This places an obligation without providing a method.

“Must” in the ruleset tends to also imply “may,” but… I’ll let Josh handle that hobbyhorse.

on that topic, it seems like the appendix doesnt define “must” but does define “shall”, which im assuming was once used a lot more than it is now :o

oh god, you’re really going to set him off now

The “unless” here is pointless but harmless.

I have mixed feelings on this; normally I like this sort of mechanic, but BlogNomic history has shown that if you give people rewards for passing proposals, some other people will vote good proposals down to prevent the proposer gaining an advantage.

FWIW on the subject of “must” and friends, my preferred wording is to not specify who updates it and just specify an update: “When a Proposal is enacted, the Puissance of the Vampire Lord who created it is increased by 1”. This causes the change to happen; the enacting admin can and should track it, but if they forget, anyone else can update the wiki to specify it. So there’s no need to specifically make it someone’s responsibility (e.g. what happens if an admin requests to idle, they enact the proposal, then another admin idles them after the proposal is enacted but before they do the Puissance update?).

Also, there are 13 pending proposals – not bad for a dynasty that’s been going for over 2 weeks now. So we’re unlikely to need artificial means to make people propose more.

Agreed with ais’s point, the queue is loooong

per ais

Also risks slowing the Crypt gameplay down if players end up waiting for the queue to move so that they can afford a thing.