Monday, February 27, 2006

Proposal: Nomenclature

Reached Quorum.  (And I might even get this thing right eventually :)—Shadowclaw

Adminned at 01 Mar 2006 07:07:05 UTC

The vast majority of the scams listed so far centre around players changing their names. Thus:

Change the following in Rule 1.2:

A Swashbuckler may change eir name or eir sidebar link by editing eir blognomic.com profile. A Swashbuckler’s name may only ever act as a signifier identifying a certain player. A name change may never create a meaning in the Ruleset that was not present before it.

posted by Josh at 27 Feb 2006 13:05:06 UTC Comments (16)

Comments

Igthorn:

27-02-2006 12:20:34 UTC

for

The Lone Amigo:

27-02-2006 14:08:08 UTC

for

Shadowclaw:

27-02-2006 14:24:08 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

27-02-2006 15:42:45 UTC

imperial Second sentence seems meaninglessly tautological, though.

smith:

27-02-2006 16:10:04 UTC

for second sentence doesn’t seem necessary, since first one strips names of all meaning.

Bucky:

27-02-2006 18:22:55 UTC

:-P
for

90000:

27-02-2006 19:51:14 UTC

although only one scam really centers around it,  for

Elias IX:

27-02-2006 22:12:43 UTC

for

Banja:

27-02-2006 23:16:25 UTC

for

Bucky:

27-02-2006 23:46:11 UTC

CoV.  This may keep me from changing back into “Bucky”
against

Elias IX:

28-02-2006 03:30:40 UTC

Er, why?

Angry Grasshopper:

28-02-2006 21:09:33 UTC

Seems harmless. ;)

for

Bucky:

28-02-2006 23:00:03 UTC

...But if ‘I’ll Stop Complaining’ passes, this will be illegal because it references the ruleset (i.e. The following in Rule 1.2) and is outside the ruleset.

Angry Grasshopper:

28-02-2006 23:28:13 UTC

I don’t see any (potentially) defeatable reference in the gamestate here—all of the rule mechanisms happen in 1.3 and 1.5.

Why would this proposal be defunct after “I’ll Stop Complaining”, but not any other?

Bucky:

01-03-2006 04:03:21 UTC

the others might, too.

predisastered:

01-03-2006 07:06:23 UTC

for