You think this regulates the whole life of every player, but you didn’t think that was worth a CfJ, or an explanation of why you think it’s doing that?

I would read “may not privately communicate with each other about dynastic gameplay” as restricting the gamestate scope to acts of communication about dynastic gameplay.

But I don’t know what your argument actually is.

This all just seems… silly. I understand the reading and it holds together, ish, but is rests on a very precise leap of logic with what the ruleset implies, and, just… I think I have to vote this just on the principle that the ruleset shouldn’t be swatting at fringe interpretations, it’s a bloated-enough document as it is without moving into a world where every wild edge case needs a specific paragraph to call it out.

(The interregnum change I would maybe consider on its own, but also possibly not, because it doesn’t feel much like it matters.)

I don’t mind the amendment, but don’t agree on current arguments that it was illegal for me to make a cup of coffee this morning.

I’m not getting it either.

I’m voting in favor purely on the Interregnum part. We can trim out the second sentence later if it causes actual problems. At worst it’s a no-op.

hm. this is weird. i agree with Kevan and Josh here — the gamestate restrictions apply to strictly the information that blognomic regulates, and i don’t think that extends to information tangentially connected to regulated information — in other words, the insinuation that a drop of regulation relating to /dynastic gameplay/ discussion ice-nines all /other/ communications into being regulated as well just doesn’t seem accurate to me.