Explicitly abstaining on this as it’s gameplay-significant, although I think minimally.

I prefer the status quo as a mechanic but recognise the imperial cognitive load, so I’m genuinely deferent to your wishes as the person running the action on this & as such would endorse you reasserting your FOR if you wish.

as it doesn’t make much difference to me, and I agree that in this case, Kevan should assert his FOR vote since it’s all about his effort required to perform this action.

Players should also be making this calculation!

I think it’s a useful rule of thumb that if it takes longer than a few seconds to answer a simple question about the gamestate (“which is the most Progressive District?”) when the page is right there in front of you, there’s room for improvement in the interface or the rule. We could explicitly track “Progressiveness” in a column somewhere and spend time keeping that updated, or we could simplify the calculation.

The intention is that counting Innovations instead of their costs shouldn’t make much difference to how the Districts are generally ranked. Under the current rule the Progressive scores are 4/3/3/2/0, this amendment would make them 5/4/3/3/0.

as the only owner of a 2-cost innovation, i’d really rather we explicitly track Innovation cost than simplify it like this! especially ‘cause the 2-cost innovation in question might be imminently rendered useless.

Withdrawing per Lemon, with a small lightbulb moment about how Nomic rulesets develop. I’ll try colour-coding the Innovations.