I’m not sure changing your home-sector makes much sense, as it represents where you are from, not where you are at.

You’re saying that Termination and Accusations mechanics are overridden by a rule which doesn’t exist from the perspective of the Termination and Accusation rules?

You could have just created a new section and specified that it has no clearance.

The ruleset currently doesn’t really say much about Sectors, other than that you have to be in one on a certain date somehow. Also, who knows the origins of Citizens on the lam? What Sector would want to subscribe to owning them? Only the Sector of Thieves and Brigands, ZZZ.

Hmm you may be right Kevan, I’m imagining that Citizens might be considered killed by the regular Ruleset no matter what the Anti-Dynastic Ruleset says. *sigh* I think I’ll have to repropose as a Colorless rule later.

per Kevan and considering a Veto, not for flavor reasons, but because having two rulesets, one of which didn’t exist in regards to the other, would lead to many issues like the ones pointed out.

(plus there would be no provision for the next High-Programmer to repeal the Anti-Dynastic ruleset.)

It could still be repealed, the Core Rules consider it to be part of the Dynastic Rules. I’ll probably self-kill this eventually, but I want to see if there are any actual problems with the contents of the rules themselves before a repropose as a Dynastic Rule

Ah, yes, reading fail on my part.

This is a little more complicated than I care for, honestly.

None of the rules say that the Anti-Dynastic Ruleset is binding. (Note that the core rules and the dynastic rules are in the same ruleset.) We’d have a ruleset which was no more binding than the Secret Ruleset or the ruleset Ienpw III once posted on his user page as a result of this.

.  I remember what happened last time we had more than one ruleset, and it wasn’t pretty.

s/k

procedural