Shouldn’t this be a proposal?

  per Crumb.

No, CfJs can be used for this purpose.

Don’t like this bit, though:

Delete the text “Whenever an Admin marks a proposal, CfJ, or DoV as enacted or failed, they must also mark their name, and report the final tally of Votes (or the fact that it was self-killed or vetoed).” from the rule titled “Resolution of Proposals” and add the same text to the end of the fourth paragraph of the rule titled “Gamestate Tracking”.

so

Like Josh, I’m not sure about that change. That sentence doesn’t neatly fit in either rule in my opinion.

The core rules could certainly do with some reorganizing, though, if only in the rule ordering, which makes little sense in some areas. I’ll draft up a couple of suggestions once we’re out of hiatus.

Also,

If my DoV does pass, I plan on waiting for this to pass before posting the Ascension Address so that it does not get lost in the sea of new posts.

Please don’t do this - we’ve been caught up in hiatus for long enough! We have the side bar, we’ll keep an eye on it.

 
while there may be a few issues with this they are small and easily remedied

@Josh: The reason I did this is because its current placement means it can be ignored during a hiatus.  I am placing the sentence in Gamestate Tracking which is still covered during a hiatus.

And as per Josh, I will go ahead and post my AA.

@Yoda - I’m not sure that that the case. Hiatus mandates what game actions can be undertaken, but non-action provisions in the ruleset - such as this one - still apply regardless of where they are.

Explicit abstention for the time being, as I’m not sure which way to go.

Neither am I.  If nothing better turns up. (PpB?)

broken because “Market” is no longer defined, and dynastic keyword replacement doesn’t affect pending proposals and CFJs. (If I’m writing a CFJ or proposal that I think might cross dynasties, I normally put in a special case to allow for that.)

Only the last sentence is.

O duh, I did forget about the keywords changing.

then

CoV

CoV