Does it matter that this says “All agents” as opposed to “all agents on the flooded territory”? It should be implied, but I’m worried about how some of you guys interpret text rather strictly… >_<

Yeah. Techinally this would move all agents. Oops <_<

so you can quickly repropose :p

It doesn’t say who’s allowed to use this gadget, either (presumably, the Agent who has the Large Hose is the only one)

Delightful concept.  Fix the problems, and I will vote for it.

Gadgets can only be resolved after 48 hours, Amnistar.

Also, Hix, only owners of gadgets can use gadgets

Huh?  “owner”?  “use”?  Next you’ll be talking about “holding” and “carrying” Gadgets as if they were defined keywords.  Even working with reasonable and intuitive definitions for “owner” and “use”, where are you getting that only owners can use Gadgets?  As far as the Ruleset is concerned, the only effects of having a Gadget are that it appears on your list of Gadgets (this is practically the definition of having a Gadget), and that it counts against your maximun number of Gadgets.  If you intend for owning the Gadget to have some effect, you should say so in the Gadget description.

The “description of what the gadget does” could be anything; if the gadget is one that is “used”, it must specificy precicely how it is “used” (including who may use it), since there are no Rules explaining how the content of the Gadget descriptions are to be interpreted, except that they may neither edit the ruleset nor grant victory.  Everyone should get into the habit of wording gadget descriptions as if they were Rules in the Ruleset.

I agree with Hix

I should point out that the definition of “sea territory” is in a Rule, not in any other kind of Gamestate document—as a result, a Gadget, in and of itself, cannot change the status of a territory as a land or a sea territory.

Actually, it can, because it is says “Is considered a sea territory” it never is actually defined as a sea territory.

Gadget Denied