Subject: MN: Re: Year 3, Week 1 Proposals

From: "Jonathan Ellis" <jonathan@f...>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:36:54 +0100

>> Proposal 672 - 50Hz Notch Filter [Multiple]
>>
>> Remove all mention of the Drone in the Ruleset. Specifically,
>>
>> {The Drone hasn't been used in the last, oh, six or so games, and it
seems
>> to be now almost totally moribund (especially now that the rules are
getting
>> larger and more complex). Sorry, but it's dead wood.}
>
>I, too, happen to like the Drone. I think something only reaches the
dead-wood stage when people aren't using it for a good reason -
personally, it's only been for coincidentally strategic reasons that
I've left the Drone asleep; there have been quite a few times when I've
considered and dismissed claiming the Stick.

I found the Drone useful in the game I won: if I'd declared West
Finchley as Wild myself, other people might have noticed what I was up
to and tried to Block it or, worse still, name three Wild Stations in
quick succession and put it off the list. Getting the Drone to do the
calling just before I moved instead was an integral part of my strategy.

>> Proposal 673 - Contracrostipunctus II [Amendment]
>
>Aha. Good things; an impressive step towards making Move Validity more
comprehensible.

Good. Clears up some of the slightly less well worded versions left
before (though the effect doesn't change that much, just the wording.)

>> Proposal 677 - No more albums [Multiple]
>Hmm. Maybe a good thing, although I'm not sure we'd have that many
Actions that would require it. Shunting and Shadowing obviously need
something like this, but I think the current implementation is
stronger - it's more intuitive that such Actions can only be played
immediately after your Move, and this also makes the game a lot fairer.
The proposed replacement is a little broken in that you can Move, Clamp
and then Shunt, for example.

I agree here. At the moment one can't Clamp and Shunt because the Shunt
must be played first, leaving the Player no longer there to be
Clamped... with this dismissed by the wayside, nastiness becomes too
powerful. (Though maybe it could get into the Rutts ruleset...)

>> Proposal 679 - Czech Variant [Special Ruleset]
>
>Very strange and intriguing. I fear it might be something of a
nightmare to visualise, but I'd be keen to have a go at it once the
careless wordings had been ironed out.

Wow. As a chess enthusiast myself, I'd vote for this one.

>> Proposal 680 - Not So Fast [Amendment]
>
>Five Proposals seems a good number, to me - it's nice to have a good
load of things to mull over, and gives less exciting amendments a chance
to be put forward. If Dunx is happy Speakering such a quantity, I'm fine
with it as it is.

I myself still prefer a slightly more static ruleset with things
not changing radically every week or two. On the other hand, I suppose I
can live with five.

>>>Proposal 681 - Recapture the Flag [Amendment]
>>
>>This doesn't take into account the fact that more than two teams might
be
>>playing. Shouldn't it be something like "If the Flags of all opposing
>>Teams rest at the HQ of one Team..."?
>
>Not really - I think it'd become too tortuous and rambling if you had
to collect more than one Flag to win; while you were off getting your
second one, you'd have to guard the first one, and everything. Getting
one enemy Flag and taking it Home should be challenge enough.

Not if you make some compromise with the current ruleset: rather
than "the first team to place an enemy Flag on their Home Station is the
winner", we could say "any Flag placed on the Home Station of an
opposing Team is removed from the game, along with the Team that it
belongs to and all that Team's Possessions: none of the Players of that
Team may rejoin the Game at a later stage. When only one Team is left,
it is declared the Winners." This allows for more than two teams to play
while still retaining the fact that you can't lose the game unless your
own flag is captured.
I still have a gripe against the complete lack of reference to MC
itself in the winning conditions of a game which purports to be an MC
variant: so I shall be proposing, next week, to designate it as an
"Other Game" in a renumbering of the Ruleset, splitting the Special
Rulesets into (1) Section 2: Special MC Rulesets (eg Chalk Farm, Rutts,
Finsbury, Long), (2) Section 3: MC on other networks (there are enough
of these to merit a full Section to itself), and (3) Section 4: Other
Games (those which are played on the Underground with some MN-related
moves, but reaching MC is not the goal: for instance Capture the Flag
and Dunx's Chess-related variant.) In these, there should be no "Opening
MC" action and cost, and MC remains open at its normal opening hours.

Jonathan.

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