Subject: MN: Re: Year 3 Week 27 Proposals

From: "Wayper, Paul" <WayperP@p...>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:37:03 +1000

On Thursday, November 04, 1999 6:20 AM, Snow [SMTP:snowl@s...] wrote:
> It doesn't matter in this case, but I would like to voice my general
> disapproval of Proposals that undo Proposal X, especially if Proposal X
removes
> or replaces stuff (which this doesn't).

Indeed. The problem is the overlap between proposing something and having
last week's proposals passed or failed. By the time your proposal enters
the queue, your proposal may already be out of date. This is another area
where rewriting and revoking proposals comes in handy - I think those
mechanisms are better suited to this problem than the rather blunt method
Snow outlines above.

> > * Any Player performing a Special Move to a Station on that Line
> > must,
> > immediately after eir Move, perform the zero-duration zero-cost
> > "[Sliding to <Station>]" Action, where "<Station>" is a Station
> > adjacent to eir current Location. A Player may only perform the
> > "[Sliding...]" Action in this instance, and when e does so, eir
> > Piece is Moved to the cited Station.
> 
> Rather messy, but it seems to be the only way to do it. Does it really
> need doing?

I'd tend to write this as:

* If a Player performs a Special Move to a Station on that Line, their Piece
gets automatically moved to an adjacent Station (Fosdyke Requirement S1L0)
immediately after eir Move. The Station thus 'slipped to' is the final
resting place of eir Piece and, as such, is the Station named in eir Move.

Or, taking a fresh approach:

* While a Line is Soaped, any Stations to which a Special Move is valid are
replaced by those Stations immediately adjacent (Fosdyke Requirement S1L0).
Thus, if the Jubilee is Soaped and Finchley Road is Wild, Special Moves can
be made to West Hampstead or Swiss Cottage _but_not_ Finchley Road.

I actually think the last is better, because it approaches the real problem
- that the player doesn't land on the station e wants to Special Move to.
Thus, the actual target of the Action is altered - and another way of
looking at this is that there are different targets.

But then I'm not the proposer...

Paul Wayper -- DPI IS&S ITO Computer Systems Officer
SigClean 1.5a prevents all errors in transcription, transmission, and
reception of eMail, destroys sig and email viruses, and stops flames.
Report all bugs to the author. SigClean is FreeWare. (c) 1998-9 PJW

---

From: kevan@s...
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 01:39:27 -0800

> resting place of eir Piece and, as such, is the Station named in eir
Move.

I suppose that's fair enough. I just went for the commentary-Action to
make the progress of the game clearer, for the benefit of future
generations. I've a nagging feeling that writing one's Move as
something it isn't might toss a spanner into the works somewhere, but
can't really think of anything.

> But then I'm not the proposer...

Well, the "land and slip" approach seems more intuitive than "waver in
mid-air and land elsewhere" thing; although of fairly minimal impact on
the game, it carries the distinction that you *must be able to Move to
the Station in the first place*. (And, maybe positively, the
requirement to perform the Action straight after your Move means that
you can't Shunt.)

But the idea of Finchley Road being Blocked, whilst a slippery Wild to
Swiss Cottage is still possible, is perhaps a little confusing (unless,
I suppose, you picture the Block itself as being soapy as well, which
is maybe fair enough). I dunno. I'll leave it to the Voters.

Kevan

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

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:20:09 -0000

> requirement to perform the Action straight after your Move means that

Maybe the Move could be made something like Vauxhall (via Oval) in the same way that normal Moves go
Vauxhall (VC via CL).

Snow
-Wondering whether Pieces should be renamed Trains.

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:23:48 -0000

> mechanisms are better suited to this problem than the rather blunt method

I have no objections to Proposals that say "if Proposal X passes do this otherwise do that". It's
ones that say "undo Proposal X" that might be troublesome. If multiple Proposals change the same
Rule several Weeks running, it may be difficult to establish exactly what was there before the
Proposal happened, especially if something is deleted.

None of this matters in the above case because it didn't pass and would only have added stuff.

Snow
-How do you get an Englishman to apologise? 
Stand on his foot.