BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

:)

The descriptory text needs to be listed as the *description* of the item. 

The Lone Amigo: I think that the way that section is structured is OK. Nothing allows for any bizarre actions aside from the last paragraph describing what happens when only one Flyer is left.

Lone Amigo: Name isn’t marked in the “Hot Little Hands” proposal. If this goes through I’ll do some clean up on the wording of both to make it more consistent. Thanks for pointing this out.

Realistically, I’m going to have to assume that other people are going to ignore the bug in In My Hot Little Hands and vote FOR it. While I was partially looking forward to trying to add rules that might allow me to covertly add an item named Nothing as a valid item, I feel this is a good fix for the problem and vote .

The Description comment is unfortunate, but while inconsistent, I agree with AgentHH that it shouldn’t cause a problem. The original Rule didn’t state the Description had to be marked as such, only that the item has a Description, which it does.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that part of my agreeing with AgentHH that it doesn’t cause a problem is that if you interpret it as Rule text (which you almost certainly should) it doesn’t have bad effects (unless you consider a firm statement that the reader of the Rule wants to read the flier a problem, which I don’t; if you don’t want to, and you are playing the game, it simply means you need to start wanting to, or maybe idle yourself, hehe).

The only thing, to me, that makes the lack of a Description: tag an issue is that the item could be argued to not have a Description. (Which I then went on to address after that.) I’m just adding this Comment to explain that I wasn’t saying that there was some implicit action that was making the text that wasn’t marked Description not rule text, as that makes random later arguments about rules not applying because they were descriptive scary. After having said this, I feel the need to reassert my .

Well, I suppose there’ll be a Fire Marshall in any case now.

Well, as long as ‘dub’ doesn’t have any defined effect, this seems harmless enough.

That’s funny

sure

Two seconds after I commented this to In My Hot Little Hands it was admin’d, and I’m not convinced people are reading comments on things that are admin’d, so I’m cross-commenting it to here as it’s also relevant:

75th: It’s two one way maps that aren’t surjections. It isn’t one-to-one. You have to look at it step-by-step. It explicitely defines the field to state what Item you are carrying, but it sets the field directly to Nothing without stating what Nothing means.

Let’s say that the Rule had said this:

Players who are not currently the Fire Marshal shall have their Item Held field set to “Fire Marshal Recruitment Flier”.

Would you then argue that the value “Field Marshal Recruitment Flier” _means_ they aren’t the Fire Marshal? It’s the _same_ form of the sentence as the one involving “Nothing”.

Considering at least one Protagonist (AgentHH) voted on In My Hot Little Hands under the knowledge that Fire in the Disco! would pass, it would be hilarious if, before this could be admin’d, Salamander came and self-kill’d it, leaving us in the previous poorly defined state. (Especially as the admin that handled In My Hot Little Hands didn’t actually admin it accurately yet.)

COV. Creating so much extra litter is akin to creating a fire hazard, which would be a headache for the marshal.

CoV.

That may be too many flyers.

Actually, I’m starting to think this should be killed :P Too many flyers, but that isn’t my concern as much as not being able to have nothing. As soon as you lose your item, *poof* you get a flyer. I’m not sure I like that, and as such feel we should leave it in the previously poorly-defined state where each player has a Nothing until further notice. Or is it actually so bad? I think that the way the rules have it set to Nothing makes it apparent that the player has no items and as such is holding on to Nothing as defined by the English language.

AgentHH: but the rules override that English definition that as stating, overly explicitely, that it is the _name_ of the Item you are holding. If it said the field stated what you were holding, that would be fine. But it _explicitely_ states that it is the _name_ of the item.

this would be so much easier if we just accepted the null value ( - ) as meaning nothing.

Cayvie: that’s probably how I would have written the Rule ;P. (Well, assuming I wanted to use the GNDT in such an explicit manner and didn’t just write it the way I did for Deep Pockets, hehe.)

Well, regardless, I don’t like the concept of the Fire Marshal Recruitment Flyer, so my against vote still stands.

Test. The text “Comments are closed.” is for some reason showing.

lmol, I don’t believe this passed!!