Getting an hour shaved off your time seems probably too strong.

This also has a more fundamental problem of making proposals un-enactable if they would drop someone’s timer below 24.

God, that rule’s bugged as well

If a set of valid values is not specified in their definition, game variables defined to hold numeric values can hold only non-negative integers. Any action that would set those values below zero is an illegal action unless explicitly otherwise stated in the Ruleset.

Does any part of the appendix work in the way that it’s supposed to?

Made it less powerful, fixed the issue.

I was planning to write something like this, but I was going to reduce the timer by a tenth of the time, not half or all of it. I think I’ll be AGAINST this unless the timer reduction is reduced further.

That Appendix rule is pretty worrying, though. I wrote a rule like that a while ago, but it was limited to dynastic actions whose effect was only on the gamestate (not the ruleset). As it is, you could write a rule “When a CFJ is enacted, reduce everyone’s Timer by 100” and lock out CFJs entirely – this is unlikely to pass intentionally but might get passed by mistake.

Also, the sentence is ambiguous: you should probably add a comma before “to a minimum value of 24”, or else it looks like a 24-hour reduction is the smallest available reduction.

Was busy in school, so missed all that valuable feedback. If this doesn’t pass I’ll work on another iteration

I think the timer reduction is too large, and there are some wording issues, but I like the idea.

Thinking about it some more, a tenth is probably too small. Maybe somewhere around a quarter to a sixth is correct.

the timer reduction is still probably to big but at the same time its a nice forcing function.

It would still take six days for someone’s timer to get down to 24 hours. Plus its not like they can be the leader all the time. Probably more like 12 days. The idea of someone being at 24 hours two weeks form now doesn’t seem like that bad of an idea.

oops