Subject: MN: Re: Year 3 Week 8 Proposals

From: Dunx <dunx@l...>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 23:27:01 +0100

Somewhat after the party, here are my comments on the Week 8 Proposals.

I've also included my remarks on other people's comments.

> Proposal 767 - Not at All Good for the Environment [Action]

Kevan's already deconstructed this Proposal quite effectively so I shan't say
much more, except that the modified Bransoning mechanism is a lot safer and
more in line with other random events. I still think the whole enterprise is
too expensive for the actual benefit gained.

> Proposal 768 - Game States rewrite [Multiple]

> -New Rule:
> Rule 1.8.0: A Game may be in one or more Game States. These should be
> listed in a section on the Game State Document: if there is not room to
> enter a Game State into the relevant area, enough Game States should be
> deleted from the start of the line to make room for it.

I'm sorry, but I think this idea of deleting Game States from the box if the
line is full is atrocious. It encourages the tactic of declaring additional
Game States to push out one at the head of the queue.

Not, in fact, that the wording given even specifies that the Game States box
operates as a queue.

Jonathan has asserted that this is how the Disruptions box works: that simply
isn't true. The Station Damage box which Disruptions replaced did use such a
mechanism, but Disruptions does not.

> Proposal 769 - Token Stacking [Amendment]

I don't agree with this proposal - most of it is fairly innoccuous, but
then...

> There may be no more than three Stacks in each Quadrant

So what you're really saying is that there can't be more than twelve stacks
(since tokens can only be explicitly placed in Quadrant 0, they are rarely
created).

Isn't this exactly where we were a couple of Weeks ago?

> If a Station contains another entity which is listed in the Token
> Stack table (Suspect Packages, Flags, the Podume of Infinite Darkness
> etc.) then no Tokens may be placed there at all. However, this other
> item does not count against the number of Stacks that may coexist.

I can't see the logic behind this one at all - if a Station is big enough for
a Token Stack and a Piece to co-exist, why prevent other objects being
present?

> Proposal 770 - Loop the Loop [Multiple]

I like some of the taxonomy, but I'm not comfortable with the changes in
wording which Kevan has already pointed out.

> Proposal 771 - Game into Boris... [Enactment]

I'm sorry - this is way, way too powerful and far far too cheap.

Jonathan's explanation of precisely why this is such a nasty game state
convinces all the more strongly to vote against.

> Proposal 773 - Humpty Dumpty Loop [Enactment]

Amusing loop, but the termination condition is too difficult: charge can be a
very large number or negative, which means the chances of having LV an charge
the same are pretty slight.

Could someone run a quick simulation of progress between these stations to see
how charge can vary over time?

> Proposal 774 - A Whiter Shade of Pale... [Multiple]

I like the idea, but... I can't quite see the point. In particular, many of
the Actions fingered for having a White cost aren't defensive.

> Proposal 775 - Return of the Son of the Revenge of the Clever Bear
[Amendment]

Yes, very pleasing. A Clever Bear indeed.

> Proposal 776 - Hatcheries [Action]

Again, Kevan has preempted most of my comments. One point though -

> Rule 1.8.x - Hatcheries

> Hatching a Line Segment causes all Stations in that Line Segment not to
> be considered part of the Line in question for a period of one Round.

> A Hatched Line Segment is indicated in Disruptions [...]

This is wrong. The Disruptions box is for effects which have an indefinite
duration, whereas Hatching is definied as having a duration of one Round.

> Proposal 777 - Lyttleton Announcement [Action]

Do I not like this... this is the smart bomb (in the Defender sense) of
MorNomic Actions.

This just has too broad an effect: global changes to Game State are fair
enough, because they're debilitating in a continuous sense, and obviously
targeting individual players is fine and all part of the game - but this just
blows away the whole game state without any defense at all. And all for a
single Gold Token?

No... far, far too scary.

> Proposal 778 - Fair Warning [Enactment]

It's the selective part of this Proposal which gets me - I agree with the
sentiment, but I'll be voting against this and setting up an automatic
notification to the list instead.

The rest seem fair enough to me - and I will add a link to the Encyclopaedia
Morningtonia from the index page too, since it seems to e seeing so much use
at the moment.

--
Dunx
Ceci n'est pas un .sig

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

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