Seems reasonable.

I still do not like going “this thing that happened a week ago was illegal on a technicality, and instead of playing on we’re going to undo it”

but in this case, I think its a nice solution to a bit of a bind we’re in

did we have any proposals which were enacted that used the new General/Leader terms in core or appendix rules? If so, we would need to uphold those enactments as having the expected effect

This is scammable: if this reaches quorum, an admin could illegally enact/fail one of the proposals to change the core rules (e.g. “No More Camels”) and then immediately enact this CFJ. I think trying to fix the scam is more trouble than it’s worth, though, and it makes more sense to rely on people not doing that, and to revert their attempt via CFJ (+ possible Fair Play punishment) if they try it.

This should probably also auto-fail “God Does Not Play Blognomic, Probably” because the two aren’t compatible, and this is basically a counter-CFJ to that.

For the third paragraph, I’d be more comfortable wording it as “repeal all Dynastic Rules”; the two are probably equivalent, but the wording that you used seems easier to twist into repealing a core rule somehow.

@Clucky: there’s one potential issue in that regard: the break() rule was ended by Raven, who would not be a “General” under this interpretation. However, it was recently repealed by CFJ (which works during Hiatus), and this CFJ fortunately happens to deal with Hiatuses anyway, so although the “inside” Hiatus lasted longer than expected under this interpretation, everything ends up being fixed by the time the CFJ is fully resolved.

“Favours Defaulted” changed cross-dynastic gamestate, but didn’t contain any cross-dynastic keywords.

Everything else only affected dynastic rules, that got repealed by Take Two.

I think the ascension address was legal. The term in the Special Cases was “#general” not “General”, and the # is a semantically meaningful difference.

actually no that wouldn’t have been a problem because the whole point of this CfJ is to argue we’ve been in hiatus for the last week. So the second hiatus did nothing, and the fact that Raven maybe illegally removed the second hiatus is completely irrelevent because all dynastic rules get removed if this passes

I agree that it isn’t a problem.

seems okay

Just as a side note: you can’t uphold the illegal posting of a proposal, that’s a sort of change that CFJs are specifically banned from being able to do (the “Official Posts” rule prevents illegal proposals from being made legal by any means, and the appendix wins precedence rules with the core, so they ban core rules like the CFJ rule from making illegal official posts legal). The rest of this CFJ still works, though.