Subject: MN: Re: Year 2, Week 43 Proposals

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@u...>
Date: 03 Mar 99 14:17:39 +0000

The Proposals for Week 43 included: 
>Proposal 621 - Keep the balance right. [Amendment] 

>Reword the second paragraph in Rule 0.9.1 (Kudos) to read: 

>At the start of each Week, the lowest Kudos score of all Active Players at 
>the end of the previous Week is determined. 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. Kudos then gets added to or subtracted from 
>this score from the current Weeks' events. If a Player is Inactive at the 
>end of the Week, no changes shall be made to eir Kudos. 

Interesting approach - I suppose it permits a more direct comparison between
Player activity with a stronger component of more distant history. 

I think the real weakness is that if we have any Players who are technically
Active but who don't really participate in the Nomic side, then there'll 
consistently be no adjustment to make. 

That's not to say that the existing scheme doesn't have weaknesses, but I 
think it's primary benefit remains: that it is basically a measure of recent
activity. 

>Proposal 622 - Reintermination [Action] 

>[Terminus Collect] - duration 20 minutes, no cost. 

>If eir Move ends at a Terminus (i.e. eir Move ended at a Terminus on the 
>line they moved along during that Move), a Player may play a Terminus 
>Collect Action. This Action may not be played twice on the same Terminus, 
>and the Move must include movement on the Line Segment which the Station 
>Terminates. Thus, [Wild] movement or other Actions which move a piece 
>directly to its destination cannot be used in the same Play as a Terminus 
>Collect Action. 

>Upon successful completion of the Terminus Collect, the Player receives one
>Silver Token. 

>{Basically a rework of the Terminus Running, with a couple of slightly more
>friendly ideas: 
>* It's a post-move action that directly prevents people wilding in. 
>* It's cost is lower, and the implicit trip to Bank to convert to a Gold 
>makes the player easier to target. 
>* It's got a better definition of the fact that the move actually
terminates 
>at that station on that line. 
>Hopefully people will find this a bit more playable.} 

Better, I think, particularly the Silver rather than Gold reward. 

A question, though - 

> This Action may not be played twice on the same Terminus 

This statement needs to be scoped - does it apply to a Player, to the whole 
Game, within a Turn, or even across the whole MN space? 

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

Splendid stuff. 

There are a couple of things missing though: no Circle Line equivalent is 
given, and the role of Charge isn't specified. Apart from that, it looks
very 
fine. 

>Proposal 626 - A Lot of Silly Old Buffers [Multiple] 

Very interesting - I do like the effects of the Crash Action. A couple of 
questions, though: 

> *Amendments to Rule 1.5.6: 
> -Amend "but the previous station will be counted twice" to "and the 
>previous station is counted once." Also, change "Finsbury Park" to
"Arsenal" 
>in the given example. {Comment: A minor change, but the basis of what comes
>next...} 

Why? I don't see what effect this has on anything, really. 

> [...] Thus, a Player at South Kensington with an LV 
>of 7 could rebound off the buffers at Olympia to Sloane Square or
Bayswater, 
>and with an LV of 6 to Notting Hill Gate or back to South Kensington. 

That directly contradicts the opening statement in the first paragraph of
the 
existing Rule: 

"If a Player attempts to Move along a line segment that contains 
a Blocked Station, that Player will rebound off the Station and return 
the way e came to the extent of eir line velocity." 

In other words, the Rebounding Player has no choice about where to Rebound 
to beyond that which they can exercise by varying eir LV. 

The rest of it rather nice, though. One final comment: 

> Rule 2.4.3 should now read: "All Actions in the standard Mornington 
>Nomic Ruleset which have a cost in Red Tokens have that cost reduced by one
>Red Token: if this reduces the cost to zero, then the Action may be 
>performed during Knip. This reduction in cost does not apply to any Actions
>which are only defined in this Special Ruleset. 

This could perhaps be better expressed as "any non-Ruttsborough Ruleset" 
(since we can combine Special Rulesets where they don't conflict) but 

>Proposal 627 - Shunting the Money Around [Multiple] 

All good stuff. 

>Proposal 628 - Carry on Clamping [Multiple] 

Very sensible. However, would we be better off generalising Clamps slightly
so 
that we don't need explicit references to the specific Clamp instances in
the 
Rule? I'm thinking that had the Midas Clamp passed it would immediately have
introduced an inconsistency, and even now any new Clamps would need to
update 
this Rule to mention themselves. 

>Proposal 629 - Mornington Crescent Isn't Where The Start Is [Multiple] 

Hurrah! 

>Proposal 630 - Exciting New Buzzwords [Multiple] 

Very clean. 

> (2) If a Player makes two mistakes in a GSD, other Players may be 
> tempted to Buzz one of them, wait for the replay, then Buzz the 
> other. Buzzing becomes an offensive strategy rather than a way 
> of keeping the game fair. 

Having been the recent victim (albeit, I am sure, accidental) of such a 
circumstance I can only applaud this. 

>1. Cat Had Stolen Batteries [Repeals] 

>Repeal Rules 1.16.1-7 - those describing the current Rules for Buzzing. 

Not relevant to this Proposal particularly, but just a general observation: 
the Kudos bonus for Repeal seems a little inappropriate when the Rules are 
immediately replaced by something else. Hmmm. 

>Proposal 631 - Overeloquent Roadsigns [Rewrite] 

Quite so. 

-- 
Dunx 
IRL: Duncan Ellis, Senior Software Engineer, Business Modelers, Oracle 
<I work for Oracle, I don't speak for them>

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