In principle I like the idea, however I see the problem that the GNDT should be changed when everyone has a codename to prevent the codenames of the Agents which are assigned last become apperent. Also it would require to random the descriptions again, else there would be a link between the agent and his codename by the descriptions which are already known.

@Blacky - the 20 extra redundant codenames in the GNDT prevent working out by assignation, and the last line states that existing descriptions would have to be re-randomised.

CoV, Oops, one should not only read the text of the new rule, but also the procedure of its enactment.

It’s good, but this removes the confirmation that the emailed contact with D-Ops was actually from the player. (If .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) emails me requesting a Codename and Description, but Ais523 fails to update the GNDT with that Description, nothing happens, Ais523 the player doesn’t get the Codename, and I would presumably be under ruleset orders to disregard any emailed game instructions from a player who has no Codename.)

Simplest solution might just be to use a linked blog post somewhere where players can post their descriptions.

(Or code phrases, or something, if Codenames are having Descriptions now.)

Per Kevan =P

But I like the juxtaposition of having “The Eighth Dynasty of Kevan” in the Ruleset after “What’s in a Name” passes.