“modified by a CfJ’s enactment” could be stronger - we’d be just as likely, maybe even more so, to make a sweeping “do X to all gamestate” fix in a CfJ as in a proposal.

We have a history of retroactive CfJ emergency fixes, though, which do sometimes try to affect historical facts.

Sure, but we also have a history of non-retroactive CfJ emergency fixes. They shouldn’t default to including all past dynasties, if that’s the thing we’re trying to stop ourselves from doing by accident.

I have a broad issue with precedence - historically the culture of BN has always been that proposals are all-powerful, and it’s very unclear what has priority between the ruleset and a proposal that’s trying to do something that the ruleset says it can’t.

(If a proposal was casually doing something that it wasn’t allowed to then it might get noticed and voted down, but if a proposal said “Suspend the immutability of this rule, then change it” then that’s another matter, and it’s a third matter if a proposal simply says “This proposal if enacted takes precedence over immutability provisions in the ruleset”... look, there’s a variety of use cases here that are iffy in a world where the precedence between the ruleset and a proposal is unclear.)

I have a narrow issue with the flexibility of this fix. Why not just have a rule that says that “any gamestate to be created within a dynasty ceases to be gamestate when that dynasty ends” or something similar?

Ceasing to be gamestate would unbolt some trapdoors, although I’m not sure how bad or likely they really are. (For example, an “enact failed Proposal X, then…” proposal happening to survive an ascension would be enacting a non-gamestate anyone-can-edit-it blog post.)

But it feels instinctively very bad to say that editing old rulesets and gamestate documents is fine and doesn’t matter. We’ve had a few dynasties that have plundered old rulesets, and future generations wanting to do the same shouldn’t have to put up with any intervening “Kilroy was here and can achieve victory at any time” graffiti.

It takes about as many words to say that old gamestate is immutable after the dynasty ends, as it is to say that it stops being gamestate. I think this approach is the better one. (I’d prefer it if we called it “historical gamestate” to avoid the overlap with Suber ruleset terminology, though.)

In either case:  to this specific implementation, although I agree that something is necessary.

Also.

Bandwagoning