Also worth noting – Milling might potentially fail under the current wording if you view a Nomicer has having performed two Sins (and most of us have, given how we have very generic Sins like “proposal” and “that”), because it require you to specify “the Sin” rather than “a Sin” – this proposal fixes that too.

I like the challenge of having to pick a Sin that thematically fits.

does this prevent new sins from being added? (or at least, lock doing behind ignoring a ‘should’?)

Recording a Sin is an action. Nothing in that action specifies the word added being a sin, because until its added by definition its not a sin.

But “they should choose a Sin” does refer to a Sin, meaning they should only choose things already on the sin list.

@Clucky: the action Record a Sin is explicitly described in the rules:

If a Nomicer is required to Record a Sin when making a gamestate change, they must indicate in the edit summary of that wiki edit a word from the EFF Wordlist; if that word does not already appear in the Sins list, they may add it to that list at the same time.

Note how it is NOT self-referential, but instead calls out picking a word from the EFF Wordlist as part of the step.

Oh, I’m stupid. I just made your point for you. This proposal should have said “they should choose a word from the EFF Wordlist”.

Good catch. I’ll wait to see whether the dynasty ends before I officially revise-withdraw this, because there’s not much point in resubmitting if the rule’s going to be repealed anyway.