Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Proposal: Get your Groundhogs!

Failed 7-2—Rodlen

Adminned at 06 Aug 2009 08:20:01 UTC

I propose the following rule entitled “Groundhogs Galore”:

As a daily action, a Bill Murry can adopt a groundhog.

.

These would be used to eventually complete some Good Deeds. Of course if this passes, we may have to remove the word “groundhog” from Rule 2.3 “Award Economics” because that would be quite confusing. Anyone have any good ideas how else to get groundhogs other than buy with icicles? Or how adding a living creature to your ‘inventory’ could affect the completion of a good deed?

Comments

redtara: they/them

04-08-2009 15:12:28 UTC

for

Klisz:

04-08-2009 15:17:06 UTC

for  This sounds good. However, text such as “These would be used to eventually…” and forward should be placed in the “flavor text” box.

arthexis: he/him

04-08-2009 16:29:24 UTC

against Because of the non flavor text inclusion, which would means the actions listed there would have to be taken.

Bucky:

04-08-2009 16:31:10 UTC

against as per arthexis.  This proposal, if it passes, would accidentally modify Rule 2.3

redtara: they/them

04-08-2009 16:32:24 UTC

against per arth. I support the idea though

redtara: they/them

04-08-2009 16:59:23 UTC

that was a CoV

Gawain:

04-08-2009 17:41:37 UTC

for Not necessarily, it’s “we may” have to change the name of the rule not have to.

arthexis: he/him

04-08-2009 19:26:34 UTC

@gwain: For example, if this passes the text “These would be used to eventually complete some Good Deeds.” would be legally binding. It could easily cause all sorts of breakages. What does that line means from a rules standpoint? That if I enact it, I can complete a Good Deed? Which ones? All of them? Under what condition?

Klisz:

04-08-2009 20:30:59 UTC

CoV against

Qwazukee:

04-08-2009 22:24:49 UTC

I think that if this were to pass, we would have to include the entire text after the box in the Rule. I don’t think any of that is legally binding, however.

“Eventually” is an abstract concept of time, and as per the glossary, doesn’t mean anything.

The “may” makes the next part meaningless as well.

Questions obviously have no effect.

However, that would be one messed-up rule, so against

Darknight: he/him

05-08-2009 03:03:09 UTC

against

SingularByte: he/him

05-08-2009 06:31:59 UTC

against