I can see how you’ve worked to mitigate it, but player names as rule titles still sets of blaring alarms for me.

what sort of alarms? unless explicitly mentioned otherwise, they refer to the rule in proposals.

A bit clunky

Shouldn’t “applies only to the Scientist whose title is the same as its name” be “applies only to the Scientist whose name is the same as its title”?

Rules which instantly appear and disappear feels messy, particularly when players idle and unidle: is the rule part of “their personal gamestate” to be restored, or just a rule that happens to be named after them?

Mainly because Double DOuble, which would establish budgets, appears to be failing

[Josh] Double Double is at quorum 8 votes to 0. It’s “thinking” that’s failing.

Ah, fair enough. Shifting to then

. Really FOR even maybe but I don’t want to slow down the queue

[Kevan] ah true. Well it could be easily fixed. And I suppose clarification for the gamestate issue is in order, it would just need to say something along the lines of tracking things there.

Not interested in having someone’s pal join the game with the name “Player-X-Achieves-Victory-And-This-Refers-To-The-Player-Named-X.”

@Brendan: “The names of rules are not themselves rule text and have no effect other than being rule names.”