Also, can someone tell me if this needs the [Core] tag

You need at least one of: a) the [Core] tag; b) specifying the ruleset section in which the rule belongs; or c) specifying the exact correct name of the rule (if it’s unambiguous). You’ve done none of those, so this proposal won’t work as written; many players like to do all three.

I suggest changing the first sentence to “In the core rule ‘Proposals’:” – that would meet requirements b) and c).

For what it’s worth, the last time I remember something like this being done, instead of changing the core rules, we made a dynastic rule to temporarily override the limit. That might be easier to track than having it change automatically.

So in most cases this is an increase in the number of proposals available, with the situation where it decreases proposal availability on the current being restricted to situations where there are 20 players or more.

What is this in response to? Are we routinely bumping up on the cap in a way that’s problematic?

I think I just did what you said with the changes.

Besides that, my reason for changing it was based on a discussion JD and I had on the Discord server for BlogNomic. It just seemed like something better to have it where proposal limits were inversely propositional to players. Because it feels weird to still have 2 proposals for smaller groups and helps filter stuff when we have larger groups. In other words, makes things less restrictive when the group is small and makes things less overwhelming when the groups are big. The only issue that may lead to change is if we, somehow by bizarre ways, get more than 20 people but I highly doubt would happen due to who our current group and from previous and most recent dynasties.

@Josh Not problematic, just something different than the thing we have.

@Josh: I think the main negative impact of the cap at present is that it discourages players from submitting corrected versions of other players’ proposals, because they want to save the slots for their own ideas. That may tend to make it harder for inexperienced players to get their ideas into the ruleset, and indirectly end up giving experienced players more of an advantage.

I think that if we could come up with some way to exempt proposals whose purpose is to correct or rebalance an existing proposal from the cap, that would be a good thing – but also that this is hard to define objectively and it would probably be too hard to create a rule that actually did that.

Under this change (including emperor):

Less than 5 players is dormancy
5 players have 4 slots each
6-9 players have 3 slots each
10-19 players have 2 slots each
20+ players have 1 slot each

This is overall an increase in slots. I’ll probably be against for this reason, I think being limited to 2 makes you have to think a lot more about what goes into your proposals

Whoops, 5-6 players would have 4 slots each and 7-9 would have three, my bad

The early ruleset (like, the Round 1 ruleset, running all through 1.0) had the concept of Trivial proposals - which were determined to be trivial by voters, through voting.

We also had a dynasty that experiemented with more, longer proposals - five at a time but they would only get resolved at the weekend.

As someone who’s on the higher end of the curve for proposal quantity, I think more proposals is almost always a bad move. When people bounce off the game they almost always report that it’s too much, too fast; having more will only make it more overwhelming. The players who always use their slots will just increase their output; in my view that is probably bad for those players, psychologically, and likely bad for the game around them.

I’d support more slots only if timings were elongated such that they took longer to consider and resolve.

Still very annoying that Josh IX didn’t end up going the way I wanted. I DID break my spine so I have a good excuse for not having done properly but it really felt like an idea I wanted to see through.

@Josh What would you suggest be added to the proposal?

I wouldn’t - I dont see a problem with the status quo. But I have pointed out a few of the knock-on implications that would that would have to be remedied if this were to pass.