This has the problem that the first round can trivially be won by the Guards (we just park one Guard on each Ingress and then the Burglars can’t do anything), which in turn means that the Burglars will wait for proposals to pass rather than submit routes (and because of that, the Guards will wait too, to see how the ruleset changes before moving to the phase where they can no longer react to it).

You removed the part of my proposal that was intended to fix that issue – do you think that it isn’t a real issue, or are you planning to fix it some other way?

This is one of these situations where hidden information plays a role in my actions, admittedly in direct contradiction of when I said to Clucky that it wouldn’t ever affect proposals.

because I think SingularByte is probably pooling with someone, and don’t see how that benefits me.

Isn’t this set up for pooling, like Guards should pool with each other and so should Burglars? The key being that it won’t be with the same people each time, so there’s a little variety along the way.

If you’re doing this in isolation, I think you’re doing it wrong.

@JonathanDark: “Stasis Breaker” encourages burglar-with-burglar and guard-with-guard cooperation, and creates an initial condition in which burglars have some counterplay against Ingress-camping.

This proposal is similar, except it creates a situation where the burglars have no counterplay and will trivially lose the round. As such, if it’s better for SingularByte (a Burglar) than my proposal is, it implies that SingularByte is pooling with a Guard (rather than the other Burglars, like the theme implies). And that Guard is not me.

I strongly recommend that all the Burglars and all the Guards who are not pooling with someone on the other team vote against this (and in favour of Stasis Breaker) because it is clearly an attempt to benefit a currently hidden, cross-tean cabal.

not everyone writes every proposal to benefit themselves or their allies. most of the time a proposal is just a proposal someone is making to try and make the game more interesting

@Clucky: indeed, but when they write a near-duplicate of someone else’s proposal which removes one part, and say they have their own reasons for removing that part without elaborating, it’s almost always going to be a self-interested proposal.