nice balance.

Your statement “If Proposal: A little more harmony fails, then so does this one.” doesn’t work as intended. See my comment here for explanation.

Thanks for the tip. The “Contingent on Prop” thing is definitely the right way to do it. But why can’t a Proposal change its own status? Isn’t that part of the Gamestate?

Because a Proposal doesn’t do anything unless it’s passed. If a Pending Proposal can change its own status, what’s preventing it from changing anything else in the Gamestate?

Besides, such a Proposal would have weird effects if it passed. First the Proposal would be Enacted, then all its effects would apply to the gamestate simultaneously, INCLUDING FAILING ITSELF AFTER IT IS ENACTED. So you have an ultimately failed Proposal that still has all the specified effects on the gamestate.

I think I’m going to make a Proposal that patches a few of these things up pretty soon here.

I don’t mean the Pending Proposal does anything, of course.

But as I understand it, the Proposal would pass, then the first sentence of the Proposal would be enacted, which would change its status to failed, so none of the other effects would happen. I don’t think all the effects happen simultaneously, though I admit the Ruleset is silent on this point.

If you read my last proposal, you’ll see the sentence “If Proposal: A little more harmony fails, remove the Tempo bullet point from the list in this rule.” This effect relies on the previous effect being implemented, or otherwise there’s no rule to alter. It didn’t apply, because A little more harmony didn’t fail. But if it had, do you think this part would have been meaningless?

Good point. I’ll remember that for future reference. That said, it makes sense to me that the effects of a proposal should be enacted in order, instead of simultaneously. I think the “spirit” of such wording in proposals is pretty unambiguous, or at least it has been so far; so it only takes some common-sense adminning to make heads or tails of it. Maybe clarifications are in order.