since nothing actually stops the introduction of contradictions into the ruleset, it only defines how they function.

Since the Hard Rules can’t be altered except by proposal, I think all the other resets don’t work.

Since the Hard Rules can’t be altered except by proposal, I think all the other resets don’t work.

I don’t think the move was actually illegal but this is still a good idea

Rodney: “They may not be amended by any means other than a Proposal, a Call for Judgement or an Ascension Address”

scshunt: I don’t think this is just a contradiction Victory and Ascension do not read “this rule has priority over any dynastic rule that contradicts it”, it reads “this rule *cannot* be overruled”.
By enacting the proposal, it becomes overruled, which is forbidden. Therefore enacting the proposal is not a legal move.

CoV

My vote on this depends on whether the older proposals in the queue pass.

Bucky - that seems inconsistent with your comment on the DoV, as no proposals can be enacted until that resolves.

Koen: But the rule does not exist to say that it cannot be overruled until it does.

Re-CoV

I can’t make up my mind

scshunt: well, I think the rule exists to prevent accidental game freezes like the one is bateleur’s Art Dynasty. But I believe it has the effect to make causing such an overrule illegal.

It’s not illegal to have nonsensical statements in the ruleset, the issue is just how their legality resolves.

If we have “roses are always white, this takes precedence over contrary colour claims and cannot be overruled” and a rule enacts of “Alice has a red rose”, we wouldn’t strike it as an illegal rule, we’d just resolve the simple precedence issue and treat it as white. A rule of “Alice has a red rose and this rule definitely takes precedence over that other one” doesn’t suddenly become an “illegal rule”, merely a more complex interaction.

Because we already have a legal reset in place now

to undo the scam

[Clucky] If the scam worked, we are all Time Buddhas now.

CoV

CoV. It’s useless now.

CoV