This way is funnier

If there’s a consensus for the historical record that a metadynasty proposal failing to explicitly specify “and end the current dynasty” means that that dynasty didn’t end and we had an overlapping double dynasty instead, this would also apply to nearly all past metadynasties.

I’m not sure that I especially value consistency in this; I think that the historical record is always an artefact of the time that it’s produced rather than being a singular and fully objective document. In so many ways this game changes based on the nature of the people playing it in the specific moment. If we do want to critically revaluate the historical record for other metadynasties though then I’m okay with that.

I think the record is more useful if it’s written consistently. Unpicking that retroactively is difficult and seems unwise (you would lose both of your #100/#200 milestones!), but we can at least try to write it consistently as we go along.

I know the saying about consistency and all of that, but I think we can both record this as a separate dynasty and document what happened to preserve the historical record. Those don’t seem to be mutually exclusive to me.

although I think this is a no-op.