“Closed” is not a valid status for a votable matter unless you amend 1.4.2 to match. As a hack, you can have it always fail when resolved.

Also, if this is supposed to be more effective for prototyping than an unofficial post, it needs to give the author permission to update its content while it’s pending, after the usual window.

It’s sort-of possible to do this at the moment, by putting an unofficial post into the “Story Posts – Votable Matter” category. It is helpful to have instructions about when and how the post should be removed, though!

I’m not sure whether the edit lock is necessarily harmful here – if you view it more as a discussion thread that can move, having a fixed conversation starter may be useful. (You can always link to a wiki page if you want to work on exact wordings wiki-style.)

As Bucky says, there will probably need to be some blog template changes or the like in order to allow us to get rid of these cleanly. anyway, because I think this is generally going to helpful for new players (who generally have their first several proposals fail) and for major changes that need a lot of discussion about the details, and we can fix the technical issues related to this later (possibly on the ExpressionEngine rather than ruleset side). (I know I normally hate the “pass and fix” approach, but a proposal like this doesn’t seem to be usefully scammable!)

FWIW, I’ve been meaning to write a counter-essay to “Protosals Considered Harmful”, but never got round to it.

Surprisingly, this doesn’t seem to require server-level admin access to implement as required by 4.2.

However, I’m sticking with for the reasons I described previously, and because “Add a subrule to the Appendix” doesn’t specify which rule to make it a subrule of.

because of subrule issue. greentick for version 2 with issues fixed, though.

Putting the subrule in a weird place wouldn’t actually break anything, would it?

because this seems useful for occasional core changes, but (with no guidance for usage) also opens the door for slower and more disruptive dynastic play, where if someone posts a big idea about overhauling Machines, that shuts down or complicates all Machine-related amendments for 96 hours.

I also haven’t given the ruleset a close enough reading to be confident that a Request for Feedback can’t be enacted with some game effect when it gets “resolved” and (as Bucky says, new word for the ruleset) “closed”.

I’m not sure why having only two slots for this makes sense, given then you can just pivot to non-official posts to sidestep the limit if you have to.

[Josh] A single player starting multiple, prominent “and another thing I think we should discuss” threads can be overwhelming. Three per player definitely feels like too much to me.

I’m not sure I’m on board with two protosals per player either, volume-wise, but given that these are more or less inert and any restriction can be trivially sidestepped it seems silly to have that restriction.