I suggest making it dynastic so that we can testrun it in a safe enviroment, with the Commissioner being able to disable this at-will with a public post, to avoid any potential accidental (or intentional, lol) screwing.

Or, even better, we continue play a subgame of nomic that exists within Blognomic juuuust in case a total freeze is possible.

“Voteable matters can only give a Manager victory if they have the [Victory] tag.” is a hard one.

If it indirectly gives a Manager victory, would it then need a tag? For example, a Proposal called the Apple Proposal that gives a Manager + 10 apples, and a preexisting rule says that you need 5 apples to win.

Would the Apple Proposal need the [Victory] tag?

If no, then, well, that’s good imo.

If yes, then I can argue that the proposal that made Apples exist (Apples-Exist Proposal) needs the Victory tag, because like the Apple Proposal, it indirectly granted that guy Victory.

Or even a Fruits-Exist Proposal.

Or even the very first Proposal in the dynasty with the base rules, because without it, nobody would’ve been able to get victory.

That aside, also note that PAST Voteable Matters are still Voteable Matters.

So, this “Voteable matters have at least one tag, if no tags are given the defaults are used.” would apply to everything, in which case there would be a massive slaughter of legal voteable matters.

*massive slaughter of past legal voteable matters. against

...Actually, even if those proposals would be invalid, wouldn’t their effects have been already processed? Like, the boat is dead but the cargo has been already shipped.

Hrm.

Regardless, I’m still worried about the Apples issue.

“If it indirectly gives a Manager victory, would it then need a tag? For example, a Proposal called the Apple Proposal that gives a Manager + 10 apples, and a preexisting rule says that you need 5 apples to win.

Would the Apple Proposal need the [Victory] tag?”
No, because it’s the rule which is giving someone victory in that case.

Also why does it matter if the past proposals are invalid in some way?

1)No, because it’s the rule which is giving someone victory in that case.

1-r) OK. What if the proposal adds a rule that says “Cuddlebeam has achieved Victory in the current dynasty?”. I could then argue that it was the rule added that gave me victory, not the proposal itself, so it doesn’t need a tag, because “it’s the rule which is giving someone victory”.

2) Also why does it matter if the past proposals are invalid in some way?

2-r) I said later on that “Actually, even if those proposals would be invalid, wouldn’t their effects have been already processed? Like, the boat is dead but the cargo has been already shipped.”. I figured that even if past proposals are invalid, their effects have already taken place, so it kinda doesn’t matter. If it wasn’t clear by that, I’ll say it explicitly now lol: I think it actually doesn’t matter, currently. Before I did though, as posted, and was concerned.

If it wasn’t clear by that* => with “that” referring to the the ship metaphor said earlier. I forget to proofread my stuff every time lol, sorry.

“OK. What if the proposal adds a rule that says “Cuddlebeam has achieved Victory in the current dynasty?”. I could then argue that it was the rule added that gave me victory, not the proposal itself, so it doesn’t need a tag, because “it’s the rule which is giving someone victory”.”
Sure. Also if that proposal passed, you’d then have to make a DoV which defaults to the [Victory] and [Gamestate] tags.

Ok then all good