I believe it has no non-token effect as written, which is probably a reason for it to be thrown out. See:

“Once a proposal has been enacted, it can have no further direct effect on the gamestate.”

Cuddlebeam has ignored unenforced “must” clauses before, and this one runs counter to a “should not” clause in The Traitor.

I’ll be collaborative with the intent because I’m Emperor (I have nothing to win) and I’m not interested in spectating you guys wrestle with rulewriting to force me to do something fairly straightforwards.

Just, don’t punish me for going against the “should not” if this passes lol.

The no-further-effect clause is the important one, and it looks like an oversight that it doesn’t also apply to CfJs. It’s a clue that this should really be adding a rule to the ruleset rather than an invisible ongoing effect.

And yes, this should be something stronger and more specific than “compelled”.

Also, I disagree that this is urgent, or indeed necessary.

I think this ruins the intent of the traitor rule. While Cuddlebeam seems to dislike that rule, I highly doubt he’d miss the chance to see it’s effects in a Subaru that holds no stakes for him

This slapdash effort of mine is proving most educational… Yes, a new rule would probably do the job if carefully worded (preferably repealing itself once spent, to keep the Ruleset clean). “Should not” is only a recommendation, after all; I imagine it could be superseded by a rule.

Still, I seem to misuse CfJs when I’m in a hurry. 

[Card] I’d have thought that the intent of the traitor rule is not to know who the traitor is, rather than not know whether there is a traitor in the first place. (In fact, the “should not” we were discussing above refers to the Traitor’s identity and not the fact of their existence, unless “nobody” can be said to possess an identity.) Unless we value paranoia in this game, something I am not in a position to speak on.

ahh damn phone. meant dynasty, not subaru.

[The Duke of Waltham] i think it follows that the identity is what the Priest tracks and even if it’s value isn’t an Adventurer, idle or not, they’re advised to not share it.

The Traitor rule is useful even with no Traitor picked.

The main thing it’s doing is removing some of the automatic long-game trust that BlogNomic players have usually been able to rely on, and which can make otherwise tense dynasties a bit flat. If I offer you a temporary alliance and promise to split the cash once we’re out of the bank vault, just throw me the bag, you’d normally trust me because “Kevan lies” would be a heavy weight on me for all future dynasties against players who saw me run off with your money. If I might be the ruleset-endorsed Traitor, think twice.

If the Traitor mechanic is meant to function as a counterweight against the strategy of pooling, a dynasty such as this, which already does that on its own, might not be the best example of seeing Traitors in action. We’ll see; it ought to be over soon enough…

[Card] When I find myself playing the Subaru Dynasty (or the Pleiades Dynasty), I’ll know where the germ of that idea originated, hahahaha!

This dynasty is still wide open to player collaboration: any player could agree to stand down and take null actions during a fight if it helped a player that they’d made a pact with.

Any dynasty with player interaction is open to it.

Right. I suppose the trick is in doing it discreetly, rather than in doing it at all.