Thursday, July 01, 2021

Proposal: [Cleanup] Senior Deckchair Organisation Officer

Timed out 5-0, and I suppose it’s only fair that I get to enact this mess. Josh

Adminned at 03 Jul 2021 11:40:59 UTC

Rewrite the dynastic ruleset to match this document.

For each Proposal which was pending when this proposal was posted that has since been enacted, re-enact the changes that it made to the ruleset, with the following caveats:
* If one of those proposals is Proposal: Shadowy Benefactors, add the rule “Remote Actions” that it creates after the sub-rule Power Actions instead of Lair Actions;
* If one of those proposals is Proposal: Temporary Tattoos, make the necessary changes to the rule Power Actions instead of Lair Actions.

The oldest currently pending proposal is Proposal: Tepesh Mode.

I’ve taken a small liberty, here: I’ve interpreted “if it consists entirely of moving text between dynastic rules” to entitle me to make new dynastic rules and rename existing ones as needed. It hasn’t required any references to be updated in any ruletext but my liberty should really either be made fully legal (and thus some precautions put in around ruletext references) or voted down (i.e. this proposal should fail).



01-07-2021 12:01:25 UTC

For reference, here’s a link showing the changes that this proposal makes:

Taking a liberty with the interpretation may be a little dangerous, though: if it isn’t legal under the current rules, this would be an illegal third proposal, so we’ll be left in some doubt as to whether it was legally enacted or not. If this proposal is popular, I suggest that we use a CFJ to uphold its enactment, because otherwise there will be doubt about which order the rules are in and that may cause future proposals to fail.


01-07-2021 12:05:30 UTC

Oh wow, and I’ve just realised a deeper problem with the current implementation of cleanup proposals: it’s possible that whether a proposal is a cleanup proposal or not depends on the gamestate at the time it’s enacted. That means that determining whether this is an illegal third proposal or not requires evaluating a future conditional. (Imagine if the ruleset gets changed by CFJ before this proposal is enacted; does that mean it’s been an illegal third proposal all along?)

Josh: he/they

01-07-2021 12:09:46 UTC

I think the “rewrite the whole ruleset thus” approach is not what was intended.

Clucky: he/him

01-07-2021 15:16:31 UTC

I think this is indisputably not a cleanup proposal because makes changes to the non-dynastic rules and while it got self-killed it feels like we’re doing a lot of cognitive load on determining if something is a cleanup proposal by evaluating which proposals could in theory be enacted and then also evaluating what those effects would be to see if the end result is a cleanup proposal

Josh: he/they

01-07-2021 16:08:48 UTC

I don’t follow

Kevan: City he/him

01-07-2021 16:10:16 UTC

Hum, the future conditional is interesting. If I make a proposal to “remove the 749th word from the ruleset”, am I implicitly also saying “after applying all older pending proposals of course” (even if it hasn’t crossed my mind), or am I demanding that one edit based on how the ruleset looks now, with anything that happens between proposal and enactment being a mystery?

We could solve the problem by allowing unlimited Cleanup Proposals but only invalidating them if - when we come to enact them - it turns out they do more than just move text around. But really we could just say that if the Emperor says it’s a Cleanup Proposal (by tagging it as such), then it is.

Josh: he/they

01-07-2021 16:15:03 UTC

Maybe Cleanup proposals should be able to be enacted out of order… Maybe Cleanup proposals should actually be Cleanup CfJs, if their main characteristics is that they enact out of order and don’t follow slots

Clucky: he/him

01-07-2021 16:16:23 UTC

@Josh lets say that ais hadn’t self-killed his proposal

Then I think this wouldn’t qualify as a cleanup, as it would potentially make changes to non-dynastic rules (if ais’s proposal passes)

Clucky: he/him

01-07-2021 16:17:30 UTC

I think the best solution is to narrow the scope of cleanup proposals so they are self-contained and not dependent on the passage of other proposals.

Kevan: City he/him

01-07-2021 16:22:35 UTC

[Josh] Cleanup proposals really need to enact as part of the queue, if they’re making major changes to the structure of the ruleset. Enacting something this big at CfJ speed would invalidate most of the preceding queue, which will have been written in reference to the unorganised ruleset.

Josh: he/they

01-07-2021 16:24:35 UTC

Yeah, that works both ways though!

Maybe Cleanup proposals are just an idea that doesn’t completely work, who knows

Kevan: City he/him

01-07-2021 16:31:19 UTC

I guess a CfJ-speed Cleanup proposal could amend the pending proposals, if it was feeling ambitious.

But yes, the norm is certainly to accept that any given dynasty’s ruleset will probably be a mess, and that it’s easier to play on than to try and rearrange it mid-dynasty. A regular old proposal of “clean up the ruleset” is always legal, after all, but rarely actually happens.

Josh: he/they

01-07-2021 16:51:40 UTC

In any case, looks like Post Hoc is going to pass so we can probably cautiously assume that this is legal, for now.


02-07-2021 09:43:29 UTC


Janet: she/her

02-07-2021 17:21:55 UTC


Brendan: he/him

02-07-2021 18:43:38 UTC


Lulu: she/her

02-07-2021 21:53:59 UTC