back to the most recent Action mentioned, which is
Cowering?
Just to be sure some rules lawyer won't fry us.

Proposal 764 - Away from Babel [Amendment]

Very nice. A table I can almost remember, already.

Proposal 765 - I Don't Know About You, But... [Enactment]

Sure, why not.
Someone (just to preserve the anonymity of the author) has a multi-loop in
next week's batch.

Proposal 766 - Fosdyke Notation [Multiple]

Very nice. Poor Amos, though.

Ole

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

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

---

From: kevan@d...
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:52:28 -0000

> Doesn't 'that' point back to the most recent Action mentioned, which is

It's ambiguous at worst, I suppose; common sense tells us that it's probably not increasing the cost of an Action which has already been performed, but I confess it's sloppy wording. I'll fix it under Rule 0.2.11 (In Case Of Ambiguity, Break Glass), if Dunx registers concern.

> Just to be sure some rules lawyer won't fry us.

We'd fry them, I think.

Kevan

--
kevan@d...
http://members.xoom.com/asabove