Not sure what that was, there, but if it was disapproval of a dynasty using casual rule language, there’s room to overhaul that - we’re just following each other’s lead and are, significantly, without Emperor right now. I don’t think it’s a given that a full quorum prefer it.

I know I’ve personally been voting some casual ruletext through from new players on the grounds that I didn’t think the wording was too egregious, and that it wasn’t worth the risk of discouraging them from making proposals at all. My vague long game is to wave that kind of thing through and quietly improve it as part of a later proposal.

Oh, it’s not about mutable language - I’ve abused that enough in the past not to be a serious hypocrite about it.

The bigger problem is - how do I put this? We’re playing a game of legislative beggar-thy-neighbour here. That’s the point, and it’s a fun point! But there are aspects of it that I’ve never liked it, and which have always frustrated me, and which have often ended up pushing me away from the game.

Case in point: this CFJ deliberately or not - but I suspect deliberately - massively fucks with me. By declaring my current gamestate illegal it will, when it passes, make my actions based on the current gamestate also retroactively illegal, meaning that for this entire NGE round of the game I’m prevented from doing anything. The two Hunt actions I’d already taken may be illegal as the DICE count is based on Brawn; if I fight then it’s Schrodingers how much firepower I’m contributing (which could also make the next NGE retroactively illegal); effectively, there is nothing I can do, because all my best moves may turn out to be made retroactively illegal at some point when I can’t do anything about them. This proposal is a figleaf that does nothing to fix the issue. A full round out puts paid to any notion I might have had that I could catch up to the leaders.

I said “deliberately or not but I suspect deliberately”. There’s a few reasons why I suspect deliberately. One, it seems to have been timed such that it will time out at exactly the time of the next NGE, which is what makes all of the above true. Two, Kevan, you’ve been around long enough to have thought about the consequences of retroactivity before putting into a votable. Three, it’s being pushed through by the two players with the most to gain from spiking the wheels of anyone who is engaged, first and second place respectively (I don’t expect collusion; I do think I spot complementary self-interested calculation). Four, card hasn’t yet learned the virtue of <a >sometimes at least pretending</a> that self-interest isn’t motivating you (kind of a giveaway vote).

But sixth, and most importantly, I suspect deliberately because that’s how you’re supposed to play this game. It’s legislative beggar-thy-neighbour! If you’re not beggaring a neighbour then you’re not doing it right. I don’t begrudge the game for the way it’s meant to be played, and Lord knows I’ve done it enough myself. I just don’t find it fun when it’s this naked, this cynical, this artlessly calculating - a wedge issue that’s for sure going to attract no votes that aren’t self-interested, in a quiet dynasty - and, yes, this directly targeted at me specifically. So I’m removing myself from the equation, because I’m a pretty strong believer that if something’s not fun then I shouldn’t do it.

here.