What objections? This is identical to the one that was voted down.

Murphy: Nobody except ais523 voiced any, and he later withdrew the objection.

Sorry I didn’t realize I had to voice why I disliked a proposal. I thought the AGAINST mark communicated that.

Rewards people who just have a lot of money with no real way of driving all their routes, rather than people who worked on keeping their pools limber specifically because the ‘drive 5 useless routes’ clause was in effect.

as before

I thought nomics were all about communication…
Then again, I’ve never played any nomic before.

I would’ve voted for, but as Clucky says, that wouldn’t be fair. Still, I’m not gonna vote against, since I have “no real way of driving all my routes”.

CoV

Under the current rules, having a ‘limber’ pool is mandatory if you want to win in anything resembling a timely fashion.  It would be even more unfair to everyone that isn’t me, Clucky or Soviet Brendon to keep it the way it currently is.

Rules are rules Bucky. Saying “you need the most apples to win” and then half way through going “oh wait, you actually need the most oranges, turns out the apple rule in unfair to people with apples” is ridiculous.

CoV

Clucky: Bad analogy.  We are going to “you need the most apples to win” from “you need to juggle the most apples to win” in a dynasty that is no longer about juggling.

CoV
Who said anything about oranges? You just don’t need to eat the apples. And a small pool still is better than a large one, in my opinion.

I don’t want to explain my reasons this time.

Okay fine, fair enough. But how is the dynasty *not* about juggling if there is a rule saying “you need to juggle the most apples to win”? You are still changing a core game mechanic far too late in the dynasty.