Friday, December 11, 2009

Proposal: The Devil and Daniel Webster

13-4, cannot be enacted without CoV -Darth

Adminned at 12 Dec 2009 22:03:18 UTC

Add a dynastic rule entitled “Devil’s Advocate” as follows:

If the Djinn receives from an Adventurer a communication in the manner prescribed in the Ruleset that contains a Wish, and the Djinn has not yet granted nor determined not to grant the Wish, the Djinn may (but is not required to) make a blog post containing the text of the Wish, with such redactions as the Djinn deems appropriate (which may include, for example, particular numbers or names of Adventurers).  Such a post may be referred to as an Interpretation Appeal.  Any Adventurer may, in comments to the Interpretation Appeal, suggest ways in which the text of the Wish as so posted can be interpreted, particularly in ways that would presumably result in unintended consequences to the Adventurer who was making the Wish.  The Djinn may, but is not required to, give consideration to comments to the Interpretation Appeal when construing the Wish.

Comments

Apathetic Lizardman:

12-11-2009 18:21:07 UTC

for for  for  for

Kevan:

12-11-2009 18:24:27 UTC

imperial Doesn’t seem very thematic.

Klisz:

12-11-2009 18:26:38 UTC

for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for

spikebrennan:

12-11-2009 18:27:05 UTC

You don’t think djinnis ever refer matters to a committee?

spikebrennan:

12-11-2009 18:33:19 UTC

This will have to be patched if Kevan’s proposal passes because the terminology is different.

NoOneImportant:

12-11-2009 18:42:16 UTC

for

Thematic-shematic, it’d be tons of fun to mess with peoples’ wishes. :)

ais523:

12-11-2009 19:50:41 UTC

for

Hix:

12-11-2009 20:05:35 UTC

against No new functionality here.  (The Djinn is already allowed to make such a post, other Adventurers are already allowed to make suggestions)

I know this proposal would add what might become foundation for future stuff, but for now, I prefer not to have this rule.

Ornithopter:

12-11-2009 20:10:56 UTC

imperial

Josh:

12-11-2009 20:11:33 UTC

against

Oze:

12-11-2009 20:55:33 UTC

imperial

Bucky:

12-11-2009 21:10:37 UTC

against as per Hix, but I encourage the Djinn to do this anyway.

Wakukee:

12-11-2009 21:43:29 UTC

against , but I can do it anyway.

Ienpw III:

12-11-2009 21:49:00 UTC

against but I think wishes should be anonymous, no matter what else.

Darknight:

12-11-2009 22:09:33 UTC

against Most storys I’ve read have the djinn, or whatever the wish granting being is called, grant the wish in the way that the djinn interprets the wording

TrumanCapote:

12-11-2009 22:41:55 UTC

imperial

tecslicer:

12-11-2009 23:59:29 UTC

against

digibomber:

12-12-2009 07:53:55 UTC

against

SingularByte:

12-12-2009 10:39:40 UTC

against

Klisz:

12-12-2009 22:02:09 UTC

CoV against