Did not mean to offend.

The Pygmalion wouldn’t be powered, though. And the point of unpowering Institutions when they’re altered is that you don’t end up paying for something that was nerfed since your bid went in.

Right. But because its going at the start of the cycle, no one can send a bid in so its not a problem. It is true that I guess it still screws whoever gets it this cycle, so we could unpower it not but put the change in at the start of the next cycle…

Oh, I missed “at the start of the next cycle”. Double-AGAINST, then - this means that the proposal queue freezes until this proposal has finished enacting. (Proposals are either Pending, Enacted or Failed; this one won’t become Enacted until all of its effects have been processed, therefore it remains the “oldest pending proposal” and prevents the next-oldest pending one from being processed.)

I disagree, Kevan, on three grounds:

Firstly, enactment is clearly and consistently used as a game keyword to refer to the specific act of passing a proposal, rather than applying its provisions. An example of that is the fact that “enactment” is used to describe DoVs, which do not contain explicit provisions and act solely to confer legitimacy on a victory;

Second, the rule for proposals is unclear, but the rule for CfJs explicitly define Enactment as a game concept and the actual enactment of the matter’s provisions as separate incidents -

“When a CFJ is Enacted, the Admin Enacting it shall update the Gamestate and Ruleset, and correct the GNDT and other gamestate tracking entities, as specified in the CFJ.”

Third, rule 3.3.2 states that “Where a Proposal would amend the effects of Proposal Enactment, this does not apply to its own enactment unless explicitly stated,” so even if your interpretation is correct, the fact that this proposal explicitly states that it modifies its own enactment criteria means that it can enact while still time-delaying its provisions.

It depends how we interpret “may be enacted by any Admin (and the Ruleset and/or Gamestate updated to include the specified effects of that Proposal)” - does the “and” mean that these happen in parallel and one can’t finish without the other, or does it mean as soon as we tick the “enacted” box the proposal is no longer pending and we can (if we like) process the next proposal’s effects before those of the original?

I don’t think your third point is relevant - this isn’t amending the effects of proposal enactment, it’s just instructing the enacting admin to “first: wait 47 or however many hours; then, change some rule text”.

I’ll propose a fix if people are reading that proposals can be enacted in any order so long as you tick the “enacted” boxes one after the other. Floaty “three weeks next Tuesday, rule X will be changed to Y - no, this isn’t a rule, just remember it” effects should, I think, be considered harmful.

Either way, I think that the ruleset’s lack of specificity on that issue is probably problematic.

I’m firing up a fix for it now.

My against vote was because of the delay; but I agree with the change.
I would actually prefer
“The Player who Influenced the 96189 Pygmalion in the previous Cycle gains N Credits, where N is the minimum of Y - X, Y - MPI and 0, where Y is the current total amount of Resources the Galatea possesses, X is the amount of Resources it possessed at the beginning of the current Cycle, and MPI is the Market Price Index.”