Because the recently enacted new rules (I think the ones suggested by Cpt_Koen) didn’t allow an ascension address to repeal pending proposals and nobody caught it, the ruleset is inconsistent. This also had our new Seraphim mistakenly make two proposals, when they already had two pending ones.

First:
Amend ” one of the new Expedition Leaders makes an Ascension Address by posting an entry in the “Ascension Address” category - this should specify a chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and may optionally specify that the terms Explorer and Expedition Leader will be replaced with theme-specific terms throughout the entire ruleset, and/or a number of dynastic rules to keep. Upon posting such an Ascension Address, the Ruleset is updated to reflect any changed terms, and any dynastic rules which were not listed to be kept are repealed.” to

one of the new Expedition Leaders makes an Ascension Address by posting an entry in the “Ascension Address” category - this should specify a chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and may optionally specify that the terms Explorer and Expedition Leader will be replaced with theme-specific terms throughout the entire ruleset, and/or a number of dynastic rules and/or pending proposals to keep. Upon posting such an Ascension Address, the Ruleset is updated to reflect any changed terms, any dynastic rules which were not listed to be kept are repealed and any pending proposals not listed are failed.

Secondly:
Replace “Explorer” with “Pactmaker” and “Expedition Leader” with “Seraphim”.

Thirdly:
Make the illegal proposals “Threads of Magic”, “Mana” and any otherwise valid votes on them legal.