Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…
I feel like this is good, if a little risky, too. But I’ve checked it over carefully enough to be fine with it, from a gameplay perspective. I trust the enacting admin won’t mix things around while moving them.

Upcoming FOUR.

If the enacting admin errs, I’ll be sure to correct such an error.

I deliberately didn’t just paste the new version here because a) it could be affected by open proposals and b) you’d have to check if I’ve made any tiny changes to the text; in this case all you have to worry about is whether I’ve missed any paragraph (I haven’t)* and whether I’ve split any paragraphs in a manner that affects their function (I haven’t, but almost all of them are autonomous to the extent that this danger didn’t even occur to me until this comment). Well, that and the substance of my restructuring, which in my admittedly biased opinion is a great improvement.

*And even that wouldn’t be a concern had I not included the final “verification” part in the proposal: these three paragraphs that remain in the main rule would remain anyway, and they’d even be in the same order, so any accidental leftovers would end up there as well. As it is, any internal conflict I’ve missed in this proposal will likely just prevent it from taking effect.

Internal inconsistencies in a proposal has not prevented valid parts of it from enacting in the past. If your goal is to checksum, you can always put a clause in saying that if ... is not true, undo all changes made in this proposal.

But you’re right, I can’t see how you’d have made substantive changes, other than (possibly) accidentally separating lists from their paragraphs. Hence the admin trust.

Good point; I’ll keep it in mind.

since I trust the admins to enact voteable matters to the best of their ability

additionally, The Duke of Waltham, the media wiki software prevents text to be added after a subrule that is in its parent rule but not in another subrule. in case you had plans for doing that in a future proposal

:DEF:

woops lmao

That’s a good point, and this wouldn’t be good practice even without the technical impediment, because then you couldn’t tell where the text belonged.

(I’m actually very familiar with the software, and I still edit Wikipedia on occasion, but I appreciate the heads-up.)

Darn it, putting the Monster Actions before the Human Actions would read so much better. I’m tempted to switch them around, confident that nobody will actually notice…

Bah, next time. There are other minor improvements one could slip into a future proposal as well.