That proposal failed to define in the ruleset what the evil pet is, and how it is decided, so the Overlord has nothing to choose.

Plus, that proposal has no close, and, because that was not defined in the ruleset, admins can’t correct it, meaning it stays with the requirement that the proposal has a close, and a close is not defined in the ruleset.

And by it, I mean the obvious typo.

I mean

2nd paragraph: First it: Typo

2nd paragraph: Second it: proposal

The meaning of “close” is obvious, and just because a pet doesn’t have defined actions doesn’t mean it’s not allowed to exist.

This proposal passed by a large majority of players that participated.

This sort of pedantic asshattery oversteps your bounds as administrator and will drive the few remaining players away.

Okay, the second part of my rant was just crazy, but the first part…well…The (rather inactive) Overlord must choose an undefined Evil Pet from a list of choices.

Now, nothing can modify that Evil Pet, as it is not part of the ruleset.  In fact, the Evil Pet fails to exist.

I’ll sticky this.

It was meant to be harmless, transitory, and not part of the rules. I agree it might have been better to define the useless pet first by proposal, or specify that it was a transient game object. My third line above was over the top, I (and everybody) appreciate all the adminning. Your attention to the rules is a reason you’re doing it and I’m not.

I don’t see how this is any different to “the Overlord shall pick a number from one to ten”. No, we’re not tracking the Evil Pet, but we can still give out DICE10 MS to a Henchman of the Overlord’s choice.

Well, the Overlord still has to pick a pet.