Why does this need to be a special case rule?

Because dynastic actions can’t be taken in interregnum

This juuuust passes the line on my “is this actually urgent” meter.

I think the Appendix rule “If BlogNomic is on Hiatus, ... and Proposals may not be submitted or Resolved.” has higher precedence than the Special Rule you’re proposing would have. (And the “more limited scope” clause doesn’t help when they don’t have equal precedence to being with.)

Sure. This also has the issue that it doesn’t deal with the proposals already in the queue, so nothing proposed under this could actually get resolved.

then as it’s broken, but I’d welcome someone else proposing a patched version of this.

Please no week of outlawed AA without also allowing proposals! Let’s fix this idea and retry, not pass a broken special rule.

CoV

Not sure this is a good idea, core changes immediately after a dynasty ends are probably going to be too reactive.

How about a mid-dynasty break for core changes, when things have slowed down from the initial rulemaking? Or do we give up on a ConCon and allow those who are willing to make the time to decide when they’ll do their work?

Following on from my last comment, “Malign Emperors” is already looking quite dated and dynasty-specific, as we awaken into a new dynasty. Why is it limited to gamestate proposals (rather than, say, a proposal with no player AGAINST votes?), and why is it “malign” to want to play a dynasty to win alongside others? In fact, why doesn’t it go further and allow the Emperor to declare victory directly?

Fair point, all of which are interesting revisions to the rule that should be considered. (I’d personally be against extending Malign Emperors to non-dynastic considerations, as there’s no level of Imperial malignancy that should, in my view, extend to considering holding needed core or Appendix changes as being within the field of play; but I’d still be interested in seeing a vote on it.)

The idea that mechanics aren’t, or can’t be, provoked by events and then iterated as they settle in seems odd to me; I’m okay with legislating in haste and then refining at leisure, especially as the alternative is often not legislating at all and then having something happen a few years later. In fact… e15cfb3f7cb1e29ae4b53809800fe2b360b9d9c92b34da988268b5e1dca98cc2

Oh, my mistake, I’d misread “dynastic rules or gamestate” as “dynastic gamestate” there.

I’m not completely against reactive legislation, I’m just aware that it’s our main source of weird core paragraphs, where something gets spackled up in immediate response to a scam and then stays there for years, even beyond the point where it’s needed.

only because of the brokenness but I also think it’d be good to do.

(I unidle, quorum is unchanged.)