No.

This fails to account for my genious, instant-winning scam that I didn’t get the chance to execute. Should be worth at least a percent.

Would you vote for this if I gave you 1% from my share?

Yep!

Done. Pleasure doing business with you

To quote Homer Simpson, “I can’t lose!”

I’m happy with my slice, so this will get a greencheck from me.

“it’s hard to see how the Demolition business would have changed the fundamental outcome of the dynasty”

The Demolition is fundamental to the outcome. Nobody can get above 500 Expertise until the current Demolition is closed. You had a loophole that let you get 7 million Security Checks, but there was a second loophole out there - a loophole noticed by at least one other player - which meant that you couldn’t spend them.

(There are also the third and fourth loopholes that make variables orphaned and possibly Response Formats invalid, but since they appear to be affecting everything equally, I think we can ignore them from the perspective of the chop.)

Your loophole got blocked by another loophole. That doesn’t deserve an 80-20 split in your favour; to me it’s a 50-50 split between you and whoever would have been driving the Demolition (whose identity we can’t know for sure, but we can maybe simulate it and roll a die to decide).

You’re also missing out Habanero here, who could have used the loophole and possibly even saw it before I did.

Let’s have some actual negotiation at the Bargaining Table, and wait to hear from the timezones that haven’t checked in yet.

to me it’s a 50-50 split between you and whoever would have been driving the Demolition (whose identity we can’t know for sure, but we can maybe simulate it and roll a die to decide).

This is the bit that’s wrong though; there would have been no other party driving the demolition as, as Taiga pointed out, it’s not possible to respond to Demolitions. It would have been resolved by a CfJ and that’s not a 50:50 proposition.

(I am happy to continue to discuss it and, as the title implies, this is intended as an opening position rather than a final offer - but 50:50 is an absolute no-go for me.)

If it’s not possible to respond to Demolitions, it’s not possible to Build either. And if it’s not possible to Build, it’s not possible to win.

From the flavour text, you’re making this pitch from a point of view of “if it was possible to respond to Demolitions and if the game wasn’t orphan-locked and if we repealed the Demolition rule, Josh would be 80% likely to win”.

I don’t think repealing the Demolition rule is a given, I think you have to factor that in.

I think I am factoring it in - if Demolitions disappears as an issue then I go up to 90, 95% to win - there doesn’t seem to be anything else in the field that’s modifying the odds here all that much.

I think repealing Demos is the most likely resolution to the current empasse but you’re getting 10% equity to cover the cases where I’m wrong.

Maybe let’s do it this way - what do *you* think a fair equity split is, based purely on merit gamestate, i.e. assuming a clean resolution to the orphans issue and a clean repeal of demolitions?

I don’t think there would be a clean repeal of Demolitions! Players would ask for some modification to the rules or gamestate to balance out the fact that a straight repeal would be taking you, as you say, to a 90-95% chance of victory, where you would have previously been with everybody else on 0%.

I agree! That’s what you’re getting 10-15% equity for here - what brings me down from 90/5% to 80%. But I’m asking for your assessment, with numbers. If you disagree with this proposal then you should do so concretely.

Imagining a case where the ruleset was locked at “nobody can build, nobody can win”:

You would have proposed something like “repeal Demolitions so that Josh can win after all; as compensation, add a new rule saying that there’s a 10-15% chance of this victory misfiring and a random other player winning instead”?

The player (whether that was Brendan, Habanero, jjm3x3, Taiga or myself) who had seized the Demolitions deadlock might have counter-proposed with “consider this a stalemate between two loopholes, end the dynasty with a 50/50 coin toss; as compensation, add a small chance of some other players winning the chop”.

I wouldn’t have voted for the first, and would probably have voted for the other, whoever made it. I don’t know what a quorum would have thought, but I guess (1-2% mantle pass shenanigans aside) that’s effectively what we’re voting on here in these comments.

My concrete proposal is as it was at the top of the Bargaining Table: 50% to Josh, and 50% split among Brendan, Habanero, jjm3x3, Taiga and myself, based on which of those players actually saw the Demolition deadlock loophole and would have acted on it (and with 20% of my cut going to Summai). Brendan, Habanero and jjm3x3 haven’t checked in yet, and Taiga hasn’t given their thoughts on it, so I can’t break that down any further. It is potentially a quorum; if some of the group say that they hadn’t actually noticed the Demolition loophole, I think they still deserve some cut for staying in the game enough to have had potential access to it.

I want redtara’s share.

@Brendan I’ll give you 1% of it.

I’ve explained my reasoning in the comments of The Bargaining Table

COV

I’ve unidled and Quorum is now 7.

This was a mistake.