Nah, redcross on this; we’ve all had the same opportunities for People growth, the principle is equality rather than equity - so long as a Person is worth the same for all of us, the system is fair

@Josh the problem is that if an agenda item gives you the opportunity to spend people, spending anything else on it is pretty much pointless (which means those plenary sessions are pretty much off limits to you if you don’t have a large amount of people)

greentick from me

actually, 

we can figure something out later to bump the value of those up if we want to

y’all, the rule as it stands makes food, order, connections, and defence substantially less valuable by comparison, since each one appears in only half as many viable agenda items. to me, this proposal is an obvious & easy solution to that!

lendunistus, as the holder of the highest quantities of three of the four spurned resources, shouldn’t u especially be in favour of this?

@lemon - point of order - your food is at least theoretically the highest, assuming a future Gather is in your cards.

First, “so long as a Person is worth the same for all of us, the system is fair”, please explain why changing it from 1 Score to 0.2 Score is not “worth the same for all of us”? Faulty logic, try again.

Second, lendunistus you had it exactly right the first time, and why you would want to ” figure something out later” makes no sense. This is a singular Proposal whose only modification is this. Please explain why waiting until later to Propose the exact same thing is better.

For example, if “Abundance” comes up, formula is “1 Score per People, 1 Score per Food, 1 Score per Defence”. So if I spend 15 People, whether I spend 4 Food or 1 Food makes much less of a difference.

Anyone who wants the formula to remain as-is must want Food to be an outsized contribution to that particular score, i.e.you want to make sure that People is the only thing worth spending, because you have more to spend.

Same thing with Culture: 1 Score per People, 1 Score per Connection, 1 Score per Order.

Josh’s stance makes sense, as the District who has the most People, although his stated reasoning is faulty. lendunistus has the second-most People, although his lead is not by as much, but I guess that was enough to make him change his mind. lendunistus, I think I get it…you believe you still have time to outpace Josh and take the “People lead”, so the “later” is when you figure out it’s too late to do so.

If this doesn’t pass, I will definitely be bringing it back up “later”, so I suppose if you prefer cutting it close to the edge, sure.

Rafter, as another person who would be negatively affected by the current formula, you might want to consider where you stand on this.

Tentatively, 
After reading through the ruleset again and comparing the different Score values through the Scoring Matrix, I’d have to agree with Jonathan.
Energy is gained and lost at a higher rate than all other resources except for People, and is rated at a lower Score to reflect this. It is 0.25 Score on most Agendas. People should, logically, follow this chain of thought as well to maintain balance.

However, if I may, I’d propose a slightly lesser change to 0.5 Score per People. Energy may still be traded in higher quantities than any other Scorable resource, but People are not spent outside of Decisions. Additionally, it would only make sense to rush People for the insane amount of potential points as well as picking up the Communal Sway Innovation.

This would still retain the weight of losing People in Decisions while potentially placing more importance on other resources.