Out of curiosity, Cuddlebeam, why did you vote in favour of the change you’re now reverting?

I’m on the fence about whether it’s a good change or not; I think it could be fun to play with for a few dynasties, and I think that the stung response of the Cabal suggests that they lost sight of the fact that this was a possibility, rather than being firm evidence that it should be put beyond reach.

Maybe it should be a special case rule?

I was obligated to

Obligated how? You did your vote (to Kevan)? How many of your votes are similarly obligated?

So are we to take it, then, that your position is to be that this mechanic is to be entirely prohibited, rather than amended or recontextualised?

(I was also not looking at what I was doing and just systematically doing things)

*did you trade your vote

And yeah, I don’t like the mechanic and I’d rather just return to the status quo.

> “the stung response of the Cabal suggests that they lost sight of the fact that this was a possibility”

I was the main cabal responder, here. I was barely back to Blognomic from my personal hiatus in time to vote DEF on the first of Kevan’s two proposals, (which means I did not vote FOR,) and the second was marketed as a follow-through on what the first did. I was unaware that Kevan had stated his dynastic stance as potentially adversarial, and was confused by his statement that he had.

I intend to post (or support, if others post) a voteable matter that discourages emperors using VETO to persist as emperor, possibly in the fair play section.

I intend to post (or support, if others post) a voteable matter that discourages emperors using VETO to persist as emperor

I think if we do that then we might as well just remove the possibility altogether, though a more strongly worded prohibition.

(*To be clear, yes, in retrospect, Kevan did allude to his potential plans to use VETO or otherwise play adversarially. I just didn’t realize the full implications, and I suspect I came in a bit late to catch the start of that conversation.)

Oh, sorry, this has no effect per the rule Tags.

Does specifying the exact clause to amend fail under “The modification is preceded or followed immediately by an unambiguous statement of which section of the ruleset it takes place”?

Doesn’t*  fall*

I wouldn’t have thought so? But I do recognise the ambiguity

I still think passing the mantle to the emperor should be allowed, but apparently we need to pass a “emperors shouldn’t secretly conspire with other players unless that’s the dynastic theme rule”.

*theme” rule.

as this lacks the tag and doesn’t do anything.

I support the rule change in general, though, per everything I said when proposing it last month.

F

No tag => ded.