Subject: MN: Re: Year 2, Week 41 Proposals

From: "Wayper, Paul" <WayperP@p...>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:20:52 +1000

On Thursday, February 18, 1999 6:43 PM, kevan@s...
[SMTP:kevan@s...] wrote:
> Dunx said:-
> >Proposal 598 - Extending Attacks [Enactment]
> > [...]
> >However, I'd also point out the restrictions that the
> >Actor and Target must be on the same Line and have no Line 
> > Direction changes between them.
> 
> Hmm. True enough; I'd rather overlooked that aspect, I admit. It still
makes Zone 1 play risky, though, and I think it's probably still too cheap
(particularly since most Clamps are deliberately inexpensive because of
their need for proximity).

I might as well come clean - the Extension and Proxying proposals were both
mine. I've submitted to Dunx updates to the Extension proposal for next
week (I personally thought the cost was realistic, but then I may have been
somewhat underfunded in past games :-) - the cost is brought into line with
the suggestions here and a few other bits and pieces are clarified.

The Proxying proposal I've substantially rewritten and am hoping to have
replaced this week if possible. If not, please just pass on it (unless you
consider me particularly worthy of your opprobium for that blunder).

> >> Proposal 601 - Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb [Multiple]
> >Some useful bits of rewording, but overall this rework 
> > doesn't actually fix some of the problems.

I agree - I'd vote more positively for this if it was two separate
proposals, rather than trying to do a substantial rework of Suspect Packages
as well.

> >This still seems cheap, especially in a Ruttsborough game.

All destructive actions are cheap in Ruttsborough. That's what makes it
Ruttsborough!

> Surely the ruleset these days prevents *any* Actions being 
> performed during a Move?

Hmmm. Allowing you to do something to any station you pass through is
exactly the same as letting you perform that action during your move, isn't
it? As the current wording of the rules specifically allows you to play an
Action that you cannot pay for until later (and, IMHO, this is a good thing
and in the spirit of MC), they're effectively equivalent.

The [Rebounding] Action is another good example of this. When exactly is
the [Rebounding] action played? Post-Move! And yet the move itself implies
that it has happened _during_ your Move. So I would say it is definitely
possible to write Actions that are done mid-Move in the current setup.

And let's face it, it's illogical to play a Shunt mid-way through your move.
If someone wanted to do this, then I'd recommend they write a [Bouncing off
<Player>] action to be played on any player, with a similar effect to a
mid-move 'shunt'.

> >Better wording of the Suspect Package rules, but shouldn't 
> > there be something about Velocity Bombs going off as well?

Yes, I thought it was rather incomplete, myself.

> Damn those Blasted Stations.

Don't tell me you didn't intend to say that at some point in time when you
drafted that proposal... ;-)

> >I'm also quite surprised no one has put forward a Freeze 
> > yet... still, I suppose dave is Inactive right now.

I'd vote against it - I've suddenly found a desire to write proposals, and I
think that having weeks with no Proposals to vote on is OK.

Springs and things,

Paul Wayper -- DPI ITS 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

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

---

From: dunx@l... (Duncan Ellis)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:42:01 GMT

>consider me particularly worthy of your opprobium for that blunder).
Sadly, I don't think I can do that since it's just too late in the Week -the
Rules require four days to elapse between distribution and Wee-End (well,the
precise wording is that a Week shall be no fewer than four days in length). 

Also, there is no provision for modifying Proposals once they've been
distributed. There have been a few cases where changes have been made, but
they've more minor.

I would have thought that a Player should be allowed to withdraw a Proposal, and
I'm happy to consider a Point of Order from you to that effect if you wish.

>it? As the current wording of the rules specifically allows you to playan

Absolutely the opposite, surely? I'm fairly sure there is a line in the ruleset
stating that the Player must own the Tokens to pay for a particular Action at
the point at which the Action is played.

However, I confess I am at a los to find such a statement in the ruleset as it
stands. If it's been removed, I withdraw the remark (and shall plot to restore
it!)

I would also agree that there is a convention at work of playing against
borrowed Tokens, where line changes are paid for by passing through the
requisite number of interchanges.

>think that having weeks with no Proposals to vote on is OK.

I think I probably would too. My only reason for considering it is that if we
were to have a tournament (as I think we should soon) it would be better if the
ruleset were static throughout.

Dunx
--
Ceci n'est pas un .sig