Clever, although a bit opaque - “P-Layer” becomes a non-sequitur to a new player reading the ruleset, who can’t see it in the previous bullet point unless they happen to be reading the source.

Might be clearer to add a sentence saying not to replace the second quoted word upon Ascension - and adding an empty HTML comment or invisible space in the middle of the word to stop it from being accidentally and illegally search-and-replaced.

I want to make fucking this up again as difficult as I possibly can, and I’ll take a non-sequitur to do it if I have to.

Also I thought this had already been fixed but hey I guess we’re here now?

Did I miss something here?

Okay, we definitely enacted a fix. Now I’ve gotta work out what went wrong.

...Kevan marked it Enacted and never actually changed the page to reflect.

Representation of gamestate rectified, Proposal changed to reflect current gamestate.

Ah, sorry for missing that at the time.

Both aspects of the We Forgot Something CfJ still stand, mind, because we would all have been considered idle at the time you posted your CfJ - meaning that it wasn’t a valid CfJ.

Standing by it being a bad idea to add a mystery bullet point into the core rules, which will at worst baffle the reader (if they don’t understand templates and/or think to check the page source) and at best waste their time having to look up what the template is doing, before they can understand the rule.

Do the prohibitions on amending wiki pages immediately before enactingb the proposal that uses them also apply to templates? Asking for a friend

[Josh] Good catch; there’s “All wiki pages that the Dynastic Rules explicitly mention (except for dynastic histories and discussion pages) and any images or Templates contained within those Wiki Pages are assumed to be Gamestate.”, which only covers Appendices if the dynastic rules mention the ruleset as a wiki page (which I don’t think they do).

to keep the queue moving.

The simplest fix to the underlying problem I can think of is to ban changing a keyword to a word that’s already present in the ruleset during an Ascension Address (i.e. if you try to do that, it doesn’t work). That would have benefits both in terms of accident prevention and in terms of scam prevention.

[ais523] That would be a neat solution, and I’d be happy to see “Player” locked out as a dynastic term, as it helps build theme to say something more than just “you are all… players of a game!” It’s always easy to think of something else.

Looking back at when we’ve used “Player” before, three times it was for meta-level Nomic-referencing stuff (The Second/Switch Metadynasty, The Seventh Metadynasty, The Last Dynasty), and four for games-about-games (The Gaming Dynasty, The Wild West Poker Dynasty, The Soccer Dynasty, The Animal Crossing Dynasty) - although even the Animal Crossing one instantly pivoted to defining each Player as being the “Mayor” of a single Island.

Given that the ruleset does actually say “X and Player are synonyms”, though, if we have another game about games, it’d be easy enough to have something a little wonky as the formal player term in the Core rules, and then use “Player” as much as we liked for all the dynastics.