Not a huge fan of the Prominence change; Prominence is based on the idea of being a Candidate (the precursor-term) being bad, which in turn feeds in from the AA’s positioning of a candidate for the position of powerless Doge being a punishment for being overly suspicious or aggressively, well, prominent - by which I mean, there’s a bit of theme underpinning the idea that prominence is bad, and I like that theme, so here we are.

Won’t vote against based purely on that but still wanted to lodge the objection, in case an alternative can be found in the next hour.

Ah, I’d forgotten its history. The current ruleset’s “a member of a highly-Mistrusted Faction is Prominent Patrician, which means they have zero Political Heft” reads like unnecessary sleight of hand, though, I think I’d rather we built on a less sarcastic foundation. Being “aggressively, well, prominent” sounds like vulgarity to me.

For me it gets too far away from the theme; it doesn’t speak of someone who politiced too hard and now stands to be elected as the powerless figurehead of the country, it speaks of someone who chose too much gaudy chintz for their drawing room.

I dunno, is the theme of a dynasty actually important? Maybe not, but between this and the Mistrust idea it’s drifting in a slightly more generic, more morality-based and less power-interplay based, direction. It might just be me that matters to, though.

I’d prefer something at the very least neutral (the Candidate language served well; Prominent/Candidate is less overtly positive than Prominent/Patrician), although if it were up to me I’d lean into the theme even if it meant heightening the dramatic tension implicit in the language (Illustrious or August or Eminent would be my choices).

Theme matters, this bit just feels like it’s beginning to creak from being somewhat sarcastic, if being a Prominent Patrician sounds like a good thing to be, but isn’t. I know that can be good Nomic play - “Hey, wake up, I’ve found a loophole that makes you a Prominent Patrician, just sign here!” - and that itself fits the setting, but in practice we usually end up building contradictory rule structures based on misreadings.

It is a good narrative, though. I’ll strip off the rewording and leave that aspect for another day.

Thank you.

The rest of it looks great