Subject: MN: Year 3, Week 15 -Proposal

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:12:01 +0100

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

Proposals for Voting on in Week Fifteen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Proposal 841 - Eating at Home [Multiple]

1. There's No Place Like McDonald's

In Rule 1.4.18 - The Emporium insert at the end of the first block of text:

A Home-Cooked Meal may only be purchased at the Player's Home Station.

In the Possession table, insert:

+---------------------+------+---------------------------------+
| Possession | Cost | Qualities |
+---------------------+------+---------------------------------+
| Home-Cooked Meal | 1 Br | Edible, Huge |
+---------------------+------+---------------------------------+

after:

A Player may sell any of the above goods ([Selling <Possession>]) back
to the Emporium at half price (rounding all fractions down) provided e
is at a Station where that item may be Purchased.

insert:

A Home-Cooked Meal may not be sold.

2. It's terrifyingly Nutricious!

In Rule 1.4.16 - Playing with Food after:

A Player may perform the 20-minute Pre-Move Action of [Eating
<Victual>] at the start of eir Turn, where <Victual> is an Edible
Possession that the Player is carrying. Upon performance of this
Action, the Actioning Player gains Line Velocity equal to the cost
of the Victual in Bronze Tokens, and the Eaten Possession is
destroyed.

insert:

For the purpose of this rule, a Home-Cooked Meal is considered to have
a cost of 3 Bronze Tokens.

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

Snow
-Who can do things with a CD most people can't do with a lava lamp.

---

From: kevan@d...
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 04:04:55 -0700

To respond briefly to this week's Proposal, before I forget...

> Proposal 841 - Eating at Home [Multiple]

Basically allowing an cheap opening Move with an LV of six, or - more
horrifyingly - a quick return to high LVs after performing a "[Home]"
Action. 
I don't really see any need to offer such an offset to the zero-LV
Homing drawback, to be honest.

It does allow a more interesting variety of opening moves, which is a
good thing, but just seems too cheap to be fair, in all. Perhaps
allowing Players to purchase any Food at their Home Station, since
they'll have it in their cupboards, would be more balanced (and would
lessen the bonus for picking a BR Station as your residence). Hmm.

Getting back into Nomic mode,

Kevan

---

From: "Ole Andersen" <palnatoke@g...>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:20:37 +0200

Kevan wrote:

: > Proposal 841 - Eating at Home [Multiple]
: 
: It does allow a more interesting variety of opening moves, which is a
: good thing, but just seems too cheap to be fair, in all. Perhaps
: allowing Players to purchase any Food at their Home Station, since
: they'll have it in their cupboards, would be more balanced (and would
: lessen the bonus for picking a BR Station as your residence). Hmm.

Point taken. Proposal withdrawn.

Ole

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 02:47:08 +0100

> Point taken. Proposal withdrawn.

Confirmed.

Players might like to vote anyway (for nothing) if they want the decisivness
Kudos bonus.

Snow
-Who can do things to a life-sized Kenny from South Park soft toy most
people wish they could do to their boy/girlfriend(s).

---

From: kevan@d...
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 00:43:32 -0700

> Players might like to vote anyway (for nothing) if they want the
decisivness

I think precedence says that we should get it anyway (based on the
cases where all Proposals for a given Week are from the same Player,
plus - I think - one Week where we didn't get any Proposals), although
looking at the logic it seems a bit suspect. Maybe Rule 0.9.1 (Kudos)
could use a little ambiguity-smiting.

> people wish they could do to their boy/girlfriend(s).

You're scaring me.

Kevan

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

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 16:45:55 +0100

> could use a little ambiguity-smiting.

I feel that the spirit of the Rule (since the wording is ambiguous) is that
Players should be rewarded for making the effort to vote, hence some form of
effort should be required (a blank vote).

On the other hand, if there is a precedent then that should be followed (I
have no recollection of it, so it might be from before my time here).

Snow
-Who is wondering whether it should be "whom".