I think if we’re removing the group’s ability to benefit from the Demolitions lockdown loophole, we should also remove Josh’s ability to benefit from the Safety Check almost-certainly-win-the-game loophole, or at least try to balance those two things out a little.

I would support this because it makes things tidier, not because I would support your “actual intention”...

@Kevan: I’d rather not conflate the two issues. Right now, the main thrust of the chop debate is whether or not there would be enough support to remove Demolitions as an obstacle.

If others want to make further conditions on their approval, that’s their right, but I think we shouldn’t force those conditions down their throat.

Sorry, I must have misread this as also proposing to restart the game.

It’s just intended as a straw poll to see how players would have voted on a proposal like this (per discussion on Opening Bid where there is some agreement that going from “nobody can win” to “Josh has a 95% chance of winning” would need some equity for the non-winning players), had it been floated earlier?

Correct

Seems a bit too hypothetical to get a very meaningful answer, but if you’d have asked me if we should go from “two loopholes mean nobody can win” to “one loophole, Josh has a 95% chance of winning” my baseline answer would be

I just feel like this is exactly how it would work out in real play. Addressing my SC advantage is a separate issue and I can’t see that it’s likely that they would be conflated into a single proposal like that. That’s never how it’s worked in the past.