Friday, March 09, 2018

Proposal: The Glass

reached quorum 9-0 with 2 def votes encated by card

Adminned at 09 Mar 2018 20:22:09 UTC

Add a new rule to the Special Case Rules “Mutual Victory” with:

This Dynasty is considered to be The First Coregency of Diabecko and card and is headed by the Pawn named card and the Pawn named Diabecko each known generically as a King. The King named Diabecko can also be referred to as King of Hearts and the King named card can also be referred to as King of Spades. Apropos to this fact, the Dynastic Rules has two sub-rules one named Spades and one named Hearts. Any DEF that is cast on a Proposal which makes changes only to Hearts or its subrules resolves considering only King of Hearts as the King. Any DEF that is cast on a Proposal which makes changes only to Spades or its subrules resolves considering only King of Spades as the King. If those conditions are not met then any DEF that is cast on a proposal where the Kings have opposite votes are not considered valid votes.

This rule cannot be overruled by Dynastic Rules. This rule becomes repealed when a valid Ascension Address is posted.

The only reason that this is not a Dynastic Rule is so that it can overrule the Votable Matters rule since that is where the DEFERENTIAL vote is defined.

Comments

Cuddlebeam:

03-09-2018 07:58:09 UTC

for

Kevan:

03-09-2018 08:49:17 UTC

“the Dynastic Rules has two sub-rules one named Spades and one named Hearts”

A sub-rule at the top level seems odd, but looking at the ruleset nothing precludes a sub-rule existing by itself. (There’s only one passing mention of what a “sub-rule” is.)

for

ElMarko:

03-09-2018 08:59:57 UTC

for

card:

03-09-2018 09:01:45 UTC

Ah that was unintentional odd wording. However it is technically correct since the Dynastic rules are all subrules of Rule 2.

pokes:

03-09-2018 11:04:51 UTC

for

card:

03-09-2018 11:23:41 UTC

for

Kevan:

03-09-2018 11:48:40 UTC

Does this mean that Diabecko is still “the King” for the purposes of Core Rules (because “a new Dynasty begins with the Pawn who made the DoV as its King”), and is the only one of the two who has a veto power and can’t declare victory? This rule doesn’t seem to be explicitly overriding any of that.

card:

03-09-2018 11:59:52 UTC

I’d assume since Special Case rules have the same priority as Dynastic Rules, i.e. above Core Rules, and it states we’re both Kings which head the Coregency, that I’d be the same as Diabecko for the Core Rules.

Diabecko:

03-09-2018 12:20:20 UTC

I would agree with card on this. At least that’s what we had in mind.

Thunder:

03-09-2018 12:38:10 UTC

for

Kevan:

03-09-2018 12:57:00 UTC

But if we have multiple Kings and a rule referring to “the King”, it’s unclear which of them is the King. It’s just as if we had a rule saying in isolation that “the player” could do something - with more than one player, who is it referring to?

I think we need to explicitly state that both Kings are considered to be the King, if you both want all the powers.

Axemabaro:

03-09-2018 14:19:22 UTC

imperial

Cuddlebeam:

03-09-2018 14:27:38 UTC

One of them could be the Queen.

Diabecko:

03-09-2018 15:45:34 UTC

@Cuddlebeam: lol

@Kevin: True. I’ll propose that as soon as possible.

Diabecko:

03-09-2018 15:47:54 UTC

(sorry I meant Kevan :D)

This coregency is experimental so there’ll be a few things to iron out.

nqeron:

03-09-2018 17:37:42 UTC

imperial