Sigh. This is dynastic; Leave the Core alone. 

One use case for vetoes (maybe even the most common one?) is when we realise too late that a proposal breaks the game or even destroys the Nomic. I don’t think we should switch that off.

I’d rather see the “Player should veto any proposal that…” paragraph expanded into a longer list, and extended with “and should not” (and maybe guidance for Emperor vetoes as well), if this is a dynasty about vetoes.

There’s always the CfJ mechanism for game-breaking problems, and the Player retains the ability here to veto anything that would affect the core rules, including CfJs.

The “too late” problem is where the oldest pending proposal is already beyond quorum, and would break it in a way that’s either very boring or impossible to CfJ, or would grant victory. And there are plenty of ways for proposals to break or lock the game (or even amend Core rules) without using a Core tag.

In practice we’d probably be able to turn the oil tanker of quorum around on a big problem, but I’d rather see a veto than a polite little sign of “Emperor acknowledges this will lock or break the game, please do not admin until below quorum”. Particularly if it’s a problem like “enacting admin achieves victory”.

Would entirely support a guideline to only use vetoes for this purpose.

s/k as this isn’t going to pass in its current form. I’ll repropose with input from Kevan and from Bucky’s opening negotiations.

But as for “there are plenty of ways for proposals to break or lock the game (or even amend Core rules) without using a Core tag”—the parenthetical, at least, seems to me like something we should address regardless of dynastic squabbles?