Enacting 7 votes to 0 would only require 4 EVCs in favour of removing all the eggs, which seems low a bit low when a full quorum could still be against it. EVC clauses generally aren’t as useful as they seem.

Yeah, I figured I should lean towards caution though. And I suppose that could be 5 to 6 with four “fair start” clauses.

No reward for nourishing egg clusters?  Also, with the number of times they can be fertilized, that’s a lot of bookkeeping.

Nope! that doesn’t spread your genes, it just makes you feel paternal. This is intentional: You can’t just wait for someone to finish the eggs, one parent will have to do work for the others if any of them are going to score.

Also, the bookkeeping for the fertilization is already in place.

Since I like there being VCs in general, no vote for the rider

no reason for me to kill my own eggs

This looks like a reasonable endgame but I hope the dynasty doesn’t become “whichever team/individual remembers to get their daily rewards each day the most, wins”

I look forwards to the results regardless.

@Kevan: I believe its intentional because it more easily grants themselves a relative advantage, because its easier to get the eggs removed with majority rather than quorum (As for his justification, I believe that you, me and all of us have used silence and/or misleading rhetoric to hide the true intent of our plays lol. I’d attend to the mechanical consequence of the proposal, not the informal coating). Entirely 100% reasonable from a play perspective to attempt that though (I think nearly all proposal plays are just like this but in different flavors).

but fair start.

Derrick, the bookkeeping isn’t in place.  The naming is just for flavor, there’s no telling if an “a” in the name means Kevan, Matt, arthexis, or card, or etc.

I mean,    fair start.

fair start