Monday, November 30, 2009

Proposal: Doppleganger

Timed out 8-1 -Darth

Adminned at 02 Dec 2009 09:53:20 UTC

Part 1:
Add the following to the list of spells in the Ruleset:

The spell “Doppelganger” has “POTATO” as its Activation Seqauence.  Its effect is as follows: Does nothing if the casting Apprentice’s Partner has a Ward that is not Null.  Choose another Apprentice (other than the casting Apprentice’s Partner) (the “Source Apprentice”).  This spell causes the entire Workbench of the casting Apprentice’s Partner to be replaced with a copy of the Source Apprentice’s Workbench (including any “U” runes, notwithstanding any prohibition in the rule entitled “Unstable Runes”).

Part 2:
If there is a rule entitled “Unstable Runes”, then change the phrase in that rule that present reads: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the ruleset” so that it reads “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the ruleset (but subject to the Doppelganger spell)”.

posted by spikebrennan at 30 Nov 2009 17:17:19 UTC Comments (18)

Comments

Klisz:

30-11-2009 17:30:11 UTC

for

Bucky:

30-11-2009 17:37:57 UTC

for , although the Unstable Runes rule needs a more general modification.

Josh: Observer he/they

30-11-2009 20:37:42 UTC

for

NoOneImportant:

30-11-2009 23:18:59 UTC

Not to be a killjoy, but can you add to a section without properly referencing it as in Rule 1.1? I don’t believe that “the list of spells in the Ruleset” is properly defined.

Klisz:

01-12-2009 01:41:35 UTC

@NoOneImportant: Because there is exactly one list of spells, “list of spells in the Ruleset” is unambiguous,

Darknight: he/him

01-12-2009 01:52:05 UTC

for Got a chuckle from reading you reply to NOI there Darth.

tecslicer:

01-12-2009 02:38:05 UTC

for

NoOneImportant:

01-12-2009 03:05:50 UTC

I didn’t say it was ambiguous, I said it wasn’t properly defined. You can be as glib as you like, Darth, but you’re contradicting yourself.

If you thought my proposal here: http://blognomic.com/archive/mix_it_up_redux/ was no good because it didn’t properly refer to the rule, then this one does nothing. How about some consistency from an Admin?

NoOneImportant:

01-12-2009 03:06:37 UTC

Just to be clear…

“that one rule about Arthexis not being able to veto” is definitely unambiguous, but it’s still not a proper way to refer to a rule.

Excalabur:

01-12-2009 05:15:50 UTC

NOI is, of course, correct.  However, as long as a majority of people agree with whatever the enacting admin decides to do, it doesn’t matter.  Democracy, ain’t it great.

Excalabur:

01-12-2009 05:16:04 UTC

Oh, and imperial.

NoOneImportant:

01-12-2009 07:55:41 UTC

against

Part 2 is broken.

NoOneImportant:

01-12-2009 07:56:11 UTC

Sorry, part 1.

Klisz:

01-12-2009 15:34:59 UTC

@NoOneImportant: Sure, but this isn’t referring to a particular rule; if the Basic Spells rule had stuff other than a list of spells, than adding something to “the list of spells” only adds to the end of the list, rather than to the end of the rule.

NoOneImportant:

01-12-2009 17:25:07 UTC

For that to be true, you’d still have to properly refer to the rule itself, like this: “Add the following to the list of spells in rule 2.5 Spellcasting” or something to that effect.

Either the rules mean what they mean and we’re playing Nomic, or we just make shit up as we go and I’m not sure what we’re doing.

Qwazukee:

01-12-2009 20:01:56 UTC

To NoOneImportant, you really are right here, but for simplicity’s sake this will probably pass anyway. Then you could CfJ it if you like, but that will probably fail because people don’t want to worry about it.

imperial

Klisz:

02-12-2009 17:17:27 UTC

Enacting…

NoOneImportant:

02-12-2009 17:30:50 UTC

Expect my CfJ.