We’d want the Interregnum to end when the Reset happened, not when the address was posted. In practice there’s not much at stake in the gap there (whoever won the previous dynasty can win the new one while all the old rules are still up - except they’re probably the Emperor, so can’t) but it would be strange that we could carry on playing the previous dynasty’s mechanics for a while until someone hit the Reset.

And given that this edit leaves the Emperor’s atomic action as:

* Post an Ascension Address blog entry
* Then optionally specify Building Blocks
* Then optionally edit the tracking rule
* Then optionally specify Imperial Style

it’d be neater to roll the two specifyings (where even the current ruleset doesn’t say where to specify them) into the “and it may optionally specify” of the blog post, also ask the Emperor to optionally specify a gamestate tracking title in their post, and have the tracking rule update (if the Emperor specified one) become part of the Reset.

Ok, I’ve changed it so that the AA is first, with all of the optional specifyings under it, and the actual updating of everything is in the Dynastic Reset atomic action, which is gated on not having been done since the most recent AA.

With this proposed replacement text, the phrase “Once this Atomic Action has been completed the Interregnum ends and the new dynasty begins.” is gated on the Dynastic Reset being performed.

Looks good. The definition of Interregnum (“An Interregnum is the period between dynasties, after a DoV has been enacted and before an Ascension Address has been posted.”) elsewhere in Core also needs to be updated to refer to the Dynastic Reset rather than the Ascension Address.

Done!

Do we really need the “the Elder Judge or any Fishing Contestant may perform a Dynastic Reset” part?

To me, its more straight forward if the dynastic reset automatically happens as part of reflecting the new gamestate outline in the AA

That way, if one step gets skipped or another mistake is made (like say someone forgets to copy over a building block) instead of “this action was illegally performed and now we need to undo all of it” we can just update everything to match gamestate

Ok, but how would we legally recognize that a dynastic reset has happened if it could happen automatically? Can you come up with the wording that says that the gamestate and ruleset matches the AA? There’s potential for disagreement on what “reflecting the new gamestate outline in the AA”  means.

Since the edit window is about to close, I recommend that we go with this for now, and make tweaks to it in another Proposal if it’s desired to have the Dynastic Reset be automatic in response to a changed ruleset, as opposed to the proposed atomic action that has to be performed.

  but we might also need to allow for emperors to make quick addendums if they realise they forgot something, maybe within the normal 4 hour edit window. I think I’ve seen it happen a few times.

Actually this needs another pass for Building Blocks, before the next dynasty; the Building Blocks rule itself says that the Block rules “must then be transcribed faithfully to this section of the ruleset” at the moment that the Ascension Address blog post is made.

The good news is that we have until the next dynasty to fix it.