Explanation to Darknight and anyone else who votes against it:
I do not intend to take any meta-game actions (i.e. attacking monsters, obtaining treasure) for the rest of this dynasty.  I also refuse to go idle in case another Darth Cliche-type crisis occurs and I am unable to return due to a time limit.  A proposal has a possibility of passing which makes not having deaths a victory condition.

If this proposal passes, then no one gets me into a situation where I have to enter combat, do rolling, etc., nor do they have to waste attacks on me when they can target another @.  And if someone did find a way to scam this, then I say “Bravo” and tip my hat to them.

.  Either “That @ Dies” or “That @‘s Deaths increases by 1” would be fine, but “That @ is considered to have Died” doesn’t have the effect you want.

I’m fine with the idea, but this:

“add a comment to the post which proposed this law”

would be impossible; post-resolution this post would be locked for comments.

CoV, per Bucky and Josh. 

[dbdougla] The four-day limit only applies to voluntary idling, in order to prevent tactical idling (“I attack you and go idle, I’ll be back on Monday to unidle and attack you again”), and, I suppose, to make ragequitting really mean something. If you time out through inactivity, you can come back at any time.

dbdougla: Attacking yourself seems to be a pretty quick way to die. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the rules against that.

There’s also no rule against resting multiple times and starving yourself to death.

Had the same thought as Josh.