wouldn’t “should” be more appropriate over “implored”, which is a synonym for begging?

My intent was like a super-should but oh well, “should” works too.

Sorry, but this still seems unnecessarily vague in what it does and doesn’t cover, to me.

What are “plays” and “play-attempts”? “Plays” isn’t defined by the ruleset, and it’s a word that Cuddlebeam uses to talk about tricks and lies and tactics.

If we assume that “plays” are just game actions, does that mean “play-attempts” are attempts to take game actions which failed - so “illegal actions”? Reading that clause as “consider all [legal and illegal actions] until now to have been performed with consideration of the retroactive purview above” sounds like it’s making illegal actions retroactively valid, so long as they don’t specifically contradict the “retroactive purview” of one proposal being failed instead of pending. Which isn’t good.

I get the gist here, but if we’re retroactively declaring a chunk of the game differently legal (including an Ascension!), we shouldn’t wave something vague through.

Key thing is that this is (as I read it) saying that attempts to take actions which were actually illegal are now “considered to have been performed under the new rule” rather than “considered to have been attempted under the new rule”.

Play as in a general activity not an individual move, was my intent

Speak like Yoda there, I did apparently.

Anyways I could give it a shot later on (or if someone else would like to, all theirs). I think I can just encapsulate all of this into a single thing for when the next dynasty comes around (“If this player hasn’t achieved victory, make them achieve victory”, for example).

So what’s a “play-attempt”? If I post and illegally enact a DoV while this CfJ is pending, is that enactment a play-attempt?

If it is, what happens when we “consider [it] to have been performed with consideration of the retroactive purview above”? I think a CfJ saying that we should consider that my DoV enactment “has been performed” (with due consideration to the irrelevant fact that an old proposal actually failed rather than still being pending) would be endorsing it as a legally-taken game action.

(I presume no-one would validate a CfJ saying we should revert the game back to a proposal from a previous dynasty on the grounds of a very minor admin error, so maybe we could just ignore that error ?

Maybe CFJ in something like “Ignore that error for the purpose of the game”? Could be more elegant than my attempts lol.