Rule: Winning must be referred to as “frolicking”. Anyone who says the word win (won, winning) loses.
3 Likes
There are no rules against deleting rules, right?
I’m deleting rules 2 and 3.
I declare that I am frolicking.
PiggyStardust is great!
New rule: In addition to making up a new rule, you may (optionally) delete a rule if (and only if) you frolick.
1 Like
Note: I removed the @ mentions from the rules, since eventually, we’ll need to have more than 10 people mentioned, which is not allowed by Discourse (for non-moderator accounts).
interesting game.
ooh that means I can win now!
PiggyStardust is great!
frolicking around saying the new rule is that people must use at least 100 characters in the post that they are claiming victory in.
You used the forbidden “W” word
Hence, you just lost, and do not get to make a new rule.
2 Likes
so I am frolicking now I guess.
PiggyStardust is great!
New rule: Including spaces, and other symbols, rules must be exactly 78 characters long.
2 Likes
so I am frolicking now I guess.
PiggyStardust is great!
New rule: Including spaces, and other symbols, rules must be exactly 78 characters long.
1 Like
Don’t forget your push-ups!
1 Like
how do I give you the proof?
I don’t really feel comfortable filming myself doing it.
It’s on the basis of honour. If you say you did it but you didn’t, you’re not honourable. 
4 Likes
Dang, I wanted to clean up a bit, by moving dead rules to a different location. However, that messed up the numbering, which is annoying.
Any suggestions?
I’m think I’ve just frolicked.
PiggyStardust is great!
New rule: Only those players that have been elected democratically can claim to frolick.
Additionally rule 6 is deleted.
1 Like
I ask you to elect me as frolicker of the current iteration, with the intent of implementing the following rule:
No rule shall mention any particular user and those that do are herby revoked
1 Like
The following 15 minutes will be a public vote on @Leira’s suggestion. Only with a strict majority will @Leira be elected.
Should @Leira be allowed a single iteration of frolicking?
- Aye
- Nay
0 voters
1 Like
I like having the deleted rules there, it gives an immediate view of the history without having to go through the edit history.
I guess there’s no rule against renumbering/reordering the rules either…
Oh wow, I think this could open a can of worms to work through many, many rules trying to define this concept, or maybe someone could just delete it 
1 Like
My idea was to put a section of rules “in effect” and another which was the “graveyard” (keeping the original numbering). But maybe we’ll get to that if it is too cluttered.
2 Likes
Discourse uses markdown, which “fixes” numbering in lists, e.g.,
1.
2.
1.
7.
7.
3.
becomes
However, you could just use some sort of punctuation other than a period, e.g.,
1 -
3 -
4 -
2 Likes