I don’t see any major problems.  My number is the result of dividing one by zero.

Or, rather, I submit for your consideration the number which is the result of dividing one by zero.  This number is often called “positive infinity”.

You cannot win from Gadgets alone.
Tiberias: Positive or negative? 
I’d say 3 is a good limit.

, but if Tiberias doesn’t change eir number to one that doesn’t abuse the accounting mechanism, I may change my vote.

Upon further reading of the rules, it appears that I must pick a positive integer.  I do wish to be allowed an unbelievably large number of gadgets, however.  I think Graham’s number will be quite sufficient.  Thus, I submit Graham’s number (invalidating my earlier, invalid, submissions).

Btw, my submission will be three minus Graham’s number.

  with 3 as my number, assuming that Clucky’s post removes Tiberias’ crazy large numbers.  I like the idea, but I will veto it if it looks like the number of gadgets gets huge.

There is no need to veto, Ammistar. You still need to clear any gadgets, and each agent can only have one pending gadget at a time. Thus, in the time that it would take to get a proposal which put a reasonable limit on the gadget numbers passed, no real harm could be done.

You cannot win from Gadgets alone. 3

*changes number to 6 minus Graham’s number, so that the avg. will remain 3*

Pi. I’d say that You cannot win from gadgets alone, except I"m not sure what a “agen” is.

I’d call that one a typo :p.  Also, You cannot win from gadgets alone! :P 3   etc etc .  Just making sure that everything counts…

I believe that the limit is wholly unnecessary, which is why I have been picking really large numbers.  I’ll change mine to the number that is the product of the result of the processing admin rolling 3DICE6 on the GNDT and Graham’s number.

Even the coolest spies cannot have too many gadgets. Plus that number isn’t really a number.

Sorry, but I don’t know what I’d be voting for.  When it’s something important like this (as opposed to, say, the naming of a currency), I can’t honestly vote FOR unless I approve of any possible replacement for XXX.  For this particular implementation, anyone (the enacting admin, for example) can swoop in at the last minute with a determining vote on the replacement.  I think we’re going to need that VETO, after all.

I also think it’s extremely dangerous to have the default be that the gadget is accepted after 48 hours without intervention of the Mastermind.  Even if Amnistar turns out to be a very active Emperor, it’s still a lot to ask that he never miss the 48 hour mark even once.  That would be very bad, as the “description of what the gadget does” could be anything at all.  This rule is functionally similar to one that says “An Agent can make a special kind of proposal that no one is allowed to vote on.  It is automatically accepted unless the Mastermind intervenes within 48 hours.”

At the very least, it should be required that the Mastermind actively approve a gadget before it gets awarded.  Maybe also allow em to edit the functionality of the gadget before approval for balancing reasons, maybe adding a cost associated with recieving or activating a particularly useful gadget.

Denoting Ackerman’s function as A(.,.) and Graham’s number as G, my chosen number is -A(G,G).

Hix’s reasoning is sound.  Limitations on what the gadgets do, either to require active approval by the masermind, or some other means should be neccessary.  Or alternatively, limiting what their scope of effect is (perhaps they can only effect “stats” or something similiar?