, thank you for loosening it further. I remember there is some blowback to me loosening it last time?

Seems very powerful to say that Mentors and Mentees can act if the No Private Communications rule was completely switched off, so long as they don’t use any of the shared information to “collaborate to secure Victory”.

That sounds like it’s acceptable to pass any information in the early game (before there’s a victory condition) or in an unsuccessful late game (where the Mentor and Mentee see that they can’t win from there, but can still privately coordinate to assist or impede other players of their choice).

Giving them immunity to the full rule, including the final “If information which was not allowed to be discussed is still privately discussed…” paragraph, also means that they don’t need to disclose to the group if they ever cross the line accidentally.

I probably would vote in favour of a middle ground proposal, but if the choice in this poroposal is between too much info to a mentee vs too little, I’d think we should favour the one that doesn’t leave mentees floundering under certain rulesets.

We could probably limit it towards tactical advice though, and/or advice which doesn’t advance the position of the mentor.

How would they cross the line if they effectively ignore the No Private Communications rule anyway? There would be nothing to ever disclose.

If it’s the bit about “should not collaborate to secure Victory for either party”, I think that’s up to self-reporting and trust that people aren’t cheating.

I think we could stand to tighten the proposed boundaries, as Kevan mentioned, but I prefer this “looser” option to what we have now.