Subject: MN: Year 3 Week 26 Proposals

From: "MN Speaker" <speaker@d...>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:17:02 +0100

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORNINGTON NOMIC

Proposals for Voting on in Week Twenty-Six
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 913 - Collapsing Singularity [Multiple]

1. Implosion [Amendment]

Repeal Rule 1.7.50 (Singularity).

2. Most Singular [Amendment]

Remove all mention of Singularity from Rule 1.7.2 (Actions).

{ Rule 1.10.0 (Target Practice) now covers the multiple-Shunting/Clamping
business quite neatly, and I'm afraid I still can't see any reason for
denying a same-Turn Anti-Narg, Busk and Pigeon Catch, or whatever. }

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

Proposal 914 - Soap Distant [Multiple]

To the list of things caused by Soap in Rule 1.20.6 (Soap on the Tracks),
add:-

* Any Player performing a Special Move to a Station on that Line must,
immediately after eir Move, move eir Piece to an unblocked Station
adjacent to that Station, unless all adjacent Stations are Blocked.

Also, insert a few more carriage returns in Section 1.20; it looks a bit
cramped, at present.

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

Proposal 915 - Stack Tracking [Amendment]

To the end of Rule 1.4.19 (Token Tracking), add:-

In the GSD's list of Token Stacks, each Station name should have its
Quadrant appended to it, in parentheses.

{ I don't know about you, but I usually can't be bothered to check which
Quadrant each existing Stack rests in, and, unless I recognise a
particularly obvious one, just create a new Stack instead. Not good. }

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

Proposal 916 - I'll Get My Coat [Amendment]

Rename Rule 1.4.15 (You've Got To Pick A Pocket Or Two...) to "You Got A
Light Mac?" (I keep expecting the Rule to be about pickpocketing rather
than overcoats), remove the superfluous "subject to any restrictions on
the number of objects that may be Nantucketed" (because there aren't
any), and reword the third paragraph from:-

If a Player loses eir Overcoat, any Nantucketed Possessions are lost
as well.

to:-

If a Player's Overcoat is stolen by another Player, and the robbed
Player has only one Overcoat, all of the victim's Nantucketed
Possessions are moved (remaining Nantucketed) to the stealing Player's
inventory. If a Player loses an Overcoat and has none left as a result,
all of eir Nantucked Possessions are also lost.

{ Allowing "decoy Overcoats" if anyone can be bothered. This seems the
most reasonable way to deal with multiple coats, anyway. }

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

Proposal 917 - A Great Fall [Multiple]

Repeal Rule 1.8.14 (Humpty Dumpty Loop) and remove the relevant Actions from
Rule 1.7.2 (Actions).

{ After too many occurences of this Loop being initiated and not realised
(and even not realised by the initiating Player), I think it's time for it
to go, or at least be replaced. I'd suggest the Pimlico Loop again, but
nobody ever seems to go for it. Feel free to suggest replacements next
week, I suppose. }

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

Proposal 918 - Fingers on Buzzers [Multiple]

{
As before, but with Questionable Turns rather than Buzzed ones.
}

Reword Rule 1.16.1 - One Good Turn

A Turn may be Legal, Questionable, Illegal or Mistimed.

Turns are Legal by default; if the most-recently taken Turn is Legal play
may continue as normal.

If a Turn is not Legal, play may not continue until the Turn has been
established as Legal or Illegal. All Turns following a non-Legal Turn are
deemed Mistimed.

If a Turn is Illegal it, and all Turns that follow it, are deemed never to
have occurred and play continues from the most recent Legal Turn.

{
Mistimed Turns become Legal if the Questionable Turn becomes Legal, so Buzzing is
not an underhand way to retake a regretted Turn.
}

In Rule 1.16.2 - Buzzing
replace the sentence

If a Player believes that another Player has made a Turn which is not in
accordance with the Rules being used for that Game, and if no more than
three other Turns have been made since, e may Buzz that Turn.

with

If a Player believes that another Player has made a Turn which is not in
accordance with the Rules being used for that Game at the time the Turn
was subbmitted, and if no more than three other Turns have been made since,
e may Buzz that Turn.

{
Stops Turns being Buzzed that were valid at the time taken, but not after
a Ruleset change.
}

Add to the end of
Rule 1.16.2 - Buzzing

If a Turn is Questionable then no further Buzzes can be made in that Game.

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

Proposal 919 - Clean up [Multiple]

{
There's a lot of stuff here, but I don't think any of it is contraversial, so
I've lumped it all together.
}

1) ----------

In Rule 0.2.7 - Free for All

Replace

the current state of the Mornington Crescent Game

with

Games State Documents

{
I don't know whether this originally refered to the Fluid/Frozen thing or was from
when there was only one Game, but it will be better this way.
}

2) ---------

Remove the phrase "if charge does not match" from the [Opening MC] Action in
the Action table and the Baker Street variant (Section 2.14).

{
This definitly shouldn't be there.
}

3) ---------

Start Rule 0.4.3 - Proposal Submission

Each Player may

instead of

Players may

4) --------

In Rule 0.4.5 - Proposal Enactment

Remove the bracketed text

(or, in the case of Emergency Proposals, the moment at which the Judge
declares eir Vote)

{
Judges aren't used any more.

No Replacement for this text is needed since the EProp Rule is worded
appropriatly
}

5) --------

Move Rule 0.4.16 - Voting Comments

to SECTION 0.5 - Votes

6) --------

In Rule 0.5.6 - Distribution of Voting Results
Remove the "the" from

and
relevant information concerning the each Proposal's passage

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

Proposal 920 - Today's Special [Multiple]

In Rule 0.2.10 - Special Rulesets

Remove the paragraphs

Special Rulesets may be referred to explicitly by name, or by number in
the form 'SR <X>' where <X> is the relevant number.

Change the paragraph

No Special Ruleset may alter the rules of Mornington Nomic, directly
or otherwise.

to

The only Rules Special Rulesets may alter, directly or otherwise, are its
own.

MN Speaker
-Weighing up the pros and cons of buying Rolf Harris's Greatest Hits album (£3.99 from HMV).

---

From: "Ole Andersen" <palnatoke@g...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:33:21 +0200

: Proposal 913 - Collapsing Singularity [Multiple]

Fine.

: Proposal 914 - Soap Distant [Multiple]
:
: To the list of things caused by Soap in Rule 1.20.6 (Soap on the Tracks),
: add:-
:
: * Any Player performing a Special Move to a Station on that Line
must,
: immediately after eir Move, move eir Piece to an unblocked Station
: adjacent to that Station, unless all adjacent Stations are Blocked.

Having to move *after* one's Turn seems to be hard to implement.
How would you write it? And is moving after one's Turn at all permissible?

:
: Also, insert a few more carriage returns in Section 1.20; it looks a bit
: cramped, at present.

That sounds fair.

: --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
:
: Proposal 915 - Stack Tracking [Amendment]
:
: To the end of Rule 1.4.19 (Token Tracking), add:-
:
: In the GSD's list of Token Stacks, each Station name should have its
: Quadrant appended to it, in parentheses.

Nah. It would ruin my attempt at putting line numbers on the stacks in
Chateau d'Eau. Finding one's way round London is not *that* hard, methinks.

: --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
:
: Proposal 916 - I'll Get My Coat [Amendment]
:
Nice.

:
: Proposal 917 - A Great Fall [Multiple]
:

I assume it has to go.
I hope to reintroduce it, perhaps as a non-automatic loop.
There was this proposal about having two kinds of loops, where some loops
would have to be declared, while others, eg Dollis Hill, were automatic....
If any of you want to make such a prop, feel free.

:
: Proposal 918 - Fingers on Buzzers [Multiple]
:

Appears to be OK.

: --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
:
: Proposal 919 - Clean up [Multiple]
:

Sure.

:
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
:
: Proposal 920 - Today's Special [Multiple]
:
: In Rule 0.2.10 - Special Rulesets
:
: Remove the paragraphs
:
: Special Rulesets may be referred to explicitly by name, or by number in
: the form 'SR <X>' where <X> is the relevant number.
:
: Change the paragraph
:
: No Special Ruleset may alter the rules of Mornington Nomic, directly
: or otherwise.
:
: to
:
: The only Rules Special Rulesets may alter, directly or otherwise, are
its
: own.

How about Rulesets referring to each other? Capture the Flag is a Team game,
IIRC. Does this mean that changes in the Team game rules would have no
effect on the Capture the Flag rules?

Ole

---

From: "Snow" <snow@s...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:06:33 +0100

> Proposal 913 - Collapsing Singularity [Multiple]

Seems fine.

> Proposal 914 - Soap Distant [Multiple]

OK.

Fine.

> remove the superfluous "subject to any restrictions on
> any),

The first paragraph of Rule 1.4.15 says

Up to four Small Possessions may be stored therein

> Proposal 917 - A Great Fall [Multiple]

Good, but what about the Games that are in Humpties already? Under the new Loop rules they will
remain in the Loop until the Loop terminate Action is played.

I made a similar mistake when I changed the Loop Rule, as a result it's not clear whether Game 19 is
in a Loop or not.

Snow
-"Licensed to kill"

---

From: "Ole Andersen" <palnatoke@g...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:16:18 +0200

Snow wrote:
: > Proposal 917 - A Great Fall [Multiple]
:
: Good, but what about the Games that are in Humpties already? Under the new
Loop rules they will
: remain in the Loop until the Loop terminate Action is played.

I assume that they will stay in the loop, but that the undefined-ness of
this will cause the state to be of little importance.

Ole

---

From: kevan@s...
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 04:13:46 -0700

> How would you write it? And is moving after one's Turn at all
permissible?

It's Moving after one's *Move*, though, which is very easy to implement
(Straddling, Compass Trickery, etc.). I confess I overlooked the
documenting of it, though, and this is enough of a flaw to kill it,
really. It needs a compulsory "[Slipping to <Station>]" Action, so that
other Players can tell, in future Moves, where Player X ended up. Tch.
Reproposal next Week.

Kevan

--
kevan@s...
http://www.stormloader.com/kevan

---

From: kevan@s...
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 04:19:42 -0700

> Up to four Small Possessions may be stored therein

Oh. Tch. I didn't notice that. I think that bit implies the superfluous
bit anyway; everything in the Ruleset is subject to everything else in
the Ruleset, after all.

The four-limit does rather muck up stealing an Overcoat from someone,
though. I'll tweak this next Week if I remember.

Kevan

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:14:31 +0100

> effect on the Capture the Flag rules?

If the Team game rules are used by other Rulesets then changes will automatically propagate. This
Proposal doesn't affect Ruleset changes via Proposal.

The Proposal just allows Special Rulesets to change themselves, but still forbids them from changing
other Rulesets.

eg The long game has something like "This Rule will repeal itself on the second of January 2000"
this will be allowed if the Proposal passes, but isn't currently.

Snow
-If I heat my brain to 50,000K I can communicate telepathically with crockery.

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:14:38 +0100

> this will cause the state to be of little importance.

Players will still have to move to the next trap station, but there won't be one to move to.

Snow
-Replacing his brain with an inflatable crocodile.

---

From: "Ole Andersen" <palnatoke@g...>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:44:48 +0200

...
: > I assume that they will stay in the loop, but that the undefined-ness of
: > this will cause the state to be of little importance.
:
: Players will still have to move to the next trap station, but there won't
be one to move to.

I revise my position:
How can one be in a Loop, when the said Loop is neither mentioned in the
rules nor in the GSD?

The moment the Loop is stricken from the ruleset, we have no indication of
it's having been there.

This could, btw, be a good reason to put Loops in the Disruptions box... or
such.

Ole

---

From: kevan@s...
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:12:55 -0700

>> Players will still have to move to the next trap station, but there
won't
> How can one be in a Loop, when the said Loop is neither mentioned in
the

To throw in my two Bronze Tokens' worth, Rule 1.8.6 (Loop the Loop)
says that a Loop State "must have" three specific features; Trap
Stations, a Sidestep and an Escape. If something doesn't have these,
it's not a Loop, even if we refer to it as "The Something-Or-Other
Loop".

> The moment the Loop is stricken from the ruleset, we have no
indication of

I think the moment it's stricken, it stops being a Loop and, lacking
any other defined effect on the Game, becomes entirely ineffectual.

> This could, btw, be a good reason to put Loops in the Disruptions
box... or

Mm. Aren't they already, though? I notice the Ruleset doesn't seem to
have anything to say on the matter, mind.

Still right here,

Kevan