Explicit author FOR. Let’s see if you guys find the trick in this rule…

I don’t think “get bored” or “boring” are defined in our Ruleset, though they might be defined by the Ruleset right now.

@Quaz: The glossary implies that if a keyword is not defined by a rule, it has its normal English usage.

 
Just to see what will happen.

Boring TO WHOM?

Plus, it seems pointless.

It’ll be hard to determine what this entails. . . .

CoV

This would freeze the nomic solid (“I think every game action, including your CfJ to repeal ‘Fun Enforcement’, is boring”), except that the action or decision of regarding something as boring is, itself, boring.

Naw, post a DoV with the statement that voting against said DoV would be a boring activity, BAM you win.

for all the obvious reasons

@Kevan: Something isn’t boring just because you think it is. In fact, I would find trying to repeal this rule very entertaining.

I’d say that if something bores just one person, then it can be successfully described as “boring”.

@Amnistar: A DoV with a “voting against this is boring” clause would, itself, be boring. You don’t have to call these in advance, any more than you have to point out other rule breaches before they happen - you can just respond to any game action with “sorry, nope, can’t do that, it’s boring”.

Which would lead to CfJ about whether or not something was boring…hrmm…..that could be interesting.

Just because I’m not sure if it would be possible to remove it once it’s in place.

However, if something is fun, it can’t be boring, right? Certainly if something is declared both fun and boring, you can’t force people to vote one way or the other.