Thursday, May 11, 2006

Proposal: Slightly fixed

5-2.  Timed out, enacted by Excalabur.  3 votes contained “Why?”.

Adminned at 13 May 2006 15:35:28 UTC

Add a new Guest profile to the list in Rule 2.7:

Devil’s Advocate: While a Monk is accompanying a Devil’s Advocate, e should vote AGAINST all pending proposals.  Also, whenever e votes AGAINST a proposal, e must also make a comment that points out a flaw or otherwise discourages others from voting for that proposal.  A Devil’s Advocate does not expire normally.  Instead, at least 48 hours after the creation of a Devil’s Advocate, anyone may roll DICE(Proposals adminned while Advocate existed).  If the result is less or equal to than the number of failed or vetoed proposals, the Advocate acheives its goal and the Player accompanying it receives 4 Integrity times the DICE roll.  Otherwise, it ceases to exist without acheiving its goal with the normal loss of Integrity. 

And now for the random thing of the day:

Unless at least three comments containing counted votes also contain the text “Why?”, rules 2.10 and 2.13 swap contents and titles.


Elias IX:

11-05-2006 20:26:36 UTC


Haha… Why? You’re an admin too, so you should be knowledgable of the pain this causes.

Angry Grasshopper:

11-05-2006 21:18:47 UTC


I can renumber the rules if no one else wants to—it’s no problem.

Angry Grasshopper:

11-05-2006 21:19:08 UTC

Mm, but what does <u>should</u> mean?


11-05-2006 22:16:26 UTC

It means, “It is recommended that” - glossary


11-05-2006 22:21:38 UTC

and I’m willing to admin this if AG doesn’t.


11-05-2006 22:49:17 UTC



11-05-2006 23:15:42 UTC

against We’ve been over this before, but:  random and useless add-ons to a Proposal can only convince me to vote against it.

Oh, and Bucky may declare victory at any time.


12-05-2006 00:14:20 UTC

“Oh, and Bucky may declare victory at any time.”
That must be the cipher I havn’t decoded yet.


12-05-2006 11:37:01 UTC




12-05-2006 16:07:18 UTC

imperial Why?


12-05-2006 17:41:06 UTC

Why not?