Subject: MN: Re: Year 2 Week 47 Proposals

From: "Kevan Davis" <kevan@z...>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 23:49:43 +0100

>Proposal 661 - Recycle that rubbish! [Amendment]

Very nice, if it's safe to assume that Clamps and other non-purchasable
things are "worthless" rather than "priceless"...

I still think two matching Plastics for a Green is expensive, though, when
the whole point of Green Actions is to be neutral and potentially useless
(it's quite sad that bluffing Wilds isn't really an option these days) - a
single Plastic seems fair, or *any* two Plastics seems compromise.

>Proposal 662 - Randomness Regulated [Enactment]

Rule 0.1.3 (The Only Way To Die) beats you to it, I'm afraid. And does
things a little more reasonably - the PBM dice server should only be used if
the rules specifically require a *dice* roll; the Speaker is free to use
whatever means e wishes to establish mere "random" events (initial Game
Times, Judges, Playing Orders, etc), which is fine with me - although it's
open to abuse, Mornington Nomic has never been ruthlessly competitive, and
the alternative of having every such random event accompanied by an
automated dice roll in the Discussion Lounge just seems absurd.

Good to have the summary of the message format, though - such would make a
fine addition to Rule 0.1.3.

>Proposal 663 - Proposal Revue [Amendment]
>
>{Actually tightening the proposal update process - read the old 0.4.3!}

Great Portland Street! I had no idea. The whole idea of changing Proposals
midweek is, of course, rather annoying and awkward. Better to deny it
entirely, I think, although this certainly plugs the hole admirably for now.

>Proposal 664 - Blonk Cheque [Action]

Nicely simplistic - it fits very well as an alternative Shunt, and makes for
a splendid verb. I'm not sure it'd see a lot of use, though; the only real
advantages it brings are (a) bypassing Money Belts, and (b) mucking up
someone's Tokens without losing LV. The first point is fairly moot since you
can (can't you? The Web denies me a current ruleset) steal Money Belts these
days, which I think most people will choose to do, although a Dead-End Shunt
bypasses the things just as well, of course.

The second is a fair enough thing, though, I suppose, making it a nice
counterpoint to Shadowing. The twenty-minute duration seems a bit of a harsh
penalty, though, with all its "sister" Actions taking a mere ten.

>Proposal 665 - Knerdling [Enactment]

A nice image; I'm not entirely sure how easy they'll be to use - how often
another Player will be a valid Target - but it might be interesting finding
out. Passing the Stick along seems a nice means of apology (Brockian
Ultra-Cricket?), but a bit counter intuitive - I'm not sure if it'd work
better if the Stick were destroyed, or simply made more expensive; a
near-permanent Clamp repellent is an appealing thought.

>Proposal 666 - Vermicious Knids [Enactment]

I had to ask the Internet what a Vermicious Knid was, in the end. I thought
it was either a Jabberwock or Blackadder reference ("And did you vanquish
the Nibble-Pibblies?"), but it wasn't either. Roald Dahl, in a book I read
when I was maybe six or seven. Whyever did it ring such a loud bell?

A nice thing, anyway; the game becomes very, very different when you're
denied Special Moves. The removal seems rather harsh, though - getting Home
*and* slowing down *and* spending Blues seems a bit too much to ask.

> - Add "Clamps" to the list of Blocks, Impediments and Gaps in Rule
>1.5.0

Well done that man.

> - Change the order of the Validity Checks, to put Special Moves
>first before LV Modifiers and Trivial Fares. Add the following sentence.
>to the "Special Moves" section: "Special Moves (those mentioned in this
>section) are not considered to pass through intervening stations, and
>are not considered for Trivial Fares or the same-line bonus from the
>Token Collection Table."

Um. Confusing. Aside from a Wild becoming Illegal if out of your LV range,
it seems a bit too convoluted to put Special Moves before Trivial Fares and
then to say "If you play one of these, skip the Trivial Fares". Or am I
missing something?

> Also, all Clamping actions now take the same length of time and
>occur in the same phase of the Turn, and all Clamp-removing moves are
>now likewise consistent. I'm looking towards giving a generic Clamp
>status to most of the restrictions that can be placed by one Player on
>another.}

A good direction to be heading in; bravo to you, masked man, whoever you are
(I still can't quite tell Paul and Dunx apart in their Proposing, for some
reason). I'm not quite sure if we need a generic "This is what a Clamp is,
children." rule somewhere, with other rules just saying "Hello, I'm a
Clamp." - there's not really a lot to Clampness, when you look at it.

Tangentially, I think it might be worthwhile shifting many of the current
Actions to "Neutral" status; there really are very few that need to be
limited to before or after a Move...

> - The action of "Walking" is valid at all times, and is
>specifically exempt from any and all Rules which place restrictions on
>Special Moves.
> {Comment: To prevent a Player being forced to a complete standstill
>when Knidded, Narged and stuck on the diagonal. The Player may still be
>forced to make a move of "Pass" by other Rules, for instance the Late
>Arrival...}

Hmm. Probably a good shout. Nicely intuitive, anyway.

>Proposal 667 - Mad Hatters Tea Party [Amendment]

Interesting. As things stand (to generalise completely unfairly from my own
thoughts), we tend to collect hats regardless, considering a run to Bank if
we have the complete set. This would make Hat collecting much more of a
rarity, which is probably a good thing (there does tend to be a lot of
faffing around collecting Hats just because they're free and might be
useful), but it does make the Hat Trick rather more obvious. I suppose the
removal of the Bank requirement balances it, though.

Hmm. Still a fairly small prize for the things, actually, considering the
effort.

>Proposal 671 - Vote Race [Multiple]

Very good points. And I laughed far too hard and long at "Charon in the
Community". Oh dear.

Killing a Monday night,

Kevan

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

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

---

From: dunx@l... (Duncan Ellis (Dunx))
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 21:37:35 GMT

>The first point is fairly moot since you
>days

Sadly, no - that amendment failed. Otherwise I would have had it away with your
moneybelt in Game 13 some time ago.

Good comments, though - I find myself agreeing with them all, so I shan't
clutter the list further with my own witterings (until I find something new to
say).

Dunx
--
Ceci n'est pas un .sig