Proposal: Worker Compensation
Unpopular - CB
Adminned at 11 Aug 2021 16:23:08 UTC
Add 1 Energy to all Workers except the Worker named Josh.
Josh has used Admin Advantage to do a timing scam (Enact, do stuff, then start a new cycle so that they’re the only person who got to make use of that first cycle) to get extra Cogs. This should even things out for the rest of Workers.
Historically, midgame scams are taken down by stuff like this (I have had my non-Admin scams frequently taken down, eg: Kevan XII, Pokes I, Viv I) and I have stopped trying them because of that. Apparently they are OK now? If they are, I want to know so that I can also start doing them for my own benefit too. If not, then this Proposal will do what should be done.
That aside, I just don’t like Admin Advantage because it’s something Admins have that layman Players, don’t. And having Josh abuse timing in a way that only an Admin could for their personal benefit feels bad to see happen. (But if the rest of you guys feel that it’s OK, then I won’t hold myself back at doing it myself too.)
Josh: he/they
This was a legitimate play that gave me a tiny amount of additional output, in a way that currently means nothing. The proposed remediation is unfair on its face, as energy currently has value while cogs don’t; a fair remediation would be to give everybody 5 cogs, or to do this while giving me the option of reverting my own cog-for-energy exchange.
I believe that the purpose of this is not fairness, though; it’s to punish me for making use of a first mover advantage. I would encourage everyone thinking of voting for this to consider the precedent of a proposal simply removing an edge, legitimately earned under the rules, because one player dislikes that they didn’t get to make use of it. If this passes then any player with a lead could find themselves on the receiving end of a proposal to “equalise” their margin away. While voting for this might make strategic sense for players on the individual level it remains profoundly unfair; the purpose of a game isn’t equity, and if I got a tiny, one-off advantage from a proposal then I don’t believe I should be punished for that.
On a final note: if this is a sincere, good-faith objection to admin advantage then it should attempt to legislate away the risk of admin advantage. As it is, this leaves the possibility (likelihood?) of future admin advantage wide open, while arbitrarily punishing me for having taken an opportunity that, again, someone else would have got sooner or later had I passed it up.