Sunday, September 10, 2017

Proposal: Reorganization [Appendix] [Core]

timed out 3-0 enacted by card

Adminned at 12 Sep 2017 17:29:12 UTC

If the proposal “Rule Consolidation [Appendix] [Core]” has passed

Move the 6th, 7th and 9th bullets of “Rules and Proposals” into the bulleted list in “Names”
Add to that same list

* When referring to a proposal, the name used in reference to a specific proposal may be simplified by not including braces and any text between the opening and closing braces. i.e. a proposal named “Changes [Core]” could instead be referred to by the name “Changes”.

Change “Special Case Rules have equal precedence as Core Rules.” to

Special Case Rules have equal precedence as Dynastic Rules, unless that Special Case Rule explicitly says it can’t be overruled by a Dynastic Rule.

Add under “Special Case”

Special Case Rules can be active or unactive and default to active. The status of a Special Case rule is notated in the title of that rule ending in ” [X]” where X can be A, denoting an active rule, or U, denoting an unactive rule. When a new dynasty is started, the Ascension Address may state any existing Special Case Rules that are set to Unactive; any Special Case Rules not set in the Ascension Address become Active.

everyone should review the last bullet of “names and proposals”


derrick: he/him

10-09-2017 20:48:37 UTC

I think the second line has either a grammar error (in to -> into) or is missing a word (in to -> in [the place] to).

I also think your commentary below should read “rules and proposals”

Darknight: he/him

11-09-2017 00:13:49 UTC

the first line is missing either the word passed or failed so this might not be able to do anything


11-09-2017 03:36:07 UTC

in to -> into
legal because of spelling


11-09-2017 03:38:26 UTC

added “has passed” to the first line, unsure if this is covered by that spelling provision.

derrick: he/him

11-09-2017 15:47:35 UTC



12-09-2017 00:46:52 UTC


I proposed this same idea a while ago lol, but it failed.

Kevan: he/him

12-09-2017 14:53:19 UTC

Is this deliberately lacking any definition of what it actually means for a rule to be “Unactive”?


12-09-2017 17:25:01 UTC

no that was undeliberate