This will produce invalid results a good chunk of the time.

Yes, this needs to be DICE6 five times.

Also a small danger of hitting a word that does something irreparably damaging to the ruleset (eg “45524 proposal”, “52453 rule”).

Thanks, changes made.

Echoing ais523’s comments about the problems when we change Amnesiac to “Player”, I’d probably go further and disallow either of these words from being changed to any word that already appears in the ruleset.

Would still vote against this, mind, as there’d still be the potential for us to generate something that kills the game in an unforeseen way.

Thanks Kevan, have changed.

Very good.

Also, I’m disappointed that the words “josh”, “derrick” and “poke” aren’t in this list.

I suppose the whole point is to avoid just rolling now, finding two random words and then submitting them to a vote where people’s preferences would take over… But this would probably work better as a two-step process, rather than immediately implementing something that could prove game-breaking. Perhaps a proposal that has its enacting admin choose the words and initiate a “yes or no” CfJ?

By the way, this proposal doesn’t have any effect without a “Core”, “Special Case” and “Appendix” tag (unless “Spin the Wheel” passes).