This seems decently reasonable to my untrained eyes.

I feel like “a dynastic action that is carried out entirely by executing actions defined in the core rules” is inherently tautological; of its a dynastic action then it can’t, by definition, consist entirely of actions defined in the core rules

Josh,
Suppose there were a dynastic rule with “A player may Register Objection by casting a vote AGAINST a Votable Matter after its author has commented on it”.

Suppose further that game is in Hiatus, there is a pending CfJ, and the CfJ’s author has commented on it. Would it be legal to vote against that CfJ?

Under the current rules, it would be illegal, because doing so would be Registering Objection, a dynastic action.

Under this proposal it would be legal to Register Objection, because casting the vote is an action defined in the core rules and it’s not necessary to do else to Register Objection.

I see your point Bucky. Basically, actions (seem to be) are strictly defined by the mechanical input. If two separate actions have identical input, then doing that input performs both actions. Yes?

I disagree, even if I’d like to agree because your view is more mechanically pure, because for practical purposes, *intent* counts as well. We have blunders and mistakes all of the time, some of the which could have been the strict input that cause other actions, but we just don’t count them as such because they weren’t intended by the player to be that.

So even if two different actions have identical inputs, I’m inclined to believe that intent ends up dictating what action (or actions) end up actually happening.

So where your proposal says “When a Partygoer goes from Idle to Unidle, or Unidle to Idle, that Partygoer has Idleflipped. A Partygoer can only Idleflip once every four days (96 hours)”, you intend for Admins to be able to Core Idle themselves and then Dynastic Idleflip themselves or vice versa without either cooldown applying?

Oh, hm, I intended the cooldown to apply to both actually.

Oh, hm, I intended the cooldown to apply to both actually.

I am somewhat confused as to why this is failing, because I think it’s a clear and potentially serious problem that it could accidentally hiatus-lock the game with no rule-compliant means of recovery.

I mean, it currently can’t as there’s no mechanics that do what this proposal describes; and I’m happy that as a matter of best practice we probably shouldn’t be allowing dynastic rules to have that kind of parallel-core functionality, for this reason amongst several others