I vote : There is no mention of an inventory in the Rules, and the concept of adding something to the one item you can be Holding seems like really sketchy wording. Nothing states that if you accidentally end up carrying two things the first Item is thrown away. This would mean you’d have two Items and a Rule that states you can only have one. Contradictions are bad.

That bit wasn’t very refined so I made it one of those optional things where you can vote against part of the proposition.

What’s an inventory?

As for the scalping thing, I didn’t even notice that I could just remove that. Then I vote , but Scalping is gross.

The other comment that I have is, why do so many Rules have text like this:

Deathpoints may not be affected except as specified explicitly by the rules.

Isn’t that implied by following the Rules?

Another question:

When a protagonist (hereafter in this rule referred to as the slayer) makes an action that causes another protagonist’s (hereafter in this rule referred to as the slain) HP to reduce to zero, the slayer’s murderpoint value is increased by 1.

Specifically, the wording “makes an action that causes” is vague (but not to the point where I will vote ). What about this scenario:

75th becomes the Fire Marshal, the Ominous Forest is defined and has a Maximum Occupancy of 1, Angry Grasshopper (a Grue) is in the Ominous Forest, a Rule is enacted that states that defines Summoning to involve an instant teleportation to the current location, and a second Rule is enacted that causes Fire Marshals to immediately do some incredible amount of damage to a Grue if they ever appear in the same location.

The Grue dies. That much is certain. Now, who gets murderpoints? Angry Grasshopper? Me? Both of us? The guy who accidentally left some really important object in The Ominous Forest, and thereby “caused” me to go there such that I might retrieve it, setting into effect this entire mess?

Actually, after typing this out this seems more seriously vague than I thought it would be. I vote .

(D’oh, near the end of typing that I moved the first paragraph back to the top after it was in the middle somewhere after the first AGAINST. It would have been more humerous to have left it there as it would have been 2 back/forths then on the vote. Oh well ;P.)

Arg, the text “Angry Grasshopper? Me? Both of us?” should read “75th? Me? Both of us?”.

I suppose all protagonists would have some claim to the murder. Any suggestions of rewording?

Not yet. The issue with causation is that it’s kind of an intent based, and thereby subjective. In that case, 75th didn’t seem to do anything that really killed the Grue, and I intended for it to happen and thereby forced the game into a situation that “caused” it. If the wording involved “directly” caused or something, that would be better. The only issue then is what constitutes an action. 75th didn’t really take any actions in that example. I’m the only person who had any ability to choose to make the situation not happen. Was his act of killing the Grue an action? Or was only my Movement an action? If the bug in my example situation is considered to be in the existence of a Rule that causes someone to be slain without there being any obvious action performed, and that’s general consensus, then that would be sufficient.

    and   :-P

Scalping isn’t gross

Why lots of s sal? Curious because I’m new to nomic and need to know what it is about the proposals that don’t work for people.

I’m not excited about a player-killing slant to the text adventure. It doesn’t feel right to me. I’d rather have the outcome of the Prompts and Results hurt and kill players. I am now wishing we hadn’t made the Grue a protagonist.

you technically self killed this notafraud… but just in case