Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Proposal: Timeframe fix

Passes 15-1. -Ornithopter

Adminned at 16 Dec 2009 23:30:31 UTC

Change the text in 2.2 Wish Fulfillment that currently reads:

The Djinn Must look at each wish and a) determine whether or not he will grant the wish, and, if he decides to grant the wish, b) reduce the Wishes of the adventurer who made the wish by 1 and perform the results of the wish.

to read instead:

The Djinn Must look at each wish and a) determine whether or not he will grant the wish, and, if he decides to grant the wish, b) reduce the Wishes of the adventurer who made the wish by 1 and perform the results of the wish. Any wish that does not include an explicit timeframe in which the request is to be granted shall be deemed to be requested for immediate enactment.

There’s an old saying in Baghdad — I know it’s in Samarkand, probably in Baghdad — that says, fool DC once, shame on — shame on you. Fool DC — you can’t get fooled again.

Comments

Josh: he/they

16-12-2009 09:17:18 UTC

*attempts to walk out through a sealed door; pulls funny face for the cameras*

for

SingularByte: he/him

16-12-2009 10:35:04 UTC

for

Ornithopter:

16-12-2009 10:58:05 UTC

for

redtara: they/them

16-12-2009 11:43:29 UTC

for

spikebrennan:

16-12-2009 11:55:05 UTC

for

Kevan: City he/him

16-12-2009 13:24:11 UTC

imperial This could go on forever (“you wished for a million dollars right now but didn’t say how long you wanted to keep them for!” ... “but didn’t specify BlogNomic rather than Monopoly!” ... “but didn’t specify base 10!”) - it’s all very amusing and thematic and impossible to legislate against, but in no way is it a fun game.

Wakukee:

16-12-2009 13:58:37 UTC

I’m for.  for .

Actually, the only reason I did this was that every other wish made until that one had specified some sort of timeframe. I thought that since others were expected to include time in their wishes, DC should.

Kevan: City he/him

16-12-2009 14:03:36 UTC

Oh, I didn’t realise we’d had two unannounced wishes already.

Wakukee:

16-12-2009 14:14:15 UTC

The rule requiring wishes to be announced never passed. And I have denied one or two more which were nor fulfillable.

Klisz:

16-12-2009 15:51:37 UTC

for  I find the concept of “base 10” amusing, as the “10” in that phrase could itself be in another base.

Oze:

16-12-2009 15:59:30 UTC

against

Nausved:

16-12-2009 21:43:50 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

16-12-2009 23:18:02 UTC

for

alethiophile:

17-12-2009 00:34:05 UTC

for
All numbers are in base 10, at least in that base.

alethiophile:

17-12-2009 02:47:16 UTC

Kevan: I think that ‘timeframe’ refers to not how long you want the wish to be in effect for but when you want it to be enacted.

TrumanCapote:

17-12-2009 02:51:49 UTC

for

alethiophile:

17-12-2009 04:02:44 UTC

Stands at 12-1. Can someone else vote for just to get it over with?

Apathetic Lizardman:

17-12-2009 05:46:07 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

17-12-2009 06:39:32 UTC

for