While I agree that Adminship should not be tied into a Dynasty’s mechanics, if an Emperor has the ability to choose not to repeal certain rules, e should have the ability to change the keywords within.

This proposal allows the * to repeal no rules, some rules, or all rules, as well as change -all- or -no- occurences of either keyword, or both.  I don’t see the problem. 

In the past, when rules were carried over from previous Dynasties, they were rethemed by changing their keywords. With this, Emperors are unable to do this.

Although I don’t think it needs a whole bullet-list to say it.

I didn’t either, but the way I started writing it required triple-nested recursive and/but/or conditionals to avoid a bullet list.  So I used a bullet list.

Rodney, you state that this proposal prohibits Emperors from changing keywords in a particular setting.

The proposed new rule says (. . . for omitted text),

An Ascension Address may include a proclamation that does one or more of the following:

. . .
* replaces all occurences in the Ruleset of the keyword “Musician” with a new, theme-appropriate term.
* replaces . . . Ruleset . . . “Conductor” . . .

—
I don’t see how this prohibits that?

What Rodney said.

Plus, I don’t want anyone to be able to repeal Dynastic Rules whenever they want just by posting an Ascension Address.  (Currently I can post an Address whenever I want but it won’t do anything.)

(Suggest VETO)

Bucky, ‘The Hiatus continues until the new Conductor posts an Ascension Address to the BlogNomic weblog. An Ascension Address shall specify the Conductor’s chosen theme for the new Dynasty. An Ascension Address may include a proclamation that does one or more of the following:’

you are neither the conductor nor the new conductor.  How does this allow you to repeal Dynastic Rules?

(I’d also like to point out that changing the keywords ruleset wide would change this rule to say, e.g., Arbiter, instead of Conductor, when the keyword was changed.  ‘all occurences’)

Isn’t Bucky’s concern caught by the fact that “the Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset”? Ascension Addresses exist, and count as gamestate because they’re regulated, therefore can only be posted when the rules specify.

This is quite thin ice, though.

Ascension Address is a subcategory of a Post, which I’m allowed to make at any time.  As currently written, the Ruleset doesn’t regulate the creation of Ascension Addresses.  It does say that under certain conditions (i.e. posted by the new Conductor at the beginning of a Dynasty) the Address has extra effects.

The new version allows an Address posted at any time to repeal rules or rename the Musicians, since we all know what the Conductor’s chosen teme for the dynasty is.

I suppose “until the new Conductor posts an Ascension Address” doesn’t count as regulating the posting of the Address.

CoV.

epylar, I think what Rodney and others were saying is that sometimes the new Emperor wants to change keywords besides just “Musician” and “Conductor”.  This is especially useful if e chooses not to repeal all/most of the Dynastic Rules.

I also don’t think the keyword change should be restricted to just the Ruleset.  When I ascended, there were some Core Rule changes on the Proposal queue that I didn’t want to veto, so I changed “Monk” to “Traveller” etc. in the Proposal text, too.