(This wasn’t placed in the proposal category, but I can and have now put it there under the rule that ”...if a post by a New Broker is not in any category but follows the wording of a Proposal, in that it has written changes the gamestate and or Ruleset, and if it has been posted for less than six hours, then any Admin may change it to be in the Proposal category.” You always have fifteen minutes to do this yourself, if you notice it quickly enough after posting.)

Ah, thanks. I’ll have to do a better job of remembering that in the future.

I’m a tentative . But right now there is no way to transfer art, or benefit of making sets. So this is feeling a little undefined on both ends which might make it less likely to do anything as it’ll take multiple proposals to make it functional.

My reason for kind of leaving it that way is because all my previous attempts at making it more defined were a little outside of the intended view of the dynasty. I figured that I would just put the mechanics in place, and if nothing comes of it, there was no harm in passing it.

This proposal has now been edited outside of the two-hour window: Trapdoorspyder made some sensible formatting changes around 17:56, which I assume is a breach of “Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset” + ”[a post] may [only] be altered by its author if it is less than two hours old”. The rules did not allow that edit.

This would mean that under “Any post that is or is made illegal as a result of an infraction against any of the prohibitions set out in this rule…” rule, it can now no longer be enacted. Which is harsh, but we voted the “made illegal as a result of an infraction” rule in last year and it’s still there, so we have to follow it.

Wouldn’t that all under

“Brokers may correct obvious spelling and typographical mistakes in the Ruleset and their own Pending Proposals at any time, including replacing Spivak and gender-specific pronouns with the singular “they”.”?

As far as I can tell, the only difference was adding blockquotes. Which I feel is at the very least in the spirit of “obvious spelling and typographical mistakes”

Correct, the only change I made was to add the blockquotes.

You’re right, I hadn’t thought about it applying to formatting before, but I suppose that would fall under typography - and wrapping the remaining text seems uncontroversial enough to be considered “obvious” (so this kind of edit couldn’t be used to throw unintuitive blockquote tags in to chop a proposal’s rule text up in a surprising way). Fair enough.