Is it possible for a Malfeasance to have a Defense without a Hindrance, or vice-versa? It’s not quite clear to me from the proposal.

The repossession change means that you can effectively never cease to be Katastrophe if your hindrance is unlikely, which - surprise! - Brendan’s is.

*unlucky

Honestly I’d be surprised if the cat ended up being the only way to be Katastrophe. Given how easy it would be to get that status then just flee as far from the cat as you can, there’s likely to be other ways.

Then I’ll vote differently if / when those other mechanics make it to the ruleset. I think it’s very unwise to give Brendan (or anyone, given that a lot of people can make themselves Unlucky right now) a free lock on the dynasty’s animating mechanic at this stage in the game.

Hmm, why is the cat the dynasty’s animating mechanic? Why not kidnapping or flashlights? We’re on day three here, I’m genuinely curious.

Regarding the unlucky bit, I’m planning a Proposal that will make Unlucky more significant, such that being Unlucky just to remain Katastrophe will wind up limiting Katastrophe’s usefulness strategically. Even if my Proposal doesn’t make it, I’m confident that there will be one that will, so I wouldn’t get to hung up about the tilt in favor of Unlucky right now. It will change.

@JD I really don’t get this argument that you and SB seem to be convinced by, that we should vote on this based on hypothetical future mechanics. What if your proposal fails? Then we just voted in someone’s overt scam *despite spotting it in advance*?

I’m not voting on future aspirations. This proposal only exists in the context of the current ruleset, why would anyone vote on it on any other basis?

I wouldn’t say I’m convinced by it, given that you raised your objections on locking down the cat to one stat and in response I raised a proposal specifically to diversify the stats that possession relies upon.

My point is that we’re early in the game, not even a week in. You’ve identified the scam. I can’t imagine a scenario where weeks will go by where an Explorer is able to make use of the scam and the other Explorers won’t be able to muster enough votes to patch the scam. That seems highly unlikely.

Now, if this had been closer to the endgame, or maybe even midgame, I’d agree that closing a scam during the voting on a Proposal would be of higher priority.

In summary, while I agree part of one’s vote should be in the context of the current ruleset, it seems a little inflexible to not consider the fluid nature of the ruleset in the early game. There are a number of mechanics still not yet well defined, and yet everyone seems to feel free to Propose and vote on the Proposals, despite the fact that not everything is well-defined.

If one were to require a fully-fleshed out and scam-free ruleset at this early stage, I’d say that’s a pretty high aspiration that is unlikely to come true.

@SB Yes, and that proposal is a perfect example of what I’m talking about, because as things stand I’m likely to vote against it for unrelated reasons; so it’s not an adequate solution to the problem of this proposal.

@JD There’s a weird mutual unintelligibility going on here. Like, you know that there’s no reason why this proposal has to pass, right? The mechanic it introduces is fine but can *trivially* be repurposed without a scam in it; you seem to be of the belief that the stakes for this view are high enough that flexibility around an exposed scam is worthwhile. It isn’t! Don’t vote through scams; you get fewer scams in the ruleset when you vote them down when you see them. This can just be reproposed in a cleaner way down the line. Dynasties have ended earlier than day 3 before.