So step 1) you follow

The War Begins on August 5th, 2021. On this day, either Leader should perform the following atomic action:
* Remove the text “After The War Begins” throughout the Dynastic Ruleset, adjusting sentences’ capitalization and punctuation accordingly.
* Delete the rule “Marching Armies” from the ruleset.

then the rule arguably says

The War Begins on August 5th, 2021. On this day, either Leader should perform the following atomic action:
* Remove the text throughout the Dynastic Ruleset, adjusting sentences’ capitalization and punctuation accordingly.
* Delete the rule “Marching Armies” from the ruleset.

and so then do you apply the action again and nuke all of the text throughout the dynastic ruleset?

oh “Marching Armies” gets deleted so we’re fine there

“On this day, either Leader should perform the following atomic action:”

“should” without a “can”. This should also explicitly say it can only be performed once.

“Remove the text “After The War Begins” throughout the Dynastic Ruleset, adjusting sentences’ capitalization and punctuation accordingly.”

Arguably this makes it fail if a capitalization/punctuation update is missed.

edited out the “adjusting capitalization & punctuation accordingly” and edited in a ‘can’. i don’t think it needs to be said that it can only be performed once, bc as soon as u do it once the ability to do it again is removed from the ruleset!

Ah, sorry, didn’t catch the removed section was the same section. You’re right.

Clucky already “holds the Chancellor’s Favour”, and I’m not excited to have him be the victor apparent right out of the gate. But it’s fixable before the War Ends.

metadynasties make me hesitant.

I also agree that we probably need a better word than “Favour” there unless you’re trying to give me a big advantage which like that isn’t very fair lol

“Clucky wins or Metadynasty” attached to an undefined “when X happens” trigger is a bit nerve-wracking but probably fine.

Actually, 

There’s not much riding on this so no pressure to enacted it, and when push comes to shove, I don’t actually want a metadynasty; I still think of them as failure states, I rarely enjoy them, and would rather my decisions in the dynasty weren’t made with that hanging over my head.

@Josh tbh I’m okay with this experiment. If anything fails, we can always Propose to let the one holding the Chancellor’s Favour at the end of this Dynasty become Emperor, even if The Chaos wins and opens the Tenth Meta.

Sure, but without wanting to be a dick about it or anything, you haven’t lived through a meta… 👀

I find them deeply tedious.

We’ve also had dynasties before where there’s a threat of a meta made early on, and at least once an Emperor has opened their dynasty with a threat to <a >destroy BlogNomic utterly</a>, so I’m not sure that I’m that hooked on the outcome of the experiment.

That’s ineptly tagged link should go here https://blognomic.com/archive/twelve_times_twelve_midnight

per josh

Unlike other people, I don’t think metadynasties are necessarily doomed to fail, but they need themes that can guide themselves without an Emperor and “demonic apocalypse” is not one of those.

I’m not entirely sure “the Tenth Metadynasty begins” actually works to create a new dynasty (especially if there haven’t been exactly nine metadynasties before them – I’m not sure whether Round One, the First Metadynasty, and the Fourth Metadynasty should count, and this is something that normally doesn’t matter but would matter if it’s part of rules text).

I also have some concerns about the likely gameplay patterns if this passes: it’ll probably end up with lemonfanta trying to enact proposals in which we get some sort of reward for winning the Tribuna victory tiebreak in exchange for making that sort of victory less likely to happen, which is something that would be very easy to overtune by mistake – and the most rational strategy for everyone else would therefore be to vote against everything lemonfanta proposes out of principle (in order to stop her increasing the chance of a Tribuna victory), which isn’t really a good way to start off a dynasty.

Finally, a couple of minor comments: August 5 is almost certainly too soon, and (as Kevan points out) “Favour” is a word that’s already defined, leading to potential instant victory scams.

Note to admins resolving this: I don’t believe the DEFERENTIAL votes work under the current ruleset. “Two Leaders” prevents DEFERENTIAL working if the Leaders disagree, but doesn’t do anything to make it work when the Leaders agree, and I’m not convinced that the definition in “Votes” works either when there’s more than one leader.

Will defer to you, Josh. 

CoV, given Ais’s point about DEF votes.

The other problem with Metadynasties as a lose state is that once a few leading players have established themselves, “everybody loses” isn’t much of a downside to the remaining majority.

I’m not sure I agree with ais re DEFs - “only valid if” implies a positive case as well as a negative one - but it wouldn’t hurt to tighten the wording a little.