Proposal: What News?
Withdrawn. Failed by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 10 Dec 2023 05:21:49 UTC
To the rule “Tyngwall”, add:-
If an action is defined as a Court action, it is considered an atomic action of performing that action and then posting a comment to the most recent Meeting of the Tyngwall clearly identifying that action. An Heir may not perform a Court action if they have already performed that action since the most recent Meeting of the Tyngwall was posted or (in the case where it is a communal Court action) if any Heir has done so since that time. (If an Heir has performed a weekly action which was amended to a Court action, their performance of that action is also considered to have been a Court action.)
In “Estates”, replace “As a weekly atomic action for a given estate, the Palatine of that Estate may apply the function of each tract in that estate.” with:-
As a Court action, the Palatine may apply the function of each Tract in every Estate of which they are Palatine (in any order).
If that text didn’t exist because “Build Back Better” enacted, replace the paragraph beginning “As a weekly atomic action for a given estate that is not Destitute” with:-
As a Court action, the Palatine may apply the function of each Tract in every non-Destitute Estate of which they are Palatine (in any order).
Throughout the ruleset, replace the term “weekly communal action” with “communal Court action”, and “weekly action” with “Court action”.
We’re seeing a lot of weekly actions this dynasty, where if a player wants to know which Heirs still have an action up their sleeve, they have to open the wiki history and inspect everyone’s edits since the start of the week.
Fortuitously, we already have a place where we can note these things down and clearly see who’s performed them: the Tyngwall post that’s made at the start of every week.
This is a straight swap of terms for the most part, although Tract actions (tractions?) are merged into a single “activate all your Estates” rather than attempting to keep track of which Estates it has and hasn’t been applied to.
Withdrawing this given the uncertainty on the Discord over how “for each such change” should be interpreted in the Tags rule (whether “replace all” is a single change, or each word or letter is a separate change).
JonathanDark: he/him