I like this. Might even want to see it lowered to ~5. Hell, even 2.

I thought 10 would be a safe place to start.

Just realized the language of “causes” *might* need to be clarified. In particular I think the gaining of merit should be a part of the “Power Linking” rule so that, e.g., activating “Removing StickyBomb” doesn’t grant merit.

No CoV since 10 is so high it probably won’t matter soon anyway, but would like to see a followup.

^ Machine Repair* not Power Linking

I like the idea, but I think it needs improvement. I would argue by this wording, if you put a link between A and B, but I remove the link and make B repaired before you get a chance to, then I “caused” B to become repair and get the reputation, which results in encouraging of poaching.

Something like “Whenever a machine becomes repaired in this manor, the worker who established the power link gains 1 reputation” would work and I’d vote for that.

Clucky: In theory yes, but in practice, the power link creator will immediately fix the machine. You’d have to be fiercely hawking the GNDT in order to poach like that.

In any case, I’d recommend you (or anyone) make a followup proposal in the near future (I’m at my limit), and possibly consider changing the value to something less than 10 as well.

I think ten is a good value.

This issue isn’t really “I establish a power link from A to B, and then before I can repair B someone else does” its “I establish a network of power links, from B to C, C to D, D to E and E to F. someone else establishes a powerlink from A (repaired) to B, and uses that to power C, D E and F as well”

Ah, good point. That said, I think the ultimate fixer should reap the glory partially for logistical reasons (I’m not a fan of tracking the link establishers) and partly because they actually did fix everything.