Note: “Re-enact"ing a Rule is of unclear meaning; I’d just edit this proposal to add a new rule to the ruleset, that has the text of Deliberations, already altered to read Hunter(s) instead of Scribe(s), outright.

:Boom. Also, I started writing before Matt voted, so this is not illegal. I think.

It’s illegal, if the comment was posted before the edit was made, whenever you started writing.

I checked the revision history, however, and the edit time wasn’t given seconds, and they seem to be at the same minute; of course, that’s possibly EE being dumb about timestamps?

It is by when you posted the edit, not when you started typing. The revision is time stamped at 1:19 and the comment is 1:19:46. I don’t think there is a way to tell the second on revisions so the legality is impossible to prove one way or the other?

And Raichu beat me to it, well point stands.

this rule was fine when procedural mechanisms were the core mechanic of the dynasty (or when ‘hodgepodge of old stuff’ was a core mechanic of the dynasty), but there is a reason this rule isn’t part of the core rules

For the record, I support this being in the core rules. Would rather see it added there then as a dynastic rule.

As the last Dynasty showed, Notes kinda cannibalized fix Deliberations; with Deliberations only used when Notes: failed, for some reason.

They both have their own flaws; Notes can ward off early voting, which can be Bad, while Deliberations lead to a certain kind of shenanigans that doesn’t fit in every Dynasty.

I’m going to have an explicit abstention.

If a proposal is flawed, people should just vote it down. This creates scenarios where you can’t vote for a proposal you like because a deliberation you dislike could negatively affect it.

It can make fun game play, sure, but it doesn’t make good core game play

Think about it though. Wouldn’t the same be said for a preposal that had mostly good parts, but one bad? AND, dliberations could solve that. From my point of view, we would be trading a small amount of risk for a large amount of corrective power.

Deliberations don’t solve that though. Because proposals can still pass while a deliberation is pending, you can’t vote FOR a bad proposal that is fixed by a deliberation until the deliberation passes.

If a proposal is good minus a few parts, just propose it a second time. Blognomic doesn’t move fast enough that the increased time it takes to get your proposal passed is a big deal. A little patience solves this problem much better

Also: Deliberations allow you to bypass the proposal queue. Which is generally not a good idea.

Were this a rule, someone could say, add a deliberation on Ships in the Night that changes the name of “Barque” to “Frigate”. If that deliberation passes, suddenly Aft3rwards’s proposal doesn’t work.

(even if he writes “If there is a sub rule called ‘Barque’ append ‘Speed: 3’”, the deliberation would still break the rule because Frigate would have no speed)

Not having to future proof your proposals against stuff that hasn’t been written yet is incredibly important.

Per Clucky.

  point.

I’ve been convinced.