Also, “Bermuda Islands” redirects to “Bermuda”.

Doesn’t bother me any what way

Btw, and not to sound mean, but that seems abit in bad taste there digi, with your name and the location you picked. Just my thoughts.

I just put the USA part for clarification. If it needs to be changed I will be more than willing.

The rule doesn’t say locations have to be the title of a wikipedia page; it says they have to be places that have a wikipedia pages. Added specificity can’t hurt.

The WTC certainly wouldn’t seem to be a contemporary location, though.

@Ornithopter: Yeah, I actually don’t think it is that big of a deal, and I know the rule doesn’t actually say anything about it. I just wanted to make sure everyone was clear on this.

@Darknight: That’s what I was thinking but I didn’t want to say anything.

I guess this is mostly something to keep in mind once we have more things to do with the “Universe.” For now, it really doesn’t seem to matter at all.

I agree that Digibomber’s location is quite insensitive.

Definition of contemporary per Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/CONTEMPORARY

Main Entry: con·tem·po·rary
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈtem-pə-ˌrer-ē, -ˌre-rē\
Function: adjective
Etymology: com- + Latin tempor-, tempus
Date: 1631

1 : happening, existing, living, or coming into being during the same period of time
2 a : simultaneous b : marked by characteristics of the present period : modern, current

Doesn’t say anything about has to exist at present time and per the rule this is a valid location.

Definition 2b of contemporary says it has to be current. The definition of current is

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/current
Main Entry: cur·rent
Pronunciation: \ˈkər-ənt, ˈkə-rənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English curraunt, from Anglo-French corant, present participle of cure, courre to run, from Latin currere — more at car
Date: 14th century

1 a archaic : running, flowing b (1) : presently elapsing <the current year> (2) : occurring in or existing at the present time <the current crisis> (3) : most recent <the magazine’s current issue>

Definition 1b(2) says it has to exist at the present time.

@SingularByte all you are implying is that anything that is current is contemporary. This does not mean that anything that is contemporary has to be current.

Note that the rule actually says “contemporary (as of the Reference Time)”, with the Reference Time being defined as “23:59:59 GMT on December 15, 2009”. The World Trade Center was in no way “marked by characteristics of” December the 15th 2009.

Time for a CfJ?

As I mentioned in the post, “If there is any dispute or controversy over whether a purported location is a legitimate Location, the determination of the Djinni shall be conclusive and binding.”, so I don’t think that a CfJ would be necessary. Of course, I haven’t played this game for that long so I might be missing something.

The rule said “contemporary (as of the Reference Time)” and not “current (as of the Reference Time)”.

“contemporary” in usual parlance means modern (think contemporary music, contemporary architecture etc.) so something within the last decade or even century. So while the “Hanging gardens of Babylon” cannot be considered contemporary the “World trade center” should.

Is the USS Cole then considered contemporary? After all, it’s within the last decade/century…

I just feel that the longer the time period becomes, the fuzzier the boundaries are. Who is to say that the USS Monitor (sorry for the naval examples) is not a legitimate example, if the HMS Dreadnought is?

I think that the rules were about as clear as possible on the issue - as of the Reference time, thereby clearing up any concerns as to whether contemporary referred to “modern” or a specific time period.

Oh, didn’t notice we had a resolution mechanic built into the rule. No problem, then.

Well, this is without a doubt a case of different ways to interp a rule huh?

Another problem: are the pyramids contemporary architecture, for example?

I think they’re certainly a contemporary PLACE (they exist in the present) but contemporary architecture is a bit tricky - they’re not exactly fashionable anymore. However, I would say they were contemporary now and then in the sense of existing…something the WTC can’t claim

I put my ruleset-meaningless vote to say that anything goes as long as (a) it exists currently and (b) its location can be found easily using wikipedia, even if it’s not the title of an article there.

And I think wikimedia foundation is just fine, its location can be found.

digibomber: The intention is clear. Choose a location that currently exists, please.

Not to say that I don’t mind your trying; I am still going to try and set ais’s location to the 38th parrallel, as it does not have an area greater than 1000 square miles—It is a line.

Why a line? Because the line never ends, he can have an infinite amount of locations.

That’s like saying being located on the asteroid belt. It’s a line, but where?

If a line has an infinite number of points, then an area has an infinite number of points as well. Of course, some theories of quantum mechanics hypothesize that space is discreet, which would mean that both actually have a finite number of points. Either way, the area of a line is still less than 1000 square miles. (zero in the first case and approximately zero in the second case)

On a side note about the GNDT, whats the movedaemon?

No clue. Ask Kevan—its his GNDT.

By my interpretation of the rule, digi’s location would have been valid (though I think the rules regarding location are a little loose and vague); however the rule also concretely provides that if there’s a dispute the Djinn has the final nod, so it’s his call.

And Wakukee already blanked it with the comment “(Illegal value.)” so it seems decided already.

Thus the Djinni has spoken. Now can I change my location to a valid value legally or should I wait for “A Long Way” to pass which allows me to do that?