(45) Proposal: Cities don't demand unknown resources

[balparmak]

Yeah I should've used growth instead of food, I put in production as an example of how could this interact with policies&traits etc. Edited the first post.

Edit: After some thinking and discord discussions I've realized the proposal lost its focus quite a bit. While per-luxury bonuses would be nice, they are inconsequential and dilute the proposal, same goes for any kind of watered down WLTKD (i.e. Life's Good) for getting all known resources, my primary goal has always been stopping unknown resource demands. So @Recursive if you allow it I want to scale down the proposal to:

- Cities do not ask for unknown resources. Known resources include any resource the player has discovered (including unimproved and unowned), and all resources known by players met by the player. All luxury resources become known at Astronomy*.

If that's not allowed, I'm retracting the proposal.

 

[Recursive]

Yeah I should've used growth instead of food, I put in production as an example of how could this interact with policies&traits etc. Edited the first post.

Edit: After some thinking and discord discussions I've realized the proposal lost its focus quite a bit. While per-luxury bonuses would be nice, they are inconsequential and dilute the proposal, same goes for any kind of watered down WLTKD (i.e. Life's Good) for getting all known resources, my primary goal has always been stopping unknown resource demands. So @Recursive if you allow it I want to scale down the proposal to:

- Cities do not ask for unknown resources. Known resources include any resource the player has discovered (including unimproved and unowned), and all resources known by players met by the player. All luxury resources become known at Astronomy*.

If that's not allowed, I'm retracting the proposal.

Argh. I'll allow it this once, but this is generating confusion.

Growing pains...after this session I'm going to start a feedback thread for how the VP Congress can be improved. The initial rules will likely need some adjustments.

 

[balparmak]

Thanks I think it won't be confusing to the voter as long as everything is finalized before the voting starts, so amendments during sponsorship feels fine to me.

 

[rkkn]

IMO indeed allow amendments during sponsorship, but any such amendments are tentative until approved by a sponsor

though the downside to this is it gives people less time (or no time) to make a counterproposal with the previous version

 

[Stalker0]

IMO indeed allow amendments during sponsorship, but any such amendments are tentative until approved by a sponsor

though the downside to this is it gives people less time (or no time) to make a counterproposal with the previous version

I mean sponsorship phase is only 3 days in a month, I think its reasonable to freeze everything to give devs the time to go through those proposals and decide what they want to sponsor. If we start allowing admendments, that what we are saying is "devs, those first two days of review are kind of sketchy, you REALLY need to review on that last day"....and I don't think that's fair.

 

[balparmak]

Sure, any amendments should be agreed by the sponsor. That's not a reason to prevent amendments though

 

[Stalker0]

Sure, any amendments should be agreed by the sponsor. That's not a reason to prevent amendments though

It is during the sponsorship phase. Sponsors should not be expected to have to loop through the posts multiple times to check for admendments, they are busy enough.

If you want an amendment you have the entire first part of the month to do it in. Once its sponsorship time, its time to sit back and see what happens.

 

[balparmak]

A heavy ban brings little benefits compared to costs. Discussion doesn't stop at the sponsorship phase, having the first half of a month is irrelevant, you can't know when a good feedback or idea comes. Further, you may decide on an amendment through discussions with a potential sponsor during the sponsorship phase, or simply the proposer themselves could be the sponsor. With a hard ban, I'm not allowed to make a change on a proposal I proposed and sponsored, this doesn't affect the voters or anyone else in anyway, it's ridiculous.
Not all proposals get amended during this phase, and noone expects the sponsors to religiously follow the threads. Still, if they don't find the time to go over an amendment, the proposal can be delayed. A rule such as "During the sponsorship phase an amendment cannot be made without the support of the sponsor. If an amendment is suggested but isn't expressly agreed by the sponsor, the proposal gets automatically withdrawn." is a lot better than a hard ban.

 

[CppMaster]

Why it didn't go to voting?

 

[balparmak]

Recursive understandbly needed to take a break from making the vote threads, they'll resume soon though. It's easy to forget that Recursive is actually a human like any of us, not a benevolent god-emperor ^o^