Massively abusable. That sort of safeguard is nothing in a nomic; I can think of a huge number of potential ways around it. Vetoed wishes are really quite important, unless you want this dynasty to last less than a week (as is restricting it to things the Djinn is capable of doing).

I don’t know if “according to the Djinn’s interpretation” is meant to be a capricious evil-genie veto (“Why yes, Darth, I’ll gladly give you 500 points! In this game of Scrabble!”). If it’s not, this is massively abusable - there’s plenty of critically damageable gamestate beyond “being idle” and “who the Djinn is”.

(/me considers changing vote to because /me can see how to win instantly under the resulting ruleset…)

umm, whoops, that /was/ a CoV Re-CoV.

OTOH, I like the idea of a capricious evil-genie veto, it’s traditional. (There are ways to work around that sort of thing though.) However, I only like it in addition to an arbitrary veto.

“As a weekly action, an Adventurer may spend 1 Wish to Make a Wish”

” It does not change the number of Wishes an Adventurer has.”

  s/k

Kicking a self-killed horse here.

“It does not cause an Adventurer to achieve victory.”

I’m also a bit troubled by this wording. Couldn’t this be interpreted to mean that anybody who makes a wish that is at all beneficial to themselves (that is, it could indirectly cause them to achieve victory) is now ineligible to win?

Yep, you’re right.

  due to the ability to channel a wish into a dictatorship indirectly via a scammy CfJ.