I’m not sure the last sentence does anything while interacting with Prioritisation in the Appendix. Does “This treaty can overrule Treaties [Universal] on Tuesdays” count as more limited scope?

OK, now I’m not even sure that, say, “This Rule may not be overruled by Dynastic Rules.” in CfJ core is actually true. If we gave the Dynastic rules their own Appendix that claims that Dynastic rules have more power than Core, who’s to say which really has more power? Sure, the consensus would surely be that core takes precedent because we all like it more. But like, what’s even real, man

Yeah, it looks like the appendix doesn’t make any allowance for specific statements of precedence among Dynastic rules.

The CfJ clause, though, is covered in the second bullet point’s “unless that Core Rule explicitly says it can’t be overruled by a Dynastic Rule” which might be missing the implied “in which case the Core Rule has precedence”.

Maybe a better way of getting at what I’m getting at is: let’s say that the Dynastic rules were the same as Core, but with the terms ‘Dynastic’ and ‘Core’ swapped. Who’s the boss, really?

(Is it that we’ve all already agreed to play Core, and continuity of that would make Core the boss? Whew, so much for that existential crisis.)

but pokes is right that the last paragraph will need to be strengthened.

This is really more like a filibuster than a veto, isn’t it?

Its a long term veto. It can’t fast fail things like a normal veto does—were the queue to reach this point we would have to wait the full 48 hours in order to fail it. However, at that point the proposal would not be popular and thus would fail.

Also (somewhat fortunately) unlike a normal veto, if you switch your vote to FOR the against vote doesn’t stick and the proposal can still pass.

CoV