Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Proposal: Deal with the Devil

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 16 Feb 2017 11:41:14 UTC

Add to the list of Symptoms in “Diseases”:

Eternal Torment. Visible. A Villager exhibiting Eternal Torment should, in every blog comment they make, include a string of at least 10 characters comprised of any number of “A” characters, followed by any number of “R” characters, followed by any number of “G” characters, followed by any number of “H” characters.

In “Spectral Actions”, change “a Dead Villager may move a Remedy” to “a Dead Villager who is not exhibiting Eternal Torment may move a Remedy”.

In “The Doctor’s Rounds”, change “and which is not Death” to “and which is not Death or Eternal Torment”.

Add a new rule, “The Bet”:

At any time, the doctor may take the following actions in sequence as an atomic action, if any remedy has the potential to Cure the Black Death:
* Add the symptom Eternal Torment to Cuddlebeam.
* Repeal this rule.

At any time, the doctor may take the following actions in sequence as an atomic action, if no remedy has the potential to Cure the Black Death:
* Remove all Diseases from Cuddlebeam.
* Remove all Symptoms from Cuddlebeam.
* Set Cuddlebeam’s location to Home.
* Repeal this rule.

(As inspired by Cuddlebeam’s recent comments on “The Cured Endgame”)

By random chance, both Pokes and Cuddlebeam got assigned to pushing rocks up hills duty for the first several decades of their Purgatory. Often, conversation would come back to God’s beneficence or lack thereof. What kind of God would give us these terrible Headaches and Mouth Pains? Why would They give us so many plentiful remedies in the forest but have it so that we couldn’t be cured by them. Were They just playing some sort of game with us? “In fact”, Cuddlebeam said, “I bet there was no cure for the Black Death the whole time!”

With a gentle *poof*, the Devil appeared behind us. “A bet, you say?”

Comments

orkboi:

02-15-2017 22:01:43 UTC

I want to see how Cuddlebeam feels about this before I vote.

Cuddlebeam:

02-15-2017 22:02:56 UTC

Note: This looks cool but it doesn’t refer to me unless its “The Villager named “Cuddlebeam”” or something, because in “Names” it says: “Within the ruleset, a word only refers to the name of a Villager if it is explicitly stated that it refers to a Villager’s name.”

pokes:

02-15-2017 22:07:13 UTC

Well, nuts

orkboi:

02-15-2017 22:18:52 UTC

I believe you can still edit the proposal until someone has voted on it. Is that correct?

orkboi:

02-15-2017 22:20:05 UTC

Aw crap. Now I see that I should have included NOTE before my comment. So disregard my previous comment.

pokes:

02-15-2017 22:22:21 UTC

Not a problem. Can be resubmitted. OR…

I hereby explicitly state that this proposal refers to the Villager Cuddlebeam. Now, does “within the ruleset” apply to only “refers” or also to “stated”?

pokes:

02-15-2017 22:23:09 UTC

Intent is probably clear enough in this case that I’d also bet on a CfJ going in the rule’s favor.

pokes:

02-15-2017 23:35:16 UTC

against S/K