I don’t find this to be urgent enough to warrant a CfJ.

This appendix bug is blocking “Unpaid Overtime”, the CFJ needed to actually allow the dynasty to start. I think that’s fairly urgent.

Like, the likely scenario if you vote this down is: “Unpaid Overtime” passes; then “Floor Plans” ends up getting enough votes to pass, it gets adminned, but the ruleset doesn’t change as a consequence because the proposal was once illegal. Maybe an admin changes it in the ruleset and gets reverted. We then either need to duplicate the changes it would have made via proposal, or have Jumble repeat the proposal. Alternatively, some admin correctly marks “Floor Plans” as illegal before it can be enacted, maybe despite the CFJ that’s trying to make it legal. Any of those courses of action are likely to delay the start of the dynasty somewhat, for no gain for anyone.

Meanwhile, if this can be passed quickly enough (before “Unpaid Overtime” is), we can use our existing fix CFJs to fix everything, without requiring a fourth attempt to start the dynasty.

So I think that this is probably the second-most urgent fix out of any of those pending at the moment (the most urgent is to fix the loophole via which idle admins can enact proposals that don’t meet the requirements to be enacted, probably using the existing CFJ with that purpose).

yeah this does seem pretty urgent

  if a cfj makes something legal it’s legal, regardless of what if the rules says

I think the problem we have here is a tension between the “uphold” keyword and the clause in Official Posts, and prioritisation would suggest that the official posts clause has more weight than the uphold keyword; I agree that that could use fixing. But Clucky is correct that the enacted effects of votable matters are, at least by convention, not constrained by the ruleset in this way. It’s up to us to figure out how to square that circle but it’s not urgent and can be unpicked at our leisure.

“cannot subsequently be made legal by any means” in the voice of the Appendix - which “has precedence over any other Rule” - seems heavyweight enough to need fixing.

I don’t share Clucky’s view that a CfJ is some metagame agreement that can get around anything, up to and including (from past discussions on this, if I’ve understood Clucky correctly) “CfJs cannot be made”.

1. The Appendix has precedence over any other Rule;

I don’t think metagame agreements are better than the Rule itself unless the Game itself is compromised by the Ruleset.

why would we want to put restrictions on what a CfJ can do?

That is removing a potentially useful backdoor tool to get out of someone accidentally (or maliciously) breaking the game.