rules still need name

josh you are wrong since last part of rule one point five say that this is not bad and guy who add rule to set can fix this

urg

herp derp

.  I don’t want to deal with this level of ambiguity.

spike make nice plan.

CoV The Research page can actually act like a kind of shadow ruleset for this kind of stuff to keep it out of the ruleset.

c o v per josh.  me go with what chief want.

me not see ambiguity
I was tickled by the challenge of trying to write a complex rule proposal using only one syllable words.  _You_ try doing that with a ruleset that already has a two-syllable definition of the dynastic equivalent of “player”.

In past dynasties, we’ve had rules that rewarded players for making proposals entirely in the form of haiku or a limerick (which occasionally resulted in some pretty weird syntax getting into the ruleset) but that’s part of the fun.  Dealing with cookie monster syntax should be just as unproblematic.

Besides, nothing here would break the ruleset.  All this says is that (1) an active player is a “guy”; (2) if a “guy” is “thick” (which is not yet defined) then he can only “use short words like in this rule” (i.e., one-syllable, but I can’t very well say “syllable” in the proposal); (3) the chief may, but is not required to, reward players with an intelligence point under certain circumstances (assuming that “one point of smart” is sufficiently unambiguous)

Plus, I have a thing for really oddly-worded proposals:
http://blognomic.com/archive/stone_crushers_for_the_crushing_of_stone

Let’s try to keep the rules somewhat legible at least.

I had a hard time taking the effort to even read it. 

Fun to read, but there’s too much ambiguity - does “short words like in this rule” mean “one-syllable words” or “words of fewer than six letters”?

Oh well. Let’s speed this up, then. =P

CoV