Thursday, August 20, 2009

Proposal: Consistency is a good thing

Enacted 5-2, by yuri_dragon_17

Adminned at 22 Aug 2009 08:35:05 UTC

Create a new rule called “Groundhog timer”:

If there are ever any discrepancies between the hours and days specified for a certain time period in a dynastic rule, then the hours shall be adjusted to match the days.
A rule states that a certain action may be taken “once every 49 hours (2 days)”. 2 days and 49 hours are not the same length of time, so the rule is adjusted to read “once every 48 hours (2 days)”.

Create a subrule of Break Down, entitled An Exemplary rule:

Break Down cannot affect parts of the ruleset clearly labelled as examples.

Because this monday morning, the Break Down will cause a lot of errors.



08-20-2009 04:07:24 UTC

for Because Break Down seems to remain in effect even when in the Parallel Ruleset, because someone always has Time Immunity.


08-20-2009 05:23:01 UTC


Apathetic Lizardman:

08-20-2009 06:01:43 UTC

for Except I’m suddenly not so fond of Break Down.


08-20-2009 07:55:58 UTC



08-20-2009 14:42:09 UTC

against  “clearly labelled as examples” is just as vague as “boring”.

Ienpw III:

08-20-2009 16:02:20 UTC

No, because the word clear is an antonym of vague.

IMO, if it says “This is an example”, “Example:”, or something similar, it’s an example.


08-20-2009 16:05:05 UTC

And I’d say that this one is a lot easier to CfJ hypothetical stupid abuses than the “boring” thing.


08-20-2009 18:05:43 UTC

imperial It would be better to specify a mechanism by which the change occurs.


08-22-2009 05:26:11 UTC