BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

I would only vote for this if the GM committed to vetoing any attempt to eliminate a key entirely.

What do you see this rule as currently doing? Stopping players from eliminating Keys from the ruleset, even if they really want to?

Or just stopping accidental eliminations, at the cost of having to be vigilant that no amendment would reduce the number of Keys in the text?

It’s perhaps stricter than necessary, but it keeps the author of a proposal from deliberately invalidating agendas by removing their keys.

I agree with Bucky on this. It’s all too easy to make a Proposal saying “remove the first sentence and replace with” without any explicit acknowledgment of the text being replaced, and thus slip in a removal of a Key.

In short, I’d rather see a tweak of the existing prohibition on editing Keys than a wholesale removal of the protections.

You think? Sneakily removing a whole resource from the ruleset by repealing a crucial sentence, and without voters realising, sounds enormously difficult! And if you’re having to trick some players to get quorum, because they’d object otherwise, that means there’s quorum for immediately undoing it.

That kind of thing could happen in any dynasty to vapourise a leading player’s resources or action plan, but we don’t try to legislate against it in advance.

  in favour of my own proposal.
While an intentional repeal of an initialisation key is likely to be noticed, I’ve spotted far too many accidental unboldings to want to remove this rule entirely.

Ah, okay, I hadn’t been thinking in terms of unbolding a term invalidating its Agendas, if that’s the angle Bucky and Jonathan were taking here. I was reading Initialisation Keys as something that we didn’t even need any more, now that we’d initialised.

Yes, we should probably just take out the rule about Agendas automatically imploding if we change a font.

Withdrawn on that basis.