SirPleb:
That's a good point, and I know that I'm a prime offender. I try hard to understand as much as I can about game mechanics, and in the process I often come up with new ideas (new to me - they may already be doing much of what I think of!), some of which I post. Perhaps Tavis can make clear what level of feedback he would like in the event that they do post some code chunks. That way I (and others) will know whether we should review the code purely for bugs, or whether suggestions at the implementation or even design levels would also be appreciated.
anarres:
With a final fix approaching, at which point things will likely be set in stone for a while, I believe this is the best time to discuss the optimal way for the FP to work. Of course Firaxis won't necessarily agree with whatever conclusion we reach, but they do appear to be listening and interested in hearing feedback, and we all enjoy discussing our favorite game

So let's take a shot at it.
There appear to be three slants on this:
1) Fix the bugs and leave the FP as it was in PTW. This is the currently planned design.
- Effect: The FP both increases the OCN (decreases corruption due to number of cities) and acts as a new capital (decreases corruption due to distance for those cities closer to the FP than they are to the palace).
- Pros: This makes the FP very powerful, allowing a civ to have a second cluster of highly productive cities. As a non-change it also minimizes coding and testing efforts and associated risks.
- Cons: The AI is not good at placing the FP, and therefore human players gain a substantially greater benefit from the FP. It creates an environment where the palace jump trick/exploit thrives. It rewards war mongering as well (Sorry, I'm not clear on this portion of Alexman's argument. Did he mean the fact that it can be built using a leader in a highly corrupt area, the fact that when you take over another civ's core you often gain a prime spot for your FP (or to jump your palace to), or that those that take over a lot of territory / cities benefit the most from the FP's reduced corruption? Isn't the first point no longer a factor with science leaders, and the third one not really a point since the OCN increase would exist regardless of which FP format is used?)
- Possible tweak: The FP could be made more powerful for the AI to help rebalance things. Perhaps remove the distance benefit for the AI (to avoid overpowering it in cases where the AI accidentally did place it well) and instead have it give a civ-wide percent reduction in corruption.
- Possible tweak: Reduce the distance benefit. Have corruption increase faster as you get further from the FP than it would at the same distance from the true palace. For example, being at a distance of 15 from the palace might give the same distance corruption as being 10 from the FP.
- Possible tweak: Anyone have a good suggestion for how to solve the palace jump issue without changing how the FP works?
2) Leave the FP as it is in C3C 1.12.
- Effect: The FP increases the OCN, but does not act as a new capital. It also appears to act like a courthouse / PS, providing a small corruption decrease in the city where it is built.
- Pros: Balances player vs AI better. Addresses the palace jump issue. Improves war monger vs builder balance (I'll be clearer on this point hopefully after some clarification on Alexman's points).
- Cons: More significant game change, therefore slight risk of unforeseen issues arising. Greatly reduces the power of the FP, which will change people's game play and strategies, possibly making some folks cranky
- Possible tweak: If the distance benefit of the FP is removed, then it should probably be strengthened in some other way. Perhaps make it work like an additional corruption reducing building (PS / courthouse) in every city. Or make it reduce by some percentage (25%?) the effect of distance related corruption in all cities, while still using the palace as the center for that calculation. It could also be given a continent wide effect as the system for implementing that already exists.
3) Leave the FP as it was in PTW, but improve the AI's use of it.
- Effect: Same as with PTW.
- Pros: This would help address the player vs AI benefits received from the FP issue. Does not affect anyone's playing style or strategy, while making the AI a bit more competitive.
- Cons: Significant design / coding change as AI behavior algorithms can be a bear to implement. More likely to introduce new bugs or exploits. Does not address palace jump or war mongering issues.
- Possible tweak: As above - does anyone have a good suggestion for another way (without changing the FP) or addressing the palace jump issue?
Comment away folks

What did I miss? Where are the holes in my thought process? What are your opinions and further suggestions?