The first one should be “retain the same meaning” – “some” was an intentional break that my team made a while ago while working towards a Target (we didn’t get there, but it was one of the steps along the way).

Also, for purely dynastic-gameplay reasons, I will veto this if it changes “affected sentences praying a meaningful interpretation” – you appear to have made this proposal purely in an attempt to sneak that change into it, which would have the effect of making the new text of that rule be changed other than Heist action, starting a timer before anyone can change it again, and that part of the rules is currently the part closest to our Target. As such, I would be required to veto it to protect my team, despite the fact that it is probably beneficial from a rules-improvement point of view.

With regard to it restarting the timer, I think it’s actually debatable.

The 48 hour timer restarts when “The definition of the Heist Action being attempted was added to the ruleset” but one could argue that modifying an existing definition doesn’t necessarily cause the amended definition to be considered to be “added”. That occurred when the roles first got their initial definitions and from there, there’s not been a total replacement.

@SingularByte: not that clause, this one:

“A word of ruletext that would be changed by that Heist Action was added to the ruletext or changed, except by a Heist Action performed by a member of the same team as the performer.” A change by proposal is not a change by a Heist Action.

I made the proposal to make Roles usable again, and “praying” is already being locked out by Guesses.

Fixing “same meaning.”

‘having’ is one away from ‘paving’, unfortunately

@Habanero: and not even useful for us! The word would go on DICE48 cooldown after being changed.

Meanwhile, having “praying” there is useful for us, because it ties up your Guess, making it harder for you to stop our second-best route to victory.

So is this change good for ais’s team or bad? I’m confused.

Removing the Muscle fix from the proposal for now. Sorry Josh.

Ah right, I missed that. There’s no issue here

At present, it’s bad for us (veto-level bad) – the proposal would block our best route to score by putting “having” on cooldown, a Guess could block our second-best, and then we’d have to rely on our third-best, so it would significantly damage our team’s chances.

If you remove the change to “praying” I would probably vote FOR (unless I spot another issue caused by it).

Ah, and I see it’s now been removed – I will probably vote FOR once this is out of edit window.

but it will be a shame to lose some of these. They add character to the rules.

We’ll make new ones