Proposal: We Want More
Timed out 1 vote to 8. Failed by Kevan.
Adminned at 13 Aug 2021 13:55:31 UTC
Add the following Wants to the list in “Clientele”:
- Triplet: The Worker currently holds a box with value exactly 3
- Scale: The Worker currently holds a box with value 8 or more
- Asceticism: The Worker held no Things immediately prior to the previous Cycle action
In that list of Wants, rename “Tecnocrat” to “Technocrat”, and change its effect to “The Worker has activated machines at least 6 times during the previous Cycle”.
Between the second and third paragraphs of “Clientele”, add a new paragraph:
As a weekly communal action, a Worker can Assess Demand. To do this, they add a random Want that that Client doesn’t already have to each Client, then for each Client, they remove one of that Client’s Wants at random; however, if the Want that would be removed is the Want that was just added, it is left in the list of Wants rather than being removed.
If there is a type of Machine “Dehumidifier” with a cost of “1 Energy plus n Cogs”, change its cost to “1 Energy plus zero or more Cogs”.
Adding some new Wants, and a mechanism for Wants to change (together with a typo fix). Technocrat is being made slightly easier: you can only have six Machines under the current ruleset, so it doesn’t make sense to have a requirement to activate seven or more.
The last sentence is unrelated – Kevan suggested that riders on proposals might be a good place to do uncontroversial wording fixes.
presses can also make boxes with exactly three, but that’s not a bad thing; with how this randomizes Wants & gradually increases their number, specific wants that are easy to accomplish alone can become much harder to accomplish in tandem with multiple other wants!
Josh: he/they
I think Assess Demand doesn’t quite work as planned: the text says that it is applied to ‘that Client’ but it doesn’t specify how the client is selected, and whether it’s a communal action as applied to each Client separately or all Clients at once (eg if I do it for Elite can Kevan then do it for Vatican). It also specifies that you add a Want, then remove a Want at random, but as the result of that will always be Clients having exactly 1 Want there’s no need to randomise the removal; the Want that gets removed will always be the older of the two.
I also think that Triplet is (sigh) tilted towards sugar; I hate that we have to play with this mindset already but being able to make a box with a discrete value under 7 makes it trivially achievable for the sugar gang. I won’t object to that if Swamp looks like passing as I think that prop will go some way to eroding the literal bifurcation of the plays, and I do accept that it’s a marginal edge.