On Wed, 2026-04-01 at 11:52 -0400, Gregory Hayes via agora-discussion wrote: > I proto-propose the following proposal, entitled "Whither Weather?", > with an Adoption Index of 1:
My feedback: > - Seed Cost - integers from 50 to 200 inclusive, rounded Describing the valid values for a switch as "rounded integers" is confusing: I assume that the valid values are integers, and the rounding is applied in some other circumstance (e.g. when trying to flip the switch to a non-integer). > c. At least one of the following is true: > i. It was planted a number of days ago equal to or greater than its > Growth Duration. > ii. The Weather for the current week is greater than or equal to its > Opportunity, and had not yet been selected when it was planted. > d. At least one of the following is true: > i. It was not planted in the current week. > ii. The Weather for the current week had not yet been selected when > it was planted. I would suggest indenting the sub-lists to make them more visually distinct from the lists containing them (normally whitespace doesn't matter at Agora, but per rule 2429, it can if the whitespace affects the logical structure). Point d.i. should be "it was not planted in the current or previous week". Point d.ii. is out of date and hasn't been adapted for the change to weather selection. It should be something like "at the time it was planted, no Weather announcement had been made that week". (Some background: point d. was intended to resolve a timing scam in which you wait for the Land Managor to select the weather, and then plant or don't plant the crop depending on how good it is). Point c.ii. probably shouldn't have the "and had not yet been selected when it was planted" (which doesn't really make sense in that context). > When the Fields Wither, all unlost, unharvested Crops are lost. For > the avoidance of doubt, the previous paragraph notwithstanding, a > player CANNOT harvest a Crop planted before the most recent time the > Fields Withered. This should probably lean more heavily on the "lost" status. It is probably not a problem if a crop is lost twice, and you don't redundantly need a "lost crops can't be harvested" now that the rules for harvesting require the crop to not have been lost. > I believe that what I've got here should maintain the basic flow of > gameplay without allowing obvious exploits, but I'd like a second or > third pair of eyes just in case I missed something. I hope this feedback is helpful. -- ais523
