BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

  OVERTURN, even though it’s dumb.

OVERTURN

The veto power exists so that an emperor has control over their dynasty. Letting it be over turned by a simple majority weakens the emperor’s power. If the emperor is abusing the veto power, the CfJ exists as a means for fixing that, but why prematurely limit the emperor’s fun?

I actually concur with Clucky. 

If I weren’t idle.

Oh: major flaw.  This will add the same sentence to the ruleset twice, or no times, depending on how your other proposal turned out.

It’s sometimes important for the Emperor to be able to veto an otherwise popular proposal - we occasionally don’t notice that something will break the ruleset until after it’s had a lot of votes, and it can take a while to put the brakes on. CfJs are always an easy way to overturn the edicts of a veto-crazed Emperor.

As it happens, I like the veto rule as it is, end-of-proposal-queue-reolution and all.

per Clucky and Kevan

@Wak: It’s an optional thing. You have to include OVERTURN with your EVC for it to take effect.

Or, you know, not include OVERTURN, but have four other players include it. If the half-EVC clause is damaging enough that a player doesn’t want it, they won’t want an unknown chance of it either.

But the rider is really really bad

This proposal now does nothing, since the other prop failed.

...oh crap, I meant “succeeded”.    s/k