Too specific, I think there are instances where this could be game-breaking. But mainly I don’t think we need it? The situation it seems to be guarding against ought to be warded off just by making sure we don’t pass unlear/clearly scam-tastic rules.

Typo: “cay”. Should be fixed by the enacting admin.

Idle against. This means the dynastic rules and gamestate can be altered willy-nilly - and you might add a dynastic rule allowing you to edit the core rules, thus giving someone a dictatorship.

DC, this is an addition, not a replacement.

Idle for.

.  This improves the safety and stability of the core ruleset and I approve of it.

This is useful for stopping dynastic rules from accidentally overwriting core ones, but would do nothing to prevent a scam. If someone is in a position where they can inject text of their choice into a dynastic rule, they’d only have to add a clause like “This rule is considered a Core Rule”.

Qwazukee: We’ve had rules that have done crazy things to other rules in the past. Previously, they always had to have a “No altering Core Rules or this rule.” clause. Now, if said clause were unintentionally left out, the damage would be limited.

Kevan: I’ll have to think on how to stop that kind of thing.

per Kevan

Ah, hold on, I had misread it - I thought it was a replacement (not an addition), and that the end said “[...] specified by the Ruleset”, not “[...] specified by the Core Rules”.

per Kevan. (Incidentally, Agora is the only other nomic I know of with such a rule; it contains several pages of ruletext to try to make it stick, and even then loopholes are found in it on occasion.) Good idea, but I fear that we’d need to be so precise to make this work that the ruleset would double in size.

CoV per ais523

cov.