Friday, February 18, 2011

Proposal: me try to make rule

Can’t reach quorum with 13 votes against. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 19 Feb 2011 10:08:40 UTC

part one
make a new rule that say this

me who make this post is a guy. you who play this game is a guy too. if you not play this game at all then you is not a guy.  and if you not play this game right now then you is not a guy right now but you is a guy once you start to play this game.  but if you is a guy and you stop to play this game then you is not a guy for so long as you not play.  just so we clear what me mean when me say guy.

part two
make a new rule that say this

if guy is thick then guy can just use short words like in this rule.  set of rules will say how to tell when guy is thick.

part three
make a new rule that say this

if guy make a good post to make a rule that just use short words like in this rule then call that post cave talk.  if a guy make a cave talk then chief may give that guy one point of smart but chief do not have to do this.

part four
make a new rule that say this

a guy can say me and not i and can make the verb not match the noun and can choose not to say the and so on.  this be since this be how cave guys talk.

me want to see if me can make good rule with just short words like this.

Comments

Rodlen:

18-02-2011 17:02:07 UTC

imperial

Josh: he/him

18-02-2011 17:02:09 UTC

against rules still need name

Ely:

18-02-2011 17:04:23 UTC

imperial

spikebrennan:

18-02-2011 17:04:45 UTC

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

Josh: he/him

18-02-2011 17:05:12 UTC

urg for

Roujo: he/him

18-02-2011 17:27:26 UTC

herp derp for

Bucky:

18-02-2011 20:04:23 UTC

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

Subrincinator:

18-02-2011 20:09:22 UTC

for spike make nice plan.

Josh: he/him

18-02-2011 20:13:19 UTC

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

Subrincinator:

18-02-2011 20:26:47 UTC

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

spikebrennan:

18-02-2011 21:07:54 UTC

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

Purplebeard:

18-02-2011 21:18:31 UTC

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

Darknight: he/him

19-02-2011 01:53:04 UTC

against

udqbpn:

19-02-2011 03:02:01 UTC

imperial

Chivalrybean:

19-02-2011 05:50:09 UTC

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

Blacky:

19-02-2011 12:36:20 UTC

imperial

Kevan: he/him

19-02-2011 16:19:32 UTC

against 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”?

Roujo: he/him

19-02-2011 17:05:50 UTC

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

CoV against

Winner:

19-02-2011 17:57:16 UTC

against