The problem is that, if we could get a quorum of Free Thieves to agree to put the same Thief in Gaol, we could have also had that same quorum to agree to a Haul and not needed the Gaol in the first place.

It’s an interesting idea in its on right for different purposes, though.

Not quite; the Gaol agreement is independent of the Haul split agreement, so a group divided on the Haul decision could still reach quorum on a Gaol question (even if the Haul times out).

Could a quorum of free thieves decided to send another free thief to the Gaol?

Yes, everyone starts as Free so that’s the only way to do it. There’s no rule requirement that the Gaoled player has timed out or done anything in particular, Gaoling is just something that a Free majority can agree to do.

“so a group divided on the Haul decision could still reach quorum on a Gaol question (even if the Haul times out)”

I’m still unsure how this would work. Let’s take an example where the quorum is 5 Thieves among 8 Thieves total, and 3 of those 8 are relatively inactive in Hauls. The disagreement is currently 4 Thieves in agreement vs 1 holdout, so quorum isn’t met.

The Haul turns over, and the 4 Thieves would like to put a Thief in Gaol to lower the quorum to 4. How are they going to get a 5th Thief among those inactive ones, or the holdout Thief, to agree to it?

The Haul and Gaol statements are disconnected, the players don’t have to craft and agree on a single Haul-and-Gaol statement.

The four Thieves say “I suggest giving the loot to us. Also we should send the three stooges to Gaol.”, the holdout says “No, I suggest giving all the loot to me. But I do also think that the three stooges should go to Gaol.”

There’s no quorum of five for the Haul split check, but there is a quorum of five agreeing on the Gaoling check.

Would the holdout agree to that, knowing that it’s not in their best interest since that would allow the four Thieves to get what they want the next time around?

A good question! They might agree to it on the grounds that the four Thieves could maybe be persuaded to cut someone out and bring the holdout in instead.

What if we make it that being Caught by Notoriety puts you in Gaol?

But

@Juniper would that be in addition to losing the Florins? So you pay a fine AND go to Gaol?

Since my idea was broken after Clucky pointed out the flaw, I’ll go along with this one, though I still think it won’t be used for the reasons advertised. Luckily, it’s Kevan’s proposal so I’m not looking for him to have planted a scam.

If “not take dynastic actions” would include not voting on proposals, I could a scam where first the inactive thieves go to gaol, then slowly others.

Once there you can’t not yourself out or change the rules? I could see this turning into survivor island.

A dynastic action is defined as one “that is defined in the Dynastic rules”, so wouldn’t apply to core stuff like proposing and voting.

I was also thinking of proposing a limited time someone remains in Gaol, because otherwise this becomes a “kill the leader” scenario where, whenever we decide what the wincon is, everyone who isn’t in 1st place for that wincon gangs up to put the 1st place Thief in Gaol permanently. Lather, rinse, repeat until just the last and second-to-last Thieves are left to duke it out.

the ability for players to just remove another player from the game feels wrong to me. I’d be fine if this just applied to hauls and you could get out of it by voting on hauls. But it applies to all dynastic actions.