Then why define as something special at all? 

Clucky: Huh?

Not sure how useful it is, but why not?

The rules (or possibly just core rules) should use either Critic or Emperor, but not both inconsistently.

CoV ; this would be more compelling if you could delete or replace parts of rules without worrying that their keywords might have changed. Some kind of proposal-level textual synonym mechanism. That sounds quite vulnerable to exploits, though…

You know, if someone changes the keywords to actually be Emperor and Player, then next dynasty, the glossary will have them replaced too…

Wait, misread the second part.

Faff.

    per zuff, this is just waiting for scams

Qwazukee: I don’t think this form is susceptible to scams; it’s just not very useful.

First change yes, second change no.

CoV i’m an idiot

For this to work, we’d always have to use the terms “Emperor” and “Player” whenever we made a core-changing proposal, just in case somebody DoV’d and changed the words before it enacted. (If I just talk about rewording a sentence that contains the word ‘Artist’, when that word is now ‘Falafel’, the ruleset doesn’t know that Artist used to be a synonym for Player.) This seems a little cumbersome.

I think the idea of “generic synonym” would also need beefing up to explicitly state that it means the words are always completely interchangeable, even when a proposal is saying “replace this exact text with that exact text”.

the general concept but the specific implementation.

I’ve always thought that if you want to use multiple words to refer to the emperor or players, you can just make a proposal about the specific words in question at the start of the dynasty.

CoV