Five Golden Routes? As far as I know, no one has yet succeeded in earning 15 Cash in one week.

Btw, the text “A Golden Route has a Scouting cost of 15.” will have been replaced by “A Golden Route has a Scouting Cost of 15.” (Proposal: No getaway, just consistency). But that’s just nitpicking.

Also, not specifying where to replace that text made me reread the Ruleset entry on Proposals: apparently they can only affect the Ruleset of the Gamestate. Yet one can Propose to change their name, or to make themselves an Admin.
This raises the question: what exactly IS Gamestate? Apparently names and being an Admin are part of it. What about Proposals? I see no reason why they wouldn’t be part of the Gamestate, and if they are, “Endgame?” would affect every Proposal that contains the text “A Golden Route has a Scouting cost of 15.” Including itself (and this comment).

The words “Stack overflow” come to mind.

True, it doesn’t say where you should replace the text. So one might claim it just edits the text of this proposal (which is only enacted once but still no stack overflow).

Thats part of the point. I don’t want this thing to end tomorrow. But it makes an endgame condition we can work towards, rather than waiting three weeks going “oh we want to end this thing now” and essentially having to vote on a winner.

Three Golden Routes seemed enough to me, maybe coupled with “must have one of each Route type”, or “may then spend 10 Cash to achieve victory”, or both.
Five is a lot, so this encourages a systematic way to earn 15, rather than relaying on Repeat Routes or on other means.

How exactly would it be enacted? You could argue this searches for an occurrence of the text, replace it, and searches again, until there is no text left to replace.
But since replacing “A” by “AB” doesn’t erase “A”, we would end up with “A” being replaced by “ABBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB…”

From rule 1.1: “Drivers may correct obvious spelling and typographical mistakes in their own Pending Proposals at any time”

I guess Clucky can change the obvious typographical mistake of forgetting to specify the rule to be amended and also the capitalization of “Cost”.

Could be relaxed laer.