Proposal: Mutable coregencies
Transmute the following rules from Immutable to Mutable, by changing the “{I}” in their title to “{M}”: “Conversion” and “Coregency”.
Reword the Building Blocks rule “Everyone’s Playing” to read as follows:
For the purposes of all dynastic and Building Blocks rules, the Mastermind is a Participant.
(Change only the copy in the ruleset, not the copy on the Building Blocks wiki page.)
Delete the text “In the building block rule Everyone’s Playing, all Masterminds are Participants.” from “Coregency”.
Change the first sentence of “Coregency” to:
This Dynasty is a Coregency and as such has two Masterminds, who each have all of the powers and responsibilities of a Mastermind.
Create a subrule “Coregency Deferentials {I}” of “Coregency” containing the following sentence, and delete that sentence from “Coregency”:
In this dynasty, DEFERENTIAL votes are resolved as follows: if both Masterminds have the same valid Vote, then all votes of DEFERENTIAL on that Votable Matter are considered to be valid and the same as those Votes; in other cases, votes of DEFERENTIAL are not considered valid.
My attempt at working towards Josh’s bounty. (Note that I can’t actually triumph from this as I can’t vote for myself on the bounty thread, but I still want to play this dynasty, as far as possible, as though I were a player.)
These are immutable rules that don’t, as far as I can tell, need to be immutable. The only dangerous parts of Coregency are the parts that define who the Masterminds are and define that the Masterminds count as players (because disrupting the latter would remove our tracked statistics and make the dynasty basically unplayable) – this proposal moves them out of the dynastic ruleset (the Mastermind identities are already in the core rule “Dynasties”, and Everyone’s Playing can be edited directly). The section about resolving DEFERENTIAL votes needs to be in an immutable rule to function correctly (mutable rules can’t change how proposal voting works).
“Conversion” is entirely broken by changing it to being mutable, but I think it’s probably more fun as a playground for mutable-rule edits than as a (fairly easily bypassable, although I didn’t here) supermajority requirement for transmutation proposals. (Due to “Conversion”, this proposal needs a 2/3 majority to pass.)
Habanero: