I assume we’d also want to say that past actions “taken” in this way during the current dynasty are invalidated, otherwise this is just implicitly endorsing them as legal.

I still can’t really picture a situation that isn’t already adequately covered by “The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.” and “For gamestate which is tracked in a specific place (such as a wiki page), any alteration of that gamestate as a result of an Explorer’s action is (and can only be) applied by editing that data in that place.”, though.

I feel like the fact that we’re debating this is a good indicator that the existing wording isn’t sufficient, for clarity purposes if for nothing else.

I understand not liking redundant text, but if it helps better inform everyone what the expected behavior is for specific scenarios, I don’t see the harm. This section of the ruleset is called “Clarifications” for that reason, in my opinion.

Slight wording correction, unless I’m mistaken by your intent:

” but that event had not occured before the clause was added to the ruleset, “

shouldn’t that be:

” but that event had occured before the clause was added to the ruleset, “

to cover the scenario of the “past event, future clause”?

“Actions cannot be taken before they are defined unless the ruleset specifies otherwise” appears to accidentally make literally all information gamestate, due to the possibility that a future rule might define an action to make the same change.

I’m with Kevan, I think; I see JonathanDark’s point about the clarifications section, but adding redundant clarification opens up precedent for saying “well we clarified about the potential-future-actions thing, but we didn’t clarify about my retroactive-value-change scam, so…”

Very .

Per earlier comments, especially the implication that we can all currently take some actions before they’re defined, so long as we do so before this proposal enacts.

And I’m not sure this address what may be the actual question that was raised here (according to the other appendix proposal and Josh’s Discord comments about the “timeliness” of performing actions which do not yet exist) - whether someone announcing “I will [perform action] as soon as it becomes legal to do so” means that the action happens automatically and legally later on.

I think most of the situations that this covers will be dealt with by cfj / DoV voting, and the ruleset doesn’t strictly need to cover the edge cases. 

Seems pretty unnecessary to me.

Withdrawn