I don’t see the harm in dust. It’s a block that only comes out when a dynasty has unusually proposal-averse players. When it’s been used, it’s worked.

Saying to “add it into a dynasty ruleset on a case by case” means that players who forget about the idea or never saw it in the first place won’t think to do that. And those who remember the general idea and rewrite it from scratch dynastically might forget or unbalance some angle of it.

“Bounties where the group agree on the reward that the Emperor can hand out” is a mechanism that we took some iterations to arrive at. I think it’s worth keeping if it works.

Per Kevan. It still has the utility it did when I proposed it. If emperors aren’t using it then players can and maybe should be requesting it

I am looking at search histories; and what I see is that there has been only https://blognomic.com/archive/bounty_notice_a_win_condition_we_can_agree_on this use that is of the tool type of bounty use. I’m really iffy on what the issue here is.

and; this http://blognomic.com/archive/bounty_notice_equity_laundering

I think another thing is how do we put rare blocks that we have balanced in the past without it jamming into the building blocks list where they’re choosing as options; im thinking about splitting building blocks into the building blocks list and the playing blocks where it is kinda where balanced but rare stuff goes.

I’d like to try this one out before I vote to remove it.

fair enough @kevan. Withdrawn

The way I see it, we’ve got:

1. Blocks that support gameplay (most of them)
2. Blocks that solve a problem (Low-Player Mode, Bounties)
3. Blocks that are testing out a potential future core rule (Revisions Allowed, Precondition Unidling?)

Which would mean that we’d want an Emperor to take their pick from category 1, leave category 2 alone, and always include category 3.

It does also suggest that category 3 should just be in the core ruleset instead.