Now I’m generally confused by the whole idea of drafts, protosals, etc. But this is baffling. Change the ruleset to read as the ruleset does? That’s a circular reference. And what’s this about some ambiguous scam? If there’s a scam, then why is the a protosal? Or are you just guessing that maybe there is a scam, but you don’t know what it looks like? How does making the ruleset look like itself fix this scam?

I am perplexed by this.

This is a bit cryptic, and would actually create an enormous scam where an admin could change the ruleset wiki page to anything they liked before enactment. If you think the wiki ruleset has somehow gotten out of synch with the true Platonic ruleset, either wade in and edit it to the right version, or share your suspicions with us.

Relatedly, shouldn’t all Institutions be Powered right now? (The Bank, Legion, Public and Black Market are all Unpowered according to the current ruleset.) Nothing has modified and/or Unpowered these four since Will to Power enacted and Powered all Institutions twelve hours ago.

I’ve set them all to Powered on that basis.

Southpointingchariot also accidentally added a duplicate sentence when enacting this proposal, which I’ve now fixed.

@Kevan, My concern is that something odd may have happened with quorum and/or my implementation of a proposal that would invalidate game play further down the road. As I’ve seen here and before, this “wait til I start losing and throw up an issue” strategy is commonly used here. Thus, I wanted to give blanket “we’ve done it right so far.” As a new and overeager admin, you have already seen I’ve made mistakes in passing proposals - I don’t want this to ruin the dynasty. It would likely be better to copy the ruleset and GNDT into a proposal then linking, as you point out.

@Josh, the purpose of a draft is to present an idea for a proposal to the community in order to get feedback and make changes before finally proposing. It is a way to get other’s opinions in order to make your idea better. In this case, I want to know - does anyone else see or feel a scam afoot? Would confirming the ruleset fix these? What is the best way to do so?

I don’t feel that there’s a relevant scam afoot. If you’ve realised that you enacted something illegally, put your hand up to it and we’ll work out what the current gamestate should be.

@Kevan, I haven’t identified any yet - but I will go over and check that I’ve done things correctly.

Thank you for explaining to me what a draft is. That is very useful information.

If you think there’s an issue, putting it up to vote seems like a much better way to establish consensus than whatever this is.

Finally, in the situation you’ve described, setting the ruleset to it’s current state, rather than the state it should be had everything been enacted properly seems like the worst possible resolution.