Subject: MN: Week 43 Proposals: Comments

From: "Jonathan Ellis" <jonathan@f...>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 01:09:27 -0000

>Proposal 621 - Keep the balance right. [Amendment]

This proposal included the following:

>This lowest score is subtracted
>from each Player's Kudos score of the previous Week and given to em as
eir
>starting Kudos for this Week.

What do you mean? This is badly worded. I suspect the writer means -
"This lowest score is subtracted and the _remainder_ given as eir
starting Kudos for this week" (so the lowest scorer of the previous week
starts at 0 again.)
This is, IMHO, very BAD NEWS. It removes the current weighting
towards more recent results in the Kudos stakes: the idea of every
player's Kudos being halved each week was put in for precisely that
purpose, so that as you went further back into the past the results
became less important (last week's score is halved, the week before is
quartered, etc.) Subtracting the same amount (i.e. the lowest player's
Kudos score) from every player instead may keep the scores down, but by
removing the halving element one is taking just as much weight from old
results as new ones, with the result that it is impossible for new
players ever to gain ground on the older players who will have a
built-in and unfair advantage in the Kudos stakes.

An alternative reading of the above (which, as I mentioned, is
badly worded) is that (2)the said lowest total is considered to be the
starting Kudos for the week. This, too, has its problems, because it
takes *no* account of previous weeks: if the starting point for every
Player is the same, then you might as well start from zero rather than
from some arbitrary point based on last week's least popular proposer.
The status quo is preferable in both cases: it does not penalise new
players unfairly in doing so, as (1) does, because of the emphasis on
recent results - but at the same time, a run of accepted Proposals is
actually worth something, where it is not in (2).

>Proposal 622 - Reintermination [Action]

Better than the original Token Running. Half the gain in twice the
time, and with the intention that you have to reach the Terminus along
the Line. I'd still prefer it if one had to leave the way one arrived as
well (as per the original Token Running - I think it should be that both
the move to and the move from the Terminus in question should be forced
to remain on the same Line as if Gapminding, then the difficulty would
actually mean something.)

>Proposal 623 - Lack of Interest Declared [Resignation]

I can't really comment, but fair enough.

>Proposal 624 - We're Bound for Botany Bay (not quite)

>A new Turin '57 subset for the city of Sydney. The URL of the map in
>question is:
>http://people.enternet.com.au/~cbrnbill/maps/sydney.htm
>
>Goal: Macdonaldtown (an almost completely disused station...)
>Bank: Town Hall
>Loop: Rooty Hill

Great idea. Another one to join Chateau d'Eau. Only comment I have
is, last time we played Sydney MC at York, the winning station was
Milson's Point, and I think we have a tradition to maintain... And where
was the loop station when we played it then?

>There are no zones shown on the map; therefore all Rules relating to
Zones
>are ignored. Players shall gain a single Bronze Token on eir Turn.

I suggest that this should be "gain a single Bronze Token for
playing a valid non-Pass Move." I am of the opinion that merely Passing
in a Station for which the Zone Pass is held should not qualify for the
Bronze Token, one has to actually move to a different location (whether
by a Post-Move Action or by the actual Move.)

>Central Station is the Median of the map, and the Quadrants are
superimposed
>on the Sydney system in the same way as they exist in the London
>Underground.
>All Interchanges are to be considered the equivalent of British Rail
>stations for the purposes of the Emporium. All other Rules relating to
>British Rail stations shall be ignored.
>Hats are claimable as normal.

But what about the British Rail Hat, needed to complete the set of
five Hats? Is there to be an Interchange Hat to replace it? This needs
to be worked out.

But a great proposal anyway.

>Proposal 631 - Overeloquent Roadsigns [Rewrite]

>Reword Rule 2.4.1 (Fast and Furious) to:-
> Line Velocity has a maximum of fifteen, rather than ten.

The rest of the Rule may not be entirely extraneous: when I
originally submitted Rutts, it was possible to alter LV by up to 5
points each turn. (Hence the Shunting loss of 6 points: one doesn't have
to stop completely, but you lose more than you can gain the following
turn.) Can somebody tell me when this was changed, or is this a typo in
the Ruleset?

Jonathan.

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