Friday, December 11, 2009

Proposal: I wish for a Pony!

s/k’ed—Wakukee

Adminned at 12 Dec 2009 12:53:02 UTC

Create a new rule with the title “Possessions and Statuses”:

Each adventurer may have one posession and one status, tracked by the GNDT.
Any possession or status is valid, except for “Djinn”.
The effects that a possession or status has is listed in the possessions subrule or statuses subrule respectively. If a possession or status has no listed effect, then it is not considered to have one.
If an adventurer recieves a possession or status but already has one, then the new possession or status replaces the old one, except if the effect of a possession or status says otherwise.
An Adventurer may only obtain a possession or status as the ruleset or gamestate documents permit.

Create a subrule of “Possessions and Statuses” called “Possessions”, with the text:

None - An adventurer with this possession is not considered to have any possessions.

Create a subrule of “Possessions and Statuses” called “Statuses”, with the text:

None - An adventurer with this status is not considered to have a status.

All new players start with the possession “None”. All new players start with the status “None”.

Give the possession “None” and the status “None” to all players.

Where’s the fun in wishes if you can’t wish for infinite wealth or to turn someones skin blue?
Possessions are meant to be for things like infinite wealth while statuses are meant for magical effects like immortality.
In case you’re wondering, the words possessions and statuses are said 16 times each. Wait, make that 17.

Comments

Ienpw III:

12-11-2009 11:40:42 UTC

for

Apathetic Lizardman:

12-11-2009 11:53:53 UTC

Potential scam. The reason being that what if you wish someone physically unable to cast a wish? Such as turning them to stone? It would effectively lock them out of the dynasty until someone wishes them back to normal. While you were at it, you could wish that EVERYONE be turned to stone. against

SingularByte:

12-11-2009 12:01:32 UTC

If you wished someone into stone with this proposal, they could still do whatever they wanted. You’d need a different proposal to make being turned into stone have an effect. I’m guessing most people would vote against that effect, since it’s effectively the same as directly proposing someone can’t act.

ais523:

12-11-2009 12:03:47 UTC

for Given that these have no rules-based effect yet, and presumably people would be careful before giving them a rules-based effect. (I fear this rule will never have an effect other than getting people to waste wishes on pointless stuff, but more full they!)

Josh:

12-11-2009 12:12:41 UTC

for I have a feeling that this dynasty is going to be rife with potential scams.

Wakukee:

12-11-2009 15:02:49 UTC

Hmm. Seems fairly fee and open, but I will have to change my rule so that wishing for a pony is actually legal. However, I think we need to define a better possession system.  against

Oze:

12-11-2009 15:54:39 UTC

for

Klisz:

12-11-2009 16:29:56 UTC

imperial

Scaramouche:

12-11-2009 16:54:36 UTC

for

Kevan:

12-11-2009 17:06:53 UTC

for

Apathetic Lizardman:

12-11-2009 17:10:50 UTC

I suppose you are right about that SingularByte.

for CoV

NoOneImportant:

12-11-2009 17:45:05 UTC

for

digibomber:

12-11-2009 18:02:59 UTC

for

spikebrennan:

12-11-2009 18:30:03 UTC

for

tecslicer:

12-11-2009 18:39:11 UTC

for

Hix:

12-11-2009 19:26:09 UTC

against Initialization should be in the ruleset, not just in the proposal.

NoOneImportant:

12-11-2009 19:30:37 UTC

We have 12 for votes…

Ornithopter:

12-11-2009 19:48:22 UTC

against What Hix said, plus “players” is an undefined term, meaning that no one’s Status or Possessions will be set to anything by this.

ais523:

12-11-2009 19:59:16 UTC

@Ornithopter: “players” has an ordinary-language definition, which is the one that’s used (after all, it isn’t a keyword). You might as well claim that the rule claims because “the” isn’t defined.

Ornithopter:

12-11-2009 20:09:37 UTC

Point taken. I move we add a definition of “the” to the glossary.

spikebrennan:

12-11-2009 20:16:20 UTC

imperial
CoV: Give the Djinni what he wants

Bucky:

12-11-2009 20:49:51 UTC

Strong imperial

Qwazukee:

12-11-2009 21:15:51 UTC

imperial

NoOneImportant:

12-11-2009 21:27:57 UTC

imperial

Fair enough. If Wak’s got a better plan, I’m ready to hear it. CoV

Darknight:

12-11-2009 21:58:25 UTC

imperial Though this reminds me of a recent RPG adventure involving wishes going crazy. Really have to watch your wording with a wish lol. Wish for tough skin = turning into a living dimond

TrumanCapote:

12-11-2009 22:27:19 UTC

against

NoOneImportant:

12-12-2009 00:26:58 UTC

Wak, veto this so we can cascade through the rest and get this dynasty going!!

Wakukee:

12-12-2009 03:41:25 UTC

Nah I will save my vetos; I don’t want it to be cheapened when someone wishes for a veto.

Ornithopter:

12-12-2009 19:36:10 UTC

Current Score:

FOR - 10
ais523
Apathetic Lizardman
digibomber
Ienpw III
Josh
Kevan
Oze
Scaramouche
SingularByte (proposer)
tecslicer

AGAINST - 4
Hix
Ornithopter
Truman Capote
Wakukee

DEFERENTIAL (against) - 6
Bucky
Darknight
Darth_Cliche
NoOneImportant
Qwazukee
spikebrennan

NO VOTE - 2
Dustin
Nausved

Ienpw III:

12-12-2009 20:21:01 UTC

CoV against

tecslicer:

12-12-2009 20:50:17 UTC

CoV:  against

SingularByte:

12-12-2009 20:51:34 UTC

I’m just going to s/k this to speed up the game.  against