Using something so inane as the use of a hashtag as grounds for nullifying a set of rules, or a commentary on a set of rules, is pointless, and contributes nothing to the game. — Noble Dust

I used a hash (not a hashtag) in the first rule; my followers wrongly assumed that these were obligatory. I'm just pointing out that this was mere dogma.

As I said to ND, I have merely been echoing the Creator; who you have also affirmed to be The Man. I have no aspiration to minor despotism.

The fact that you're willfully playing along with that inane and random rule about hashtags in order to further your own agenda in making certain rules reveals a lack of character within the context of the game. If the leadership, @Banno makes a dumb rule, the rule should be questioned.

But now Janus has manipulated that to create rules that prevent other posters from having certain power within the game.

Curious that previous iterations of this game did not result in such great expectations of me.

I had puzzled at the quantity of directly religious moral threads on this forum. Is that a result of the change in clientele, or of changing times?

The use of the hash seems to reveal a certain bureaucratic mentality that should be not be encouraged except when it is employed by the Supreme Bureaucrat. Also excessive concern about 'sucking the fun out of" or "lack of character within" or the psychological motives of other players should be considered as complaints which contain implicit appeals to some imagined authority-figure to make the game fair or in other words the way the complainant wants it to be, and are thus to be avoided in the interest of openness and creativity and the willingness to see how things turn out.

willfully playing along with that inane and random rule about hashtags in order to further your own agenda — Noble Dust

But surely the Will to Power is the very mark of the Overman.

I was thinking more along the lines of deism than theism. I've probably interfered too much already. — Banno

That's fine and I can understand, being a very lazy person myself. My suggestion is that you use your power to make Noble Dust da Man. He will be conscientious and fair.

My complaints have only been towards rules that prevent other reasonable rules from being made; rules that are power grabs which prevent the game from being open and creative.

My suggestion is that you use your power to make Noble Dust da Man. He will be conscientious and fair. — T Clark

OK.

"Behold, My Son, @Noble Dust; In Whom I am Well Pleased"

Now it's presumably up to you to crucify him.

I was thinking more along the lines of deism than theism. I've probably interfered too much already. — Banno
That's fine and I can understand, being a very lazy person myself. My suggestion is that you use your power to make Noble Dust da Man. He will be conscientious and fair. — T Clark

Think of yourself as the Wizard of Oz and ND as the Scarecrow. That makes Janus....some damn fucking Munchkin.

No, Janus was simply going along with your rule without questioning it, and using it as leverage for power; not a sign of the Overman. The Overman wouldn't care about your prior rules.

Ah, but as you should realize all rules may be broken which means that what might appear to be oppressive rules are really exhortations to the creativity of finding ways around them.

OK.

"Behold, My Son, Noble Dust; In Whom I am Well Pleased"

Now it's presumably up to you to crucify him. — Banno

Thank you oh Wise One.

There you go - Noble Dust is Da Man. Tell us where we go from here, oh exalted one.

So within the game, then, you're willfully creating oppressive rules, with the intention that members of the game will creatively find ways around them?

Ah, but as you should realize all rules may be broken which means that what might appear to be oppressive rules are really exhortations to the creativity of finding ways around them. — Janus

It doesn't matter what you say, Noble Dust is now Da Man.

OK, I understand a distinction between 'both signals and causes', and '(either) signals or causes', and I can't make sense of 'both signals or causes'; but I protesteth not, since the Creator moves in mysterious ways.

I prefer to think of them as challenging: they are oppressive only to those who would be oppressed.

OK, I understand a distinction between 'both signals and causes', and '(either) signals or causes', and I can't make sense of 'both signals or causes'; but I protesteth not, since the Creator moves in mysterious ways. — Janus

Do you acknowledge that ND is now DM?

I never wanted this power, but here's where we stand:

@Posty McPostface Rule one states that "Rules cannot be imposed on other rules previously made from henceforth." Already, this is problematic, because of course the rules will need to interact with one another.

@Banno Rule two states " Rules that are labeled with a hash (#) are hereby deemed not well-formed and hence need not be followed." This rule is completely arbitrary and unessisary; however, since the game has began afresh, players simply need to follow rule two by not using a hash (#) when labeling their rules. This rule is needless micromanagement, but harmless.

@Sir2u Rule three states: No rule shall be considered valid until it has been published in a confirmation post by Lord of the Game, Sir Banno.
Any rule posted before aforementioned confirmation of previous post will be cancelled and considered null and void.

This rule is now void, because Banno is not Lord of the Game anymore. There's no indication of whether or not this rule is automatically passed down to the next Lord, so I don't accept this rule as applying to me.

So far, we're not off to a great start.

Edit: I've quoted the rule-makers of the game so far in this post, so that the state of the game can be discussed, and my commentary can be analyzed, if necessary.

Ah, but all rules may be broken; one ineliminable rule in any game is the ceaseless march of change.

So within the game, then, you're willfully creating oppressive rules, with the intention that members of the game will creatively find ways around them? — Noble Dust

When I asked Banno to make you DM, I told him you would be conscientious and fair. It's time for you to follow up. Say something gracious and conciliatory.

Ah, but all rules my be broken; one ineliminable rule in any game is the ceaseless march of change. — Janus

Bow down before Da Man!!!!

I both acknowledge and do not acknowledge, and neither acknowledge nor do not acknowledge.

I'm not in this position to pacify players, and plus, I know Janus can take it.

I'd suspect that eating the blinds and not cleaning up after yourself is evidence of supreme leadership, but should we make it a formal rule?

I'm not in this position to pacify posters, and plus, I know Janus can take it. — Noble Dust

I made you what you are today. You owe it to me to live up to my declaration to Banno.

Geez, don't tell me you're going to be a petty despot too.

I had puzzled at the quantity of directly religious moral threads on this forum. Is that a result of the change in clientele, or of changing times? — Banno

The need for guidance maybe, Inferiority complex, laziness. Who knows.

X-)

It's untrue that oppression only occurs to those who would be oppressed. And indeed, oppression is often a position from which a difficult challenge becomes an opportunity. But this doesn't mean that oppression isn't occuring.