on defining metadynasties,    on starting one

Bucky, you seem like one of the very few intent on salvaging this dynasty. Do you plan on entering a counter-proposal, or are you expecting this to pass and just voicing your dissent?

lumping in starting one together with the definition, on balance.

Oh, whoops, I totally missed Bucky’s proposal.

If this fails I’ll re-propose the definition separately.

I’m now not really sure about what I think about ending the dynasty. So I’m going to abstain for now.

On the grounds that they should be seperate proposals.

On both counts.

in the sense that we should define what a metadynasty is in a bot more detail;  starting one right now, though.  A bit of a change of heart, but still.

When the metadynasty rule was repealed, it was on the basis that it was confusing to newbies (?) and could easily be added back again if a Metadynasty was wanted. So adding one back in and starting it at the same time is the correct thing to do.

In that case, I retract my meh-itude and enthusiastically RoV .

Personally, I think I’d be more confused looking at the current ruleset and not being able to determine from that, what these “Metadynasties” I see are.

Didn’t I already propose that amendment?

Yes. The ratification killed it.

[ais523] As I remember it, the problem with the historical metadynasty rule (I forget if it was enacted or just proposed) was that it banged on for a full paragraph explaining how DEFs would resolve and how other rules treated the absence of an Emperor, which was a lot of weight to give to something that only happened once every couple of years. All those other rules have since been written to work around a missing Emperor, though, so we only need one sentence now, which seems plenty.

Will this be valid once I am unidled? Or would I have to vote again?

The latter

I’ll CoV to DEF if our Critic unidles.

If the Critic idles, any Dynasty becomes a Meta.

And that was a CoV from DEF, btw

I don’t think that’s a real bug. Why would it be improper to say that we are presently in what is technically a metadynasty? Long-standing precedent is to name the dynasties after the first Critic anyways, but there’s no reason a dynasty can’t transform into a metadynasty rather than become a dynasty of another Critic.

[Ely] The “Dynasties” rule is specifically exempt from idle Players not counting as Players. The Emperor remains the Emperor while he is idle.

whoops. Back to my non-vote then. 

I’ve always been a fan of a possible multi-emperor dynasty.

[Wakukee]
We would need more players than what we had until now. If we manage to keep the number high I’d vote for, there’s a load of cool mechanics in true winning-together factions/teams. Having 3 emperors out of 8 players seems a waste.