I think this change should have already been made, when Innovation in Action successfully proposed to “Rename the ‘Gather’ Upside to ‘Govern’, in the ruleset and all Ongoing Dilemma Outcomes that it appears in.” - that explicitly renaming a game concept is broader than replacing one exact string with another.

Hmm, I’m not sure about that - but if it did then it makes my dice roll for my recent Gather illegal as it included a Govern option, so that would need to be established clearly one way or another.

i do think this is already covered — i just missed those when i was adminning Innovation in Action! i’ll fix them now

That would put Josh back into an unfinished atomic action, if we play on as if the rule always said that.

Do you want to reroll, Josh, or contest the interpretation and CfJ to keep your initial outcome?

I think I have a problem with the idea that “Rename the ‘Gather’ Upside to ‘Govern’” automagically changes all uses of that keyword everywhere - it’s logical, it’s just not the way we’ve played historically. Given that it’s a change to the way that the game is played de facto, I would argue that the burden is on those who want to change the meta to test their argument via CfJ, rather than vice-versa (as I did with regards to unpermitted actions earlier this dynasty).

Apart from anything else, it is unclear what impact this would have on my Reaction to the current dilemma, as the mis-admining probably meaningfully changes my decision: the misrepresentation of the ruleset means that my Gathering action goes from being a proposition with (perceived) 5/5 odds of an upside vs a downside to one where it’s 4/5, so I might insist that I be able to make a different decision. I don’t really want to have to thread through that on a legally untested interpretation of the application of slightly vague proposal text.

AKA I think I am disclined to attempt to solve a problem that I didn’t cause while also trying to resolve my personal gamestate in a way that doesn’t fuck me while playing against people who would probably largely prefer that it was resolved in a way that *does* fuck me a little bit, as I think that that’s a magnet for getting nothing but AGAINST votes on the proposition in a way that doesn’t fix anything, you see?

oh, hm. that’s fair. i don’t think you’d have to CfJ about it — you could revert the changes i made to the ruleset and i think that would be fine! it just seemed to me that i’d made an error (i would’ve changed those that way if i’d noticed them while enacting in the first place) so i wanted to fix it :0

I’m not sure what this has shaken out to, but given that some disagreement still appears to exist, we should pin it down with a CfJ so that everyone knows what rules to take actions under, and whether Josh’s action stands or not.

I’ll put a CfJ up to uphold the status quo. If anyone think Josh (and anyone else who Gathers before this proposal enacts) should be forced to reroll their Gathering, they can raise a proposal to apply that.