This is a good sentiment, but maybe slightly flawed in execution. Two problems:

1) Approval is nothing to do with voting, but this proposal makes it seem as though it is. Also, the way this is done means it will leak outside the duration of the Dynasty.

2) There’s nothing to stop an Artist repeatedly re-expressing Approval of the same post. Even worse, it could be a post by the Critic, which seems like it subverts the intention of the rule somewhat.

(I am probably going to vote against, but wanted to give you a chance to defend the proposal first.)

No need for Arrows to be a core rule - the proposed “But Is It Art?” rule works fine without Arrows being explicitly defined as voting icons, and I think you might even be breaking voting if you start referring to the Arrow as a Voting Icon (because “If an Artist uses more than one Voting Icon in comments on a Votable Matter, their Vote is the last voting icon they use”).

Checking whether anyone has failed to Approve a Work of Art in the last 5 days seems very fiddly, and can be avoided even more trivially by Approving a random five-year-old blog post made by someone who isn’t playing this dynasty.

@Kevan - That’s not quite correct, because Approval is only for Works of Art, which are by definition within this Dynasty.

[bateleur] Ah! I missed the “during this Dynasty” in “Entries posted during this Dynasty prior to this rule coming into force” - I thought we’d be ransacking the archives for unexpected old masters…

Purely for the inclusion of ARROW as an appendix item.

The ARROW is not actually a voting icon, right? It can appear in posts that are not voted on?

I like the Barbarism rule.

I noticed this from the core rules: “If an Artist uses more than one Voting Icon in comments on a Votable Matter, their Vote is the last voting icon they use.”

So if ARROW is defined under voting icons and is the last voting icon a player uses, then their vote is an expression of APPROVAL?

Point of order: Can players edit their proposals after posting?

[banyan] Only until the point where someone responds to it. Per Rule 3.2: “If no Artist has commented on it, an official post may be altered or removed by its author; otherwise this can only be done as allowed by the Ruleset.”

Fair enough. Just a thought. Someone can feel free to propose the penalty without the keyword amendment.

s/k

If anyone feels like reproposing, note that “Any Artist who has not Approved a Work of Art in the last 5 days gains 1 Barbarism point.” should really be reworded to avoid being a magical “when this condition is true, even if nobody notices, then this number changes automatically” thing. It should be that if a player spots another player having met the criteria, they can impose the penalty.