Subject: making nomic easier

From: Andrew Brown <a_r_brown_esq@y...>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:32:53 -0800 (PST)

An easier rulset would make things simpler. There is
currently far too much to remember and there are
things which are hardly ever used.

I myself have an idea which would get rid of
i)Charges and Currents
ii)All possesions apart from stubs
iii)The token system
iv)High and Hill stations reducing LV
v)The sanctuary rule
vi)A vast amount of actions
vii)Time

The reasoning for this is that i) takes an age to
calculate. In the case of ii) just think - what use
are spectacles? They can be bought but seem to affect
nothing. iii)How many times have you been annoyed that
you don't have a specific token. Also only 2 stations
(3 under finsbury) can get you a silver token. This
can be crippling as you know. iv) I always forget this
rule until the last minute. v)See iv). And finally
vi)and vii)Some actions are very under used; whilst
calculating the time of day and week is a large pain
in the behind.

On the other hands the traditional features such as
Knip, Spoon, Shunting, Dollis Hill loop and the strile
I would keep. 

You will notice I have not told you how I would do
this, or what actions remain, or how my modifications
would affect other variants.

I will tell you in glorious detail if e-mail me. You
may not be intrested; or my ideas might proove
impractable. Fair enough.

Hoping this finds you as it leaves me,
Andrew Brown

a_r_brown_esq@y...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

---

From: "miKi" <mn_miKi@h...>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:33:50 -0800

charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Welcome to Mornomic Brown, but don't think that you can get away with sugge=
sting something so radical and not expanding on it... Anyway, by and large,=
I agree with you - there is a lot of superfluous overhead in the rules whi=
ch does make jumping into a game rather daunting. I had a hand in getting t=
he rules into something workable, but then was out of touch for about 8 mon=
ths starting around the time charge was introduced, and to be perfectly hon=
est, couldn't really get back into it when I got reliable internet access a=
gain.

So, I am largely in favour of the proposal briefly outlined by Brown, maybe=
with the exception of the token system. We do need to have some sort of cu=
rrency, and though the large number of token colours is probably excessive,=
I think that we require that Actions have some cost to the perpetrator.

So my thoughts are along the lines of:
1. Pare the ruleset down to an agreed bare minimum required to have a f=
unctioning game.
2. Let Nomic work its magic on the rules.
3. Have more emphasis on creating Special Rulesets which is more in cha=
racter with Traditional MC, so the basic game remains reasonably simple and=
hence straightforward for newcomers and old timers like myself who have lo=
st the plot.
4. Have a normal rules game running constantly in the Lyttleton lounge,=
leaving the others for Special Games as required.

Do we have a(n active) Speaker?

Mind the gap,
- miKi

PS. Excuse the poor wordwrap - I currently have to use Outlook Un-express f=
or email. I never thought that I would pine for pine!
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Andrew Brown=20
To: [email-masked]=20
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 5:32 AM
Subject: MN: making nomic easier

I would keep.=20

a_r_brown_esq@y...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35=20
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

---

From: "Kevan Davis" <kevan@s...>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:51:11 -0000

> 1. Pare the ruleset down to an agreed bare minimum required to 
have a functioning game.

Agreed. I think we're more or less there already, really - my only 
doubts about ruleset_2000_8_5.html are that the Black-Token LV 
replacement seems just as complex as LV itself (but with far more 
unpredictability), and - possibly - that Token Stacks are more 
trouble than they're worth.

> 2. Let Nomic work its magic on the rules.

Mm, maybe. I'm not sure if Proposal-and-Voting is an overly 
bureaucratical path to tread - as has been said before on the 
subject, we'd have a more robust basic ruleset if any points of 
contention were argued through to a unanimous agreement, if 
individual issues were addressed en masse, rather than by whoever 
happened to notice them.

> 3. Have more emphasis on creating Special Rulesets which is 
more in character with Traditional MC, so the basic game remains 
reasonably simple and hence straightforward for newcomers and old 
timers like myself who have lost the plot.

This seems a good way to go. A sturdy, static basic ruleset, but 
which can be used to play dynamic Nomic games (or to replay previous 
Special Rulesets, of course).

> 4. Have a normal rules game running constantly in the Lyttleton 
lounge, leaving the others for Special Games as required.

Indeed.

Kevan

--
http://uncertain.org/~kevan
"Later on the Northern Line, she'll freak about the lack of sky."

---

From: Paul Wayper <paulway@e...>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:50:36 +1100

At 06:33 AM 11/02/2001, you wrote:
> 1. Pare the ruleset down to an agreed bare minimum required to have a 
> functioning game.

I'm absolutely 100% for this idea. I'm very strongly against any one 
person deciding what we have in our ruleset - I can agree with some of 
Brown's proposals but scrapping the token system is like saying that in the 
interests of simplicity only vanilla icecream will be sold. The previous 
games have proved that tokens are almost vital as a way of keeping track of 
who can do what.

I think the best course of action is to start with the Volume 0 Ruleset 
(which defines how to play the Nomic side of the game) available on the 
Xoom MorNomic site without Rule 0.4.3 (which allows the speaker to move 
references to token movements in a proposal into the table in Rule 
1.4.1). This ruleset had spent nine weeks without a revision, and I 
consider it to be stable and a good foundation for play.

>From there, I think each of us should nominate to be 'in charge' of one 
section of play mechanics. For instance, I'd like to nominate myself to be 
in charge of tokens. This means that it's my job initially to set up (in a 
set of proposals) the framework for token keeping, token transactions and 
so forth. People should be encouraged, but not forced, to borrow sensibly 
from the Volume 1 rules. Anyone is free to propose anything they like, 
whether inside their 'charge' or not, but the caretaker of that section is 
the one who should be predominately with that section. I.e. I might 
propose something on game timing, but if the game timing caretaker says "I 
have a better idea" or "I've been thinking on that for a while and we need 
to do X to make the game more complete" then I'd acquiesce quite happily.

The game sections I see are:

* Actions: how players do things in the game.
* Definitions: ensuring standard usage and standard terminology.
* Game timing: the timing of moves and actions and so forth.
* Legality: buzzing, taking back invalid or illegal moves.
* Movement: moving around the map (via lines or not).
* Special Rulesets: keeping everything separate, and keeping everything 
together.
* States: spoon, knip, bridges, toffing, narging - all that stuff.
* Tokens: their acquisition, usage, transferral and movement on the board.
* Winning: how to win; keeping various methods at roughly equal 'cost'.

> 3. Have more emphasis on creating Special Rulesets which is more in 
> character with Traditional MC, so the basic game remains reasonably 
> simple and hence straightforward for newcomers and old timers like myself 
> who have lost the plot.

I think this is a very good point; it could be argued that a lot of the 
complexity was in stuff like clothing and charges that could, indeed 
should, have been placed in a separate variant ruleset and used when 
applicable. I also tend to be a Traditionalist, in that I like Mornington 
Nomic to reflect the way Mornington Crescent is played on ISIHAC and at 
such sites as Madeira, Outer Space, and Orange (not to forget Mono 
list). This means I'm not 100% happy with things like newspapers and 
busking not because they didn't work but because they're not a part of my 
life playing MC on the internet.

Perhaps we need to be more careful of what things we introduce into the 
standard game and put novelties and special effects into variant rulesets 
(of which, by convention, there are a myriad). This is not to say that I 
want to keep such things as shunting or spoon in separate rulesets - I want 
the IMCS Standard to be still playable, as it were. The border is blurred 
and vague; each of us must make up their own mind as to when they cross it.

> lounge, leaving the others for Special Games as required.

Yes!

>Do we have a(n active) Speaker?

I'd volunteer Dunx, since he did an excellent job, but if necessary I'll do 
the job. Some weeks I have time free, some weeks I don't.

Have fun,

Paul

---

From: "Ole Andersen" <palnatoke@g...>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 06:02:36 +0100

Paul wrote:

...
: I think this is a very good point; it could be argued that a lot of the 
: complexity was in stuff like clothing and charges that could, indeed 
: should, have been placed in a separate variant ruleset and used when 
: applicable. 

"Mornington RPG"

... 
: Perhaps we need to be more careful of what things we introduce into the 
: standard game and put novelties and special effects into variant rulesets 
: (of which, by convention, there are a myriad). This is not to say that I 
: want to keep such things as shunting or spoon in separate rulesets - I want 
: the IMCS Standard to be still playable, as it were. The border is blurred 
: and vague; each of us must make up their own mind as to when they cross it.

What if (after an initial period of confusion, angst and all that) the Standard Ruleset could only be amended by moving rules from the non-Standard rulesets?

Ole

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:40:27 -0000

> trouble than they're worth.

Though I prefer the Black-Token LV system, I lost the 'consensus' and
a time based system was established. I started to convert the ruleset,
but never got round to putting it up. It is up now. Token stacks were
a half-decided system that is really just a place holder. It can be
replaced or enhanced as the group decides (if indeed we continue with
the new ruleset).

> individual issues were addressed en masse, rather than by whoever

I want a democratic system, but nothing so clunky as what we have now.
It should be able to cope with discussions that last weeks (or
months), but not turn minor problems into bureacratic nightmares.

I think the speaker should start a thread to be discussed. Everyone
debates it as close to unianimity as possible then someone makes a
formal proposal (direct to the list), and everyone votes a +1 or -1
(direct to the list), after a certain amount of time (say 4 working
days) the votes are summed and a positive number passes (or a higher
threshold could be set).

The speaker is only responsible for deciding the thread. Everything
else can be done directly by the players (including updating the
ruleset if we use eGroups file space).

> Special Rulesets, of course).

This sounds exactly right provided the nomic games only affect the
Special Rulesets, not the 'static' basic ruleset.

--
Snow
(playing with my new optical mouse)

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:10:43 -0000

PaulWay said:
> section of play mechanics.

I don't like this at all. We'll just end up with people trying to
implement moving with actions, becuase they're in charge of actions
and the person in charge of moves is not being co-operative. Everyone
should have equal say on all subjects. Furthermore where possible
everyone should be encoaraged to have a say on all subjects, the more
people put their input in the more likely we are to get the best
solution.

> * Winning: how to win; keeping various methods at roughly equal
'cost'.

Looks right.

> > lounge, leaving the others for Special Games as required.

Yes.

> the job. Some weeks I have time free, some weeks I don't.

Officially I'm still Speaker, but I'd like to get rid of the role so I
can stop being diplomatic. Since Dunx is willing I'll second the
nomination.

--
Snow
(this sig has been left intentionally blank)

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:20:29 -0000

I Said:

> but never got round to putting it up. It is up now.

I'm talking nonsense, it's already up I just linked to the wrong
version. The right version is:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/l-nomic-d/files/ruleset_2000_8_14.html

--
Snow
(Mind like sieve invades sieve like mind)

---

From: Paul Wayper <paulway@e...>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:16:30 +1100

At 04:02 PM 14/02/2001, you wrote:
>What if (after an initial period of confusion, angst and all that) the 
>Standard Ruleset could only be amended by moving rules from the 
>non-Standard rulesets?

Cunning, and brilliant. Sounds like an excellent idea. I'm 100% behind it.

Paul

---

From: Paul Wayper <paulway@e...>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:06:01 +1100

>months), but not turn minor problems into bureacratic nightmares.

I agree with your idea here, but I'd like to propose (heh) an idea to take 
the overriding control of the process off the hands of the speaker.

Any person can propose an idea, whether it be a nebulous preference or 
actual rule text. E then becomes the 'referee' for that proposal. Votes 
are collected by em, discussion is moderated and processed by em, and in 
general e is responsible for the process of taking that idea and turning it 
into a rule that everyone agrees on. Near unanimity should be the goal, 
but people are encouraged to construct rather than block.

>From having been the Speaker in Thring and from seeing the workload that 
gets passed to the Speaker in this game, I think it's a good idea to free 
them from as much administration as possible. So in my mind they should be 
the ones to do the updates of the ruleset, but that should be reduced to a 
simple matter of copy and paste.

>Special Rulesets, not the 'static' basic ruleset.

Yep. I think a standard guide (but not a hard-and-fast rule) should be 
that a rule should survive one play in a Special ruleset before being 
considered for addition to the 'IMCS standard' Ruleset. And even then, I 
can see things like Clothing and Currents being permanently in Special 
Rulesets.

Paul

---

From: Dunx <dunx@d...>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:00:18 +0000

> can stop being diplomatic. Since Dunx is willing I'll second the

Well, if no one else has any objections I'll setup the magic phone booth
of Speaker transformation over the weekend.

In particular, I'll write up a formal process proposal so we have
something concrete to argue about.

Forward, to a future of brighter tokens!

-- 
Dunx
Life. Don't talk to me about life.

---

From: Dunx <dunx@d...>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:04:12 +0000

> but people are encouraged to construct rather than block.

That seems a reasonable basis. My thinking was in particular that any
changes to basic rules should be entirely unanimous, including transfer of
elements from a special ruleset into the basic rules, but that special
ruleset changes might be managed using majority voting.

> simple matter of copy and paste.

I would certainly endorse that point, as I'm sure Snow and Kevan can too.

---

From: Dunx <dunx@d...>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:23:34 +0000

PaulWay wrote:> Any person can propose an idea, whether it be a nebulous preference or 

Having said that, this process is probably not going to advisable until we
have a reasonably stable basic ruleset - as Snow mentioned elsewhere, the
core rules are best considered as a whole.

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 21:54:51 -0000

> simple matter of copy and paste.

I agree with everything you and Dunx said (about the debate system)
with 3 minor caveats.

1) The static ruleset should not require unanimous agreement to make
changes, but a higher majority (say 75%). I say this because once we
have a stable playable ruleset I will vote -1 for everything that
isn't a bug fix; and I don't want my view to get in the way of what
might be the majority.

2) There should only be one 'major' discussion at a time. Chosen by
the Speaker from suggestion from players. Minor details can be dealt
with in the background.

3) I should try to remember my 3rd point.

--
Snow
(I did have a 3rd one, but it appears to have left my brain)

---

From: Paul Wayper <paulway@e...>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:09:38 +1100

>people put their input in the more likely we are to get the best

Well, I was advocating co-operation and interaction, but I can see your 
worst-case scenario. Personally, I think if we need movement in actions 
(and, given that Wild moves are one of the fundamental components of MC 
play as I see it, I think we do) then the coordinators of those two topics 
get together in email and nut out a complete structure. Then they put it 
up for everyone to review. Only when you have a 75% majority (the figure 
being bandied about currently) does that set of rules get added.

I guess I see coordinators as the people who guide the process of setting 
up the rules. I think the ruleset we're trying to create is too complex 
for one person to hold all the 'concept' (ie. the modus operandi and grand 
scheme) of each facet of play in eir head for too long before it all gets 
to be a gooey paste.

Paul

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:35:41 -0000

> scheme) of each facet of play in eir head for too long before it all
gets

OK, your suggestion was sensible for the ruleset you envisage. My
critisism was sensible for the ruleset I envisage. But we've had this
discussion many times. I can't see any point having it again.

--
Snow
(Mmmm, popcorn)