I’m a little scared about where this might be going. Are you trying to build a system where we draw characters from the Scrapyard for Proposals?

No, it’s so there’s a cache of characters which can be deleted to increase allowance in a future proposal.

The clauses about flavour text and Initialisation Keys do both seem ominously redundant to that.

Part of me wants to approve this just to reward the creative thinking, but the other part wants to reject it because it’s against the spirit of Brevity.

Also, if it was just a cache of characters, why not make them all the same? They could all be the letter “A” and a future Proposal could say “delete 100 instances of the letter “A” from the Scrapyard”.

I still feel like future Proposals will draw specific characters from the Scrapyard if this passes.

There are 10 of each character initially, so if you want to draw down e.g. 32 characters, you can say “Remove everything in the scrapyard before the third c”. I felt this would be easier to track than a homogeneous blob of one character.

this is hilarious! greentick from me, i kinda love it.

Can I just check, why is it not flavour text? The current version of Brevity still counts flavour text towards the limit.

Not clear. “Characters that do not render as ruletext are not counted towards the limit”.

if that were the case, Bucky, one could argue that the Brevity restriction is totally ineffectual right now since most of the dynastic ruleset is flavour text atm :u

Then I suppose future proposals have a couple of extra words to scrap.

All this is doing is effectively raising the Brevity limit temporarily, but only for the first-movers who act after this Proposal is enacted to add large amounts of text to the ruleset. Once those first-movers empty the Scrapyard, there’s no benefit to the rest of the players who may have been asleep at the time.

I’d rather see a “character buffer” per player (Machinists and Great Machine) that allows each person to use up their buffer to exceed the Brevity limits, and then once each player has exhausted their buffer, they’re back to the regular character limits.

I would consider wantonly inefficient use of scrap to be a good reason to vote against, and brief proposals can tack on a scrapyard refill.

Might as well just raise the character limit at that point, right?

Flavour text is defined as follows:

<blocckquote>If a part of the ruleset or gamestate is defined as being “flavour text”, it retains its context, but is not considered to have any meaning beyond being a string of characters</blockquote>

I’d argue that that states two things quite clearly: 1) flavour text is still part of the ruleset and 2) regardless of its lack of meaning it still retains its qualities as a string of characters. Therefore flavour text is currently affected by brevity.

:U

Slightly too thicc of a blocckquote there.

as odds are I wont get the benefit.

because I’d rather just have the limit raised than have to fiddle with constantly refilling the Scrapyard just to be able to add more ruleset text in a single Proposal.

My feeling for potential text nonsense is not great already.