Meh.

Doesn’t this include the possibility of some Proposal scams? As pointed out in the other Proposal, the validity of an icon is only checked during Assignment of the icon. Thus, if you do not check for proposed Icon usage, someone could propose an icon usage, and right before the proposal is enacted assign the appropriate Icon to himself.

Actually, the original wording was better in preventing scams like this.

The pending-proposal clause was deliberately included to stop people from adopting icons which had been proposed but not yet enacted.

The “not being used to represent any other Entity” clause of the rule covers most cases of filenames in the ruleset (although I agree that a more general wording would be more useful there).

CoV per mideg and Kevan.

Guys, that’s why you include the phrase “If any Gladiator has X.png as their Icon, their Icon becomes unassigned and they become Resting, if they are not already.” whenever creating new icons.  It’s like adding a new wiki page; it’s up to the proposal author to make sure there’s nothing fishy going on with the page before it becomes gamestate.

Isn’t it easier to just have a rule that automatically takes care of it, so that we don’t have to remember to include the phrase all the time?

Except the rule can be abused because a pending proposal has not been voted on whereas a dynastic rule has.

It can only be abused to stop a player from choosing a particular filename for their avatar, if you can guess the filename they would have wanted. This seems rather trivial.

Kevan: Without a valid icon, a player cannot enter the arena.  Someone could make a proposal that every possible file name (as it appears in the ruleset) and effectively lock everyone out who have not picked an icon.

And that brings me to another point.  This doesn’t exclude the original definition of icons…    s/k