I’m worried “The state of this option is neither ruletext nor gamestate and may be changed at any time by the post author or an admin.” almost gives people too much permission

Its unclear if legally I’d be allowed to simply sticky a proposal I made for whatever reason. Its a bridge we haven’t had to cross, but if I had to state I would say “no you shouldn’t be able to do that” yet this would give explicit permission to be able to do it

I think a “but changing its state should not be done unless otherwise specified” added to the end of that sentence would fix it.

The way I see it, there’s two different controls here:

* Who is allowed to set a post sticky?

* When is an author or an admin allowed to un-sticky a post?

I’m trying to address the latter without addressing the former. Maybe that’s incorrect and I should try to do both.

The reason I kept them separate is for exactly what happened in this dynasty transition: the Emperor changed, but it’s unclear who can or should un-sticky any left-over sticky posts.

Can we just remove “The state of this option is neither ruletext nor gamestate and may be changed at any time by the post author or an admin.”?

Or maybe replace it with something like

“The sticky status of posts should generally be left to the discretion of the Emperor”?

Ok, I’ve replaced it with your suggestion. I’ve replaced “Emperor” with the current synonym.

Wouldn’t the whole “I sticky this post for the lulz” be discouraged anyway by the “Thou shalt not spam” rule in Fair Play? If you don’t feel that way, then adding a line to that effect would do the job, no?

I felt like we’ve referenced “sticky post” in dynastic rules enough that it deserved its own formal definition. This also allows potential dynastic rules that let non-Emperors sticky posts to signal something or another. I’d rather not make an overbroad rule in Fair Play about it.