not sure why this needs to be a proposal. If people vote down the CfJ it means they don’t want this fix, so proposing it again immediately after feels kinda rude. Still think its a good fix, but will respect the results of the CfJ

All three against votes on the cfj are on the basis of it not being the kind of change that should be in a cfj. All three people who voted against that one are in favour of this one.

Sorry you found it rude Clucky! I feel like it was more about procedure than content but I can see how it would feel personal

To be clear, I’m absolutely being facetious here. It’s a proposal that is already 5-1 so should easily pass without my vote and if the queue clears up before it can get enough votes I’ll probably just change.

But at the same time, it kinda feels like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too when it comes to the implicit nature of the ruleset.

If a CfJ was illegally posted (due to the “an Heir feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention,” clause not being met), it should be marked as such. If it wasn’t, isn’t that the idea that votes on the CfJ should reflect if a player feels like proper procedure was followed an implicit assumption you’re making about the ruleset?

You have put a lot more thought into this issue than I have, to be honest! You might be right, I’ll sit with it for a while, but if you think your CfJ was illegally posted then you can also mark it as such - that doesn’t feel like a decision I would make unilaterally.

At first blush, there’s an interesting tangle around the clause “an Heir feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention” - that only governs the interior state of the poster, so only the poster can validly comment on whether the post is made in accordance with it’s criteria or not.

But *nothing* governs how a player should decide how to vote. Kevan seems to have staked a firm position that he will use his vote to police whether he feels the poster has met that criteria, which is his business. Is it my business? On the whole, maybe not. I find that the ruleset only really supports a subjective assessment of urgency, and that no objective test exists.

But I do think that CfJs should generally not be used to circumvent proposal caps, even if the rules don’t actually say that. And as the rules don’t mandate that I vote on these matters for any particular reason over the other, I don’t think I feel the need to amend my vote right now. So I think that’s where I’ve landed. It’s not really a matter of implicit or explicit ruletext, more just a general sentiment toward game culture, which seems within my remit as a voter.

I have no doubt that reprisals will come in due course! But that’s more or less the justification for my personal vote on the matter.

On hindsight this is actually better not to fix. As I am not the eldest heir its probably better to vote strategically and keep the Eldest claim unobtainable