The idea is nice, but I don’t feel as though it meshes super well with the timing of the proposed gameplay loop. (In general, it’s best to tie once-per-round actions directly to the in-game loop rather than irl timing)

I may be missing how games play out here. It seems to me that you could still view this in the context of the proposed gameplay loop.

Ie. the Yard takes the atomic action Night and processes Sales for each of the Trucks. The Price of the Meal purchased is then dependent on whether the Truck has declared a Happy Hour since the last Night action was taken. Unless you’re saying that this logic needs to be explicitly stated in the gameplay loop.

From the Appendix (section 4.1.2): “References to a “day” as an entity rather than as a duration (e.g. “Sunday”, “The day after performing this action”, or “August 2nd”), unless otherwise stated, refer to a day beginning at and including 00:00:00 UTC, ending when the next day begins. It can never be 2 different days at the same instant.”
I do believe this would work better as a once-per-round action, rather than a once-per-day action. What if a round lasts multiple days, and so a Truck declares multiple Happy Hours? What if the timing lines up so that two eounds can happen in a single day, so everyone who set a Happy Hour for the first eound is out of luck for the second?
Overall, I’d like to see this revised to be a once-per-round action.

...Not sure why “round” was autocorrected to “eound” there. If anyone knows what an “eound” is, please let me know.

CoV - this should be my vote in the first place - I do like this

This can be enacted and patched, the basic idea works and somebody chaining multiple Happy Hours wouldn’t break anything. I don’t see a timing issue: players are just making a public declaration that their prices aren’t going to be above some value, which they could do informally and non-bindingly if the rule didn’t exist.

I’m not much enjoying how Revisions Allowed is pushing the game into a cycle of perfectionism where we have to reread versions of the same proposals, and ultimately wait longer for those mechanics to hit the ruleset.

@Kevan It is funny that we cut edit windows down to curtail the perfectionist instinct, only for it to immediately find another way to manifest.

It may even be fixing a problem that doesn’t exist any more, if it came in during the brief “edit window is four hours or zero hours depending on a Building Block” period, in a dynasty where it was set to zero hours.

I’ll probably pitch a repeal later on, I’ve been finding it unenjoyable both as a voter and a proposer.

For kicks and giggles I forced ChatGPT to give me a definition of eound. It did give me a giggle.

eound (verb) — to emit a low, rhythmic hum or vibration, often used to describe a soothing background noise that promotes focus or relaxation. Example: The old generator eounded softly in the distance, lulling me into a calm state.

@Kevan: I’m curious why you included “Revisions Allowed” in your AA if you’re fundamentally opposed to the idea. Am I reading your comment incorrectly and you’re just now coming to this opinion?

No, I mentioned it in the Ascension Address - it feels like a Block that we’re still testing out and which the group would expect to apply to all dynasties, rather than one that the Emperor is expected to express a personal opinion on. I included it even though on balance I’d rather that the game didn’t use it.

once per round better than once per day.