This has way broader effects than I think is intended.

You can make a Pending Votable matter at any moment, and link or cite something in it.

Basically, you can turn any wikipage into formal, game-legal Gamestate at any time. I’m not too sure how comfortable I am with that.

It’s very hard to see how that could be weaponised.

Hm, actually, not that hard. Hang on.

Better?

This would actually introduce a paradox into the Ruleset which it has no way to resolve (because §Prioritisation doesn’t cover it).

The definition of Gamestate itself is not part of the §Rules and Proposals rule this would be in. And the definition (in §Keywords) says that Gamestate is “Any information which the Ruleset regulates the alteration of.”, which the linked wikipages would qualify for, because they would be regulated now.

But then, §Rules and Proposals it would say that for the purposes of all other rules, it isn’t Gamestate.

So, for a Dynastic Rule, what is it? Is it Gamestate via Keywords? Is it not because Rules and Proposals says it isn’t?

§Prioritisation doesn’t cover Appendix Rules for cases like this.

We can do better. Probably by just calling the entire page flavour text.

(Also, no, they wouldn’t have the “same scope”, because one of them is for solely the linked pages, and the other is for stuff in general)

@Cuddlebeam - how is “not having properties or content” for the purposes of Keywords the same as not being gamestate?

I don’t see the problem - probably I’m just being dense.

Sorry, I missed that gap in my explanation.

Pages are gamestate or not gamestate. Being gamestate or not is a property of things.

(Im getting a bit confused now too actually lol)

Oh, yeah, that’s not a bad argument.

Eh, someone else can have a go