Difference between revisions of "Nomic 2/Proposals/The Nine Billion Names of Nomic"
From RPG Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
== Comments == | == Comments == | ||
Sure, why not. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:31, 1 February 2012 (PST) | Sure, why not. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:31, 1 February 2012 (PST) | ||
I suppose that this rule is, strictly speaking, necessary. In general though, I'm against adding ''common sense'' rules until experience demonstrates that such a rule is practically necessary.--[[User:Olethros|Olethros]] 00:39, 4 February 2012 (PST) | I suppose that this rule is, strictly speaking, necessary. In general though, I'm against adding ''common sense'' rules until experience demonstrates that such a rule is practically necessary.--[[User:Olethros|Olethros]] 00:39, 4 February 2012 (PST) | ||
Latest revision as of 03:39, 4 February 2012
Tentative Proposal
- Enact a new rule (named Unambiguous Names):
- Names of game elements must be unambiguous. (This only applies to game elements which both can be named and have a name.)
- Rules must not share a name with any other extant rule, unless both rules are unnamed.
- Proposals must not share a name or a wiki page with any other proposal, no matter the state of the proposal.
- Players must have unique names, noms de plume, handles, or other methods of identification.
- Names of game elements must be unambiguous. (This only applies to game elements which both can be named and have a name.)
Although the laws of the land were Byzantine and obtuse, they were unambiguous on one point: the hour from noon to one was known as lunchtime.
Proposed by
--vimes 12:47, 1 February 2012 (PST)
Comments
Sure, why not. --Jota 17:31, 1 February 2012 (PST)
I suppose that this rule is, strictly speaking, necessary. In general though, I'm against adding common sense rules until experience demonstrates that such a rule is practically necessary.--Olethros 00:39, 4 February 2012 (PST)
Voting
Proposal Status
In discussion.
