Subject: MN: Year 3, Week 2 Ruleset Updates

From: dunx@l... (Duncan Ellis (Dunx))
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 18:43:50 GMT

Players:

The updates from the end of Week 2 have finally been completed. At least they've
been done before Week 3 draws to a close...

Anyway, a few Points of Order were implemented, mostly raised by the Speaker:

1. formatting - I'm really, really glad I didn't start these ruleset
edits on Thursday night: they've taken in excess of three hours.

The main reason this was so time consuming has been formatting - in
order to maintain a coherent form to the Ruleset, it's important to
ensure that all the Rules have the same layout.

This isn't intended as a personal attack on anyone, but 
reformatting text is a ludicrously slow and tedious job which I
would really rather not do. I would appreciate it in the future if
Proposers could try to mirror the structure of the existing Ruleset,
particularly in their enactments, since it's much easier for the
original author to do this on each of eir own Proposals than for the
Speaker to have a bulk job to do in one go.

As I say, I don't mean to offend anyone but this has been a pretty
harrowing set of ruleset updates what with one thing and another,
and not really the ideal way to spend a Bank Holiday Monday
afternoon.

2. various odd renamings in the Special Ruleset reworking (eg removing
the "Metro" from the Brighton & Hove "Metro" Guidebook) have been
reversed.

3. Proposal 687 added a Rule to Ruttsborough denying the influence
of 1.10.0. As it was worded, this lifted the requirement of co-
location of an offensive Player with eir victim which the rest of
that Rule makes reasonably clear was not the intent. I've added a
couple of words to address this.

4. Proposal 688 mentions adding a Toff Clamp possession - there is no
place where allPossessions are recorded so this has not been
implemented. The closest thing is The Emporium (Rule 1.4.18), but
that is a list of purchasable Possessions.

5. Jonathan's PoO - as I mentioned, Jonathan has been persistent in
pointing out an error in the Ruleset which I've been slack in
addressing: his point was that the Quadrants for many of the
Finsbury Option Stations were wrong (cut and paste inheritance, I'm
afraid) and that two other Stations were missing entirely.

These points have now been addressed.

Further thanks to Jonathan for mentioning this again after I didn't
do anything with his original message.

Obviously, anyone unhappy with these Points should feel free to complain
to the usual address.

Dunx
--
Ceci n'est pas un .sig

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/l-nomic-d
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications