Thursday, December 17, 2009

Proposal: Release, yet again

Quorumed 14-2-1 -Darth

Adminned at 18 Dec 2009 09:18:31 UTC

Add the following to the end of Rule 2.4, ‘Djinni in a bottle, baby’:

If an Adventurer causes the Djinni to leave the Lamp, and that Adventurer did not last cause the Djinni to enter the Lamp, then that Adventurer may add 1 to his Wishes within 24 hours.

Remove the following text from Rule 2.4:

If anything causes the Djinn to be inside the Lamp, he shall remain there for 24 hours, at which point he shall be outside the Lamp.

If more than half the EVCs on this Proposal contain the phrase ‘three wishes, please’, disregarding capitalization and punctuation, then replace the number 1 in the first block above with the number 3.

Yet again. I’ve made it only one wish, to avoid wish farming via wishing the Djinni in and out of the Lamp. However, I would still prefer 3, for the tradition value if nothing else, and I think the ‘did not last cause the Djinni to enter the Lamp’ clause will prevent wish farming by that method. I’ll leave it up to everyone else.

posted by alethiophile at 17 Dec 2009 02:55:30 UTC Comments (21)

Comments

alethiophile:

17-12-2009 03:02:16 UTC

for
Three wishes, please.
Just to make it explicit.

redtara: they/them

17-12-2009 03:20:15 UTC

for Three wishes, please.

Scaramouche:

17-12-2009 04:05:37 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

17-12-2009 04:27:33 UTC

for

Bucky:

17-12-2009 06:08:37 UTC

against .  As before, I don’t really want a race to see who can be the one to edit the GNDT at 24+.0001 hours.

Ornithopter:

17-12-2009 07:27:22 UTC

for
Bucky: It doesn’t do that.

Why three wishes is too many:
PLAYER A: I wish Player B had whatever you need to release the Djinni from the bottle. I wish the Djinni was in the bottle.
PLAYER B: I release the Djinni from the bottle. I wish Player A had whatever you need to release the Djinni from the bottle. I wish the Djinni was in the bottle.
PLAYER A: I release the Djinni from the bottle.
[Players A and B now each have 4 wishes.]

Kevan: he/him

17-12-2009 09:46:17 UTC

for

digibomber:

17-12-2009 10:01:20 UTC

imperial

Klisz:

17-12-2009 15:33:00 UTC

for

Oze:

17-12-2009 15:52:52 UTC

for

ais523:

17-12-2009 16:52:23 UTC

against

alethiophile:

17-12-2009 17:08:29 UTC

Stands 8-2-1.

Bucky, what about this rule will make people want to edit at 24+.001 hours? No reason to do that—the only 24-hour number is the time limit for when you can add wishes.

spikebrennan:

17-12-2009 18:51:56 UTC

for

NoOneImportant:

17-12-2009 19:01:11 UTC

for

TrumanCapote:

18-12-2009 01:37:57 UTC

for

alethiophile:

18-12-2009 05:39:30 UTC

This looks like a wait-another-22-hours proposition. Anyone else to vote for, maybe get quorum?

Dustin:

18-12-2009 06:58:48 UTC

for

SingularByte: he/him

18-12-2009 11:51:00 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

18-12-2009 16:27:58 UTC

for

NoOneImportant:

18-12-2009 16:37:56 UTC

14-2-1, someone wanna start the cascade?

Klisz:

18-12-2009 17:17:06 UTC

Doing…