Subject: Re: MN: RE: Direction needed.

From: riffraff@n...
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 23:44:04 -0500

>> e) Do we drop the Nomic side? If so what do we replace it with?
>
>No. Keep it.
>
>I think you miss another fundamental feature of our current conditions. At
>the moment play seems to be stalled because people don't have the time to
>play. In this situation, the chances of someone actually having enough time
>to sit down and rewrite vast quantities of ruleset are slim at best.
>Therefore, if we do go down that path we can expect the entire game to
>crumble into a wilderness of flaky revisions, hesitation, and apathy. This
>is not a Good Thing, in my opinion.

I think we should at least alter the system to consensus rather than just
votes, though. And we need to discuss the proposals much more beforehand.

>
>I've been having conversations with ky (from MCiOS) and she's found my Guide
>(now called the Hitchhiker's Guide to MC) very useful. That from a player
>completely new to both MC and Nomics is a telling point, again IM(PNSH)O.

...What's the 'P' stand for?

>
>What did other people think of it?

All I saw was the intro. Could you post the full text?

--Riff

"This calls for a subtle blend of psychology and extreme violence."
--Vyvyan, "The Young Ones"

---

From: "Wayper, Paul" <WayperP@p...>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:49:48 +1000

On Thursday, May 18, 2000 2:44 PM, riffraff@n...
> votes, though. And we need to discuss the proposals much more beforehand.

Agreed. Perhaps we need a fourth type of vote - REFINE. If more than
(count(Players)/4) Players vote Refine, the Proposal is carried over to the
next Week and the author is encouraged to refine it to the suggestions made
on the discussion list. A way of not just trashing proposals that don't
immediately appeal or aren't created perfect.

> ...What's the 'P' stand for?

Probably. In other words, I am biased on this issue, so presenting evidence
that proves my claims is not necessarily independent.

> All I saw was the intro. Could you post the full text?

Er, that's all there is so far. I'll see if I have some more spare time;
I've got it at home as well now so I'm going to continue working on it. I
should be able to make something that covers all the bases but doesn't take
more than, say, four pages.

Have fun,

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: riffraff@n...
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 00:44:55 -0500

>more than, say, four pages.

Well, looks quite good so far. I'm interested to see what you come up with
for the beginning Player's guide to the game itself.

--Riff

---

From: riffraff@n...
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:38:37 -0500

>immediately appeal or aren't created perfect.

The only problem is, it still leaves the possibility for Players to vote
against something and have it go through anyway. Personally, I would much
prefer for us to continue discussing the topic until _everyone_ feels they
can vote For. If we condense the current rules down into a tight, basic
ruleset, it's necessary, IMO, for everyone to approve of those rules,
because they're going to be the foundation for everything that comes after.

I think, for the immediate restructuring to a core ruleset, we can do away
with our usual system of automated voting, and go to a purely discussion
format. The reason being, the weekly voting schedule isn't going to fit
well with the discussion going on - either a topic will be touchy and we'll
still be in the middle of discussing it at week's end, or it'll be fairly
obvious, we'll reach a consensus right away, and be forced to wait a week
to count the votes and move onto the next matter.

Here's an example of how I think it could work:

Speaker: "Next item of business: Rule x.y.z: Should we keep it? Discuss."
[or, alternately:]
Speaker: "PaulWay has proposed we delete rules a.b.c - x.y.z. Discuss."
[or:]
Speaker: "How exactly should Rule x.y.z be phrased? Suggestions?"

Kevan: "Foo."
PaulWay: "Bar."
Snow: "Baz."
RiffRaff: "Ling."
Kevan: "Ling?"
RiffRaff: "Ling."
Ole: "Fnord."

[Once discussion has died down or appeared to reach a conclusion:]

Speaker: "All right, what are your votes?"
Kevan: "Aye."
RiffRaff: "Aye."
Ole: "Aye."
Snow: "Aye."
PaulWay: "Nay."
Speaker: "PaulWay, why Nay?"
PaulWay: "Foo."
RiffRaff: "Bar."
Ole: "Baz."
[Etc.]

And once we can all agree on the issue, or on a suitable compromise, it
gets added to the new ruleset. The advantage is, not only can we get the
simple things over with quickly, but we can change proposals to add
agreed-upon changes or compromises on the fly, instead of having to wait
another week for an updated Proposal. Assuming that everyone has a chance
to deal with the e-mail at least once a day (is that a valid assumption?
Haven't heard from Kevan in a couple days), and that we could handle two or
three discussion threads at a time, we could get the thing done with pretty
quickly. At that point, we can start playing games based on the new core
rules ("Mornington Crescent Basic Rules"), and go back to our usual Nomic
format to start producing Revisions. (For which a REFINE vote would be a
great addition.)

Thoughts?

Of course, we should firstly decide how to go about revising. Should we go
with Snow's suggestion to discard the whole thing, and propose items that
need to be included? Or do the opposite - start with the current ruleset
and propose changes and deletions? Or my idea, to simply go through the
sections and rules one by one and vote on what to keep and what to remove?

Again, thoughts?

--Riff