# How do you manage ressources & pay for Covenant's work?

I don't want to sound simply controversial, I see no need to please me! I only want to invite people to this discussion if they want to participate in it.
I may sound harsh, understand that I only want to get to the point. I don't want the autor to justify his work, his work does that by itself.

What you do, Fixer, to solve the problem is redifining what is a "share". Instead of it being a proportion % of the available vis, you make that a fixed number of vis. You determine that number based on 1the available vis. Of course it solve it, but then you encounter the problem sharing was all about solving: not promising more vis than the covenant can afford to give.
The other problem is that a mage may be able to extract more vis than the pay he gets from a season of service. I've seen that elsewhere on this forum: for exemple, if a mage build a magical object with a lab total of 30, this mean he could (comparatively) extract 3 vim vis. And that's the basic measure of a season of work. This is interesting, but brings the problem of the limited supply of the covenant.

Either you share available vis for the magus, maybe not efficiently rewarding mages, either you give a number that is the value of a season of work, risking to see the covenants store depleted.
The answer will probably lie somehere in between.

Reading Henricus, it made me react, thinking this. You talked about "incentive to do covenantwork". The question this bring to my mind is, does payment for a season really supposed to be an incentive ?

We don't have an exact french word to traduct "covenant". We use "alliance" which I think have about the same meaning in english. A covenant is really about an alliance of some magus, it should not be forgotten. They are there for a purpose, doing something togethere.

I've seen two tendency in "Alliances": it's either a commune, may be a bit like medieval monastery: most is the possession of the covenant. The mages are together, facing problems, while having some personnal interests, but those are always linked to what is happening in/about the covenant.

The other is well portraied by Birbin again here: the covenant is more of a place where magus "stick around". The covenant is a place where individual can strive toward their goals. Problem that the covenant encounter are seen as thing slowing personnal projects: they are to be dealt with then forgotten (not always, but essentially)

The second is like our first campaign. I would like to see the first happening in our current campaign.

What problem it bring, is the legitimacy of the sharing/payment system.

In an old covenant, where the young magus (players) join in, the legitimacy is historical: it is the way it is for a long time. The fact that the old magus builded the covenant gives them the right to impose their own rules.

Another thing that could help toward the legitimacy of such a system could be that many covenant use it in the Order of Hermes. "Everybody does it" "It's how it work, pal" . Such an hypothetical system would have had time to prove itself. But Covenant does not give such background element, and we are hard pressed to find what it could be. Still, when you think of it, that one or two or three major system used in the OoH ought to exist ! We can find it.

The case of a young covenant is different: the mages decides what will be the rules "from scrap". But as I just said, they probably already know some good ideas upon which to begin a discussion on the matter. The legitimacy of the system is more fragile here, because it need to be rationnal to be accepted by the majority. We play in the Rhine Tribunal. If we ask our SG how they do thing at Triamore (where my character comes from), at Waddenzee or elsewhere, he can't really answer because nobody really knows. He say: " Oh yes, your character fully knows how it works at Triamore - not in the details, but still he has a good grasp of the system." But he cannot tell what it is. It's like making a spell, your character knows how, but no player understand what his character really do in-game when he launch a spell.

I have reservation for that tendency. A covenant need new blood to survive. A player will see the coming of a new magus as someone who will demand vis. But I'm guessing that a real magus would put more importance on continuity of the covenant he tried so hard to build and protect. Only a covenant with enough reputation would be able to get new recruits while asking them to do a lot of sacrifice to join in. There could be exeptions, but still, I think this should how it works out in the OdH, IMHO.

problem is, someone who is there thinks his opinion is of far greater importance since he already is a member, this is seen in many football clubs, brass bands and other casual clubs. How far greater would that become if you actually live there? They wish to make it harder for people to join, partly because they wish to make sure people must really want to become a member, and partly because then they can put the new member in its place, This is seen with many initiation rituals in sororities, where time is somewhat dilated, the time of this initiation will expand as well. There is another thing. Older members have done a lot for the covenant and wish to make sure newer members will do so too.

I am not a fan of these procedures, but they exist in modern societies, and I think they would be magnified in medieval similes

Of course. Maybe I don't really understand you, but you can't give more than you have, can you???

And I love the word "Alliance", I always found it to be more beautiful than "Covenant"

@Henricus: you are right, I may have gone to some extreme...More reasonable would be to say that the sacrifices need to be somewhere between a desire to continuity of the covenant (attract new recruits) and your option D: "Older members have done a lot for the covenant and wish to make sure newer members will do so too. "
" partly because they wish to make sure people must really want to become a member, and partly because then they can put the new member in its place"
You are right. But still, I doubt we should look for fraternity or sorority as an exemple ? I didn't understood what you meant talking about "time dilated" : "(...)where time is somewhat dilated, the time of this initiation will expand as well."

@The fixer: Love better Alliance too ^^
Thought we must beware of not being "francophono-centristes" !

What I meant was that the sharing of vis face either of two problems.

The Share system base the payment for each magus based on available ressources.
Taking our exemple...Let say the covenant earn 40 vis each year. It keeps 20 for itself, to fuel the Aegis, buy books, etc.
The other 20 goes for the mages. Whatever rule you use, the mages will always get 20 pawns in total each years, because it was decided that the alliance can only spend as much.
The problem here, begins when a magus put more efforts than the other to the benefit of the covenant. If you give him an increased share, then the others lose what he gains. This is a "sum zero" equation. All in all, always and only 20 vis will be given to the mages.
This mean that the magus are not really rewarded for what they do. They are actually rewarded from not doing work for the covenant, and what is worse, to make sure the other mages can't do work for the covenant. That way, they earn the more...

The Reward system (let's call it that way) base the payment for each magus on the real value of the work done for the alliance.
For exemple, a covenant could decide, since most mages are about the same ages, and of equal power, to set a fixed number of vis as a reward for a season of work. Since the best magus can extract 5 vis in a season, they decide that this number is 5.
Problem is, using our exemple, if we have 5 mages in the covenant, and each did a season of work, that makes 25 vis total per year. The covenant may have problem paying them. It become worse if the magus do more work.
This problem stands if you do as you (Fixer) suggest. If you decide that a share is 4 vis, or 3 vis, there can always be a circumstance where the covenant can't pay as much. The more you lower the fixed number of vis as payment, the less likely the covenant will have problem paying it. But at the same time, the more far you get from paying the magus the real value of a season of work. A covenant with a lot of vis ressources don't get this problem, of course (exemple: an alliance that get 100 vis each year...)

My own conclusions, as of now, is that the seasons of work the magus has to do for the covenant can never be an incentive to do covenant's work. That is for a newly found covenant : one with not rich vis ressources.A Covenant is an Alliance (talk about a tautology !) : if the magus does not collaborate, it falls. It's as simple as that.

The more reasonable way to do it, is that the way work for the covenant is done and rewarded be not precised in the Charter. It should give leeway for the Counsil to decide depending on the dangers and circumstances where the covenant is.
Each period of time (a year or 2, 3, 5, 7 years), the counsil decide what efforts each magus will need to do for the covenants. Those who do not face censure.
Then, vis is shared based on available ressources (as you pointed out, Fixer, it's impossible to do otherwise !).

If a magus do more seasons than demanded for the covenant, the more reasonnable thing to do is go on a case-by-case basis : haggling.
If those seasons of work are deemed important for the covenant, they will probably by rewarded by real value, from the covenant's store.
Instead of buying new Rego tractatus, the covenant-alliance pay the Flambeau 10 vis to go punish the mongol army, given the danger at stake. This is added to his normal share of vis: that Flambeau already spent a season negociating with a nearby hedge wizard, the same year. So he get a total of 10 + his normal share of vis.

The rewarding for extra seasons need to be done on real value of service, because of the Code of Hermes (see p.35 in Covenant) : "idemanding of a magus to give two or more seasons of work each year could indeed be seen as an attempt to deprive him of his magical power by inhibiting his ability to study.[/i]"

This mean that if a covenant face so much danger that it can't pay for its member to protect it, it will be a test as to if the covenant-alliance will stand.
I think this will be the case most of the time when the founding of a new covenant occur : there is much to be done, and the store are not always rich...

This also mean that a young magus will have to sacrifice more founding a new covenant than joining an already well established one. Otherwise, all else being equal, people would prefer founding their own covenant then joining Fengheld, Triamore, Blackthorn, Voluntas, Fudarus, etc. This give an idea of an upper limit as of what sacrifices/cost an older covenant can ask of new recruits.

The "management of ressources" is not about The Carrot and the Stick, it is about how the magus works together - or not - as an Alliance.
This sound correct for you ?

historion.net/davis-medieval-eur ... towns.html

Check the net for other definitions.
I'm wondering if anybody could accept any new alternative to covenant anyway.

Not with a system like mine, which you misunderstood. The extra vis is not equal to a standard share

Every 4 seasons of work, a magus gets extra vis. This only deplete the covenant's stores.

Say, 5 magi, every magus does 1 season per year.
1st, 2nd, 3rd year: 4 pawns per magi, 20 for the stores
4rd year: 5 pawns per magi, 15 for the stores.

Of course, this is coudl be calculated so that the extra share is bigger, but I wanted a simple exemple.

Note also that a magus may be required to do 1 season/year to have a share at all.

Same exemple, but Magus A does 2 seasons per year.
1st year: Every magus gets 4 pawns, the covenant 20
2nd year: Magus A gets 5 pawns, the other magi 4, the covenant 19
3rd year: Every magus gets 4 pawns, the covenant 20
4rd year: Magus A gets 5 pawns, the other magi 4, the covenant 19

If evey magus does 2 seasons of work?
1st year: Every magus gets 4 pawns, the covenant 20
2nd year: Every magus gets 5 pawns, the covenant 15
3rd year: Every magus gets 4 pawns, the covenant 20
4rd year: Every magus gets 5 pawns, the covenant 15

Not exactly. There is a point where there are problems, and this is where the (vis to be paid) depletes enough the stores where the aegis can't be cast.

To take the same exemple, with a Magnitude 10 aegis, you could have an extra share of 2 pawns per 4 seasons of work.
That way, if all your 5 magi did 4 seasons of work per year, they'd get each year 6 pawns, not 4, and the covenant would get just enough to cast the Aegis (10 pawns).

This number may be raised if the covenant requires Vis Extraction from its members.

Also, if you state that no magus shall do more than 2 seasons (and who would want that?), or that these extra seasons won't be rewarded, it can also be raised to 4 pawns per 4 seasons of work.
Thus, at best, every magus would get 4 pawn a year, 8 the next, the covenant getting 20 pawns a year, 0 the next.

Carrot and stick: No work, no vis at all.
this is a good enough incentive, IMO.

Well, in your campaign, why not ? =) For gamers, I think using a common agreed word is what's important. If you prefer "Alliance", come play with us in french ;p

Oh, thank you for answering, I will try to clear out my idea.

What I meant in the message you (The Fixer) is quoting, was not a direct answer to your post. I was trying to present my idea in a different format: every rewarding system need to face either of two problem. I really see this as an inescapable logical problem. Then my idea get more precise with every post. I'm trying to understand how Covenants manage ressources, how the Order does it. There is many scholars amongst Magus: they are bound to have discovered some knowledge about this !!

I did took good time to understand your post where you explain your idea before posting. I didn't wanted to mean that yours (Fixer's) was concerned by what I called the "shared" problem more than the "Reward" problem.

Trying to fit your presentation within my idea forced me to change something. This concern the richness of the covenant (is richness a word ? O_o Anyway, it's convenient..)

[size=150]Here it is:[/size]
In your idea, each magus share 50% of the Vis of the Alliance each year.
Furthermore, each seasons are paid an "Extra Share" in vis , that is defined as a fixed number. Those are paid from the covenant's store(The counsil decide each 3 or 7 years, for exemple)
So this Extra Share is more akin to a "reward" then a "share", using my definition up here. I define it so because with your Extra Share system, you basically reward extra work, instead of simply sharing extra ressources.
In your exemple, the magus get underpayment (1 vis/4 seasons ! or 4 vis/ 4 seasons), because they earn less than they could simply extracting vis (4 vis/ ONE season)

As I read it, we are saying the same thing ?

Coming back to your (Fixer's) idea, you mix the two systems: each magus get a Share, then Rewards for each (and extra) seasons. Doing so, you get a better system ( I think so ) than using only one of the two system.

But the difficulty stay.
Let say a magus can extract 4 vis in a season.

1. Either you reward him 4 vis or more for a covenant's season of work => then the question is, does the covenant have enough ressources to pay for ALL Extra seasons ?
[list]1-A) If yes, the Covenant is rich. It's probably not a newly founded covenant. YMMV, of course: a new covenant could be a rich one, and escape all this problem, why not?
1-B) If no, the covenant is "under-ressourced". Probably the case for new covenants.

2. Either you reward him 3 vis or less per season => than the question is, can we call this an incentive to do covenant work ?
2-A) If you say yes, it is an incentive, you basically say that vis rewarding is an incentive for doing a season of work. But then, NOT doing covenant works is better than doing so. This contradict itself, it's not a possible answer.
2-B) It is not an incentive. This is the only possible answer to this question. Vis reward could be some part of an incentive: but then really, it means the counsil/Charter needs to force magus to work in some way, so you need another incentive.
[/list:u]

Your idea (Fixer's) fail to show the limits of the Share/Rewarding systems.
We should not miss this, because we miss an oportunity to discover why this is not always true:

Which is, in my opinion, a false conception on how young Covenant's work.

Whatever the number we use, I think I showed that the question will always be a problem of "Do we have enough ressources?" Yes/No.

The Carrot and Stick really only concern older covenants that welcome young magus. Or a young Covenant that happens to be "Vis rich".
But, I don't know for you, more often than not, players love to build a new covenant of their own. Even for a "rich Vis" Saga, building a new covenant often means a lot of work for young magus, and this could mean that the covenant have not enough ressources.
So Carrot and Stick doesn't work for Players most of the time. This is what I called "first person point of view": what really happen around the table when players actually play ?

The real limit of Share/Rewarding is the ressources of the Covenant:
->In a poor/young covenant, magus share ressources and work for the Covenant because they need to do it for the covenant to survive.

->In a "rich enough"/older covenant, it's possible for the system to work with Carrot and Stick. Young magus get an incentive to do covenant work because they are rewarded with Vis (and/or maybe other things)

One could object that Vis is not all. There are other considerations: reputation in the Covenant, influence amongst peers.
But I don't want to say that vis is all. I just want to understand how internal vis economic work out in an Hermetic Covenant.
I both case, rich or poor covenant, those concerns could always play a role.

I'll take The Fixer exemple, with our own Alliance/Covenant:
Our Alliance get about 30 vis each year. We have an Aegis of level 30, and we buy stuff with about 4 vis each year. This leave 20 vis each year to give to magus, or help the covenant's stores. (which is low on vis...)
Let say we give 15 vis per year to the member. We are 5 magus. This mean 3 vis each year per magus.

Conclusion: we can't pay our members extra seasons of work for their real value. We need to "force" ourselves through Counsil decisions to do the work.
If we had more Vis ressouces, we could get real rewards as incentive.

If one does not do what need to be done for covenant work, our only mean to force him is some sort of censure. If the delinquent care not for censure and only about vis, he will not do covenant work ! Other magus needs to use persuasion or force. Or get better ressources of vis...

Either this is for his own usage, in which case good for him.
Or this is for the covenant.

Then, either this counts as due service, required by the covenant, and there's no problem.
Or this isn't, and then, what's to gain? Have vis different from vim vis

You could also have peripheral rulings such as

• Extracting vis for the covenant's stores will count as 2 seasons of service
• Extracted vis may be traded for covenant vis on a 2-per-1 basis

You get the idea.
IMO, there's a solution to each problem, which must be ruled by the council. These will define your covenant and your charter, which is always great.

Disagreed.
As it stands, the only problem lies if vis extraction gives a lot more vis than service.

The carrot and stick can also concern young covenants. Maybe even more than old ones: You need to work to make it ok. If you don't, you're a liability, and thus should get nothing. Even in a struggking covenant, there are always lazy bastards
IMO, the difference between young and old covenants lies more in the fact that the same rules applies to all than in the actual harshness of the rules.
Thus, new magi may very well agree on something like "everyone gets to do 1 season". In fact, this is what we did on Novus Mane

Blocked vis: 10 pawns per year
5 pawns going to the stores per year
3 pawns per magus per year.

If you limit the seasons of work to 2 per year (or 10 per 5 year, or 20 per ten years...), every magus could get at most 2 extra pawns every 2 years for his services.

Arf, gotta go to sleep, I'll cry tomotrrow

Double post.

Ouaip, il doit ΓΒͺtre minuit en France Γ cette heure
=)

Yes, I agree. You are really saying the same as I do.
So, I don't understand how you get to the conclusion that...

Maybe we don't agree in what mean "Carrot and Stick" ?
What I meant was getting Vis (Carrot) or being deniyed Vis (Stick) as an incentive to do covenant work.
I say that vis cannot be such an incentive for doing Covenant's work.
I make a difference between:

• censure that deny getting vis and;
• any other sort of censure. ([color=blue]non-vis censure)
I make a difference between:
• getting vis as an incentive, and;
• getting something else than vis as an incentive (combined or not with getting vis)
I say that a young/poor covenant is one that cannot pay a magus to do covenant work for fear of "Vis censure", nor that it have the mean to pay/reward seasons of work with vis as an incentive. [By definition of what is a poor covenant, it cannot.] And I think this is the case of most covenant (most of those who posted here seems to give low rewards compared to what their magus could extract.)
So people who are looking toward a way to make their covenant work in a rationnal way should really be looking toward [color=blue]non-vis solution. (most people here doesn't care for rationnal management, and that's perfect, each one have different interesting in playing Ars Magica!)

Now, I'm gonna answer your (Fixer's) last post point by point. I do so in the hope that it may clearify things up for people in the forum. Doing so, I will (maybe) appear brutal...sorry for that. This is not my purpose.

Here is how I understand you:

"due service" and "required by the covenant" means that the covenant (Charter of Counsil) force in some way the magus to do covenant work. The incentive is [color=blue]non-vis censure. (some sort of punishment for not disrespect of the Counsil decision.)

Yes. This is another incentive then getting vis. The opportunity to exhcange vis. The incentive here is fear of [color=blue]non-vis censure

This is the same as doubling the reward for one season of extracting vis. You either give less than what the magus could extract, or you give equal or more. This is what my idea try to solve.

This is a [color=blue]"non-vis" reward. You get to do something you couldn't otherwise. This doesn't solve how vis ressources are given to the magus.

Yes, this is the problem, but you don't solve it. Here, you simply reverse what I've said. You take it the other way around, and it solve nothing. This is the same to say ''B is greater than A" or to say "A is smaller than B".
When I say "Do we have enough ressources?" this is a shortcut to mean "Do the covenant have enough ressources to pay a service as much as a season of vis extraction is valued ?"
To say that "the only problem lies if vis extraction gives a lot more vis than service" is really saying the same thing as I do. It's simply taking the same problem the other way around, but doing so don't solve anything by itself

Agreed. But the question is how to manage those lazy bastards ? Simply giving them nothing, when they conceviably can earn more staying in their lab extracting vis ?? You need [color=blue]non-vis censure. I don't see any other solution in your idea ?

I'm not sure how to understand this.

Yes, this is a good solution. It is forcing magus to do 1 season. If it happens that all magi agree to it, all the better. A young/poor covenant need to be working together if it is to survice, that's what I've tried to demonstrate. This covenant need to use [color=blue]non-vis incentive/censure.
If one doesn't do his 1 season, what would you do ? Either vis censure or [color=blue]non-vis censure, and then you fall within what I described, and I think I've demonstrated that the rationnal way of doing it depends heavily on the covenant's ressources.

This is less than what a magus can extract not doing covenant's work. But since you reward a season for less than a magus acquire through vis extraction, you really need to provide something else than vis reward to explain why a magus would do that season of covenant's work.
This could be:

• the covenant will fall if you don't do it, or;
• the covenant will get better if you do it, so the Counsil decide that you do it, or;
• you get prestige/influence/good reputation for doing it, so your magus decide to do it.

Since we take the exemple of a poor/young covenant, you always need something else than vis reward as a reason to do covenant's work. Thus, it is better for the "writter of a Charter" / "Counsil of Members" to first define how this incentive will work out before thinking about how will be managed vis ressources. In this case, incentive and vis sharing is really two different issues.

This would not be the case in a rich/older covenant, who is able to use vis as an incentive. By defnition, a young/poor covenant is unable to do so, and I postulate that this is the case of most people playing Ars Magica, based on what I've seen here on this forum. ( I may be wrong on this last one thing, but still the rest of what I've said would stand for those who are in the same situation as our troupe is).

What I think you are trying to do, Fixer, is to show that it is possible to make a workable Charter for a covenant to function properly. If that is so, I agree with you this is possible. Then, trying to know more about how that Charter would look like, I think I've demonstrated that such a Charter would need to take into account what are the ressources of the Covenant to be functionnal. And - correct me if i'm wrong, I don't think you disagree with me here.
Having said that, I think as you seem to do that the best way is simply to force each magus to do the necessary season of work for the Covenant to survive. Then, given enough ressources, eventually, years passing through, when the covenant gets rich enough, you can change that to say that each magus receive a valuable reward for covenant work.

Well, being on holiday for only a weekend takes a long time reading the backlog....

About the question, Time dilation is a very abstract word here. When you get into a sorority (I used this example, I could also use the army, or a guild structure) you are there for a limited time, say 8 years, you have the first half year in which you suffer. A covenant could be your home for 150 years, this is way longer, and so the eldest members have very long to settle in their situation.

About the carrot/stick for young covenants.
What you need is everything, a building, books, vis sources, magical defenses.
In a few years however, not everyone can work to make the covenant better. For instance, my social former trader Trianoma will have something to do for quite a few years, a Verditus could make useful additions to a covenant as well, while a shapeshifter ex miscellenea could run out of useful things to do for the covenant.
This should be rewarded, and, I think it should be rewarded at the expense of those that do nothing to make the covenant better instead out of the reserves of the covenant.
Let me explain. You wish to make a culture in which people wish to improve the covenant, and go to lengths to improve it beyond what easily is available. If you have someone who can work for the covenant 3 seasons every year, this magus is creating a better place for everyone, but only he has to work to get it, if he studies to get better solely to better the covenant further he should be rewarded a greater share than the rest. Now, say you take this out of the covenant's treasury, the magus who wishes to better the covenant is actually bleeding it dry, which is directly opposed to what he wishes to achieve.
If someone decides that per the charter, you do not have to do more covenantwork, and goes to visit his parens in another tribunal, fiddle about another season and harvest vis the third, He sees that in the end, he gets a share of the vis, and the one who worked hard for the covenant gets three shares.
Could you see this person going to a tribunal to complain? If the charter stated exactly this sort of deal, he would be laughed at and might even get a bad reputation as lazy or greedy, if the covenant has another deal, can you see a magus working this hard to better the covenant? I can not, much of the perceived progression is relative, if you see you have a greater income because you work more, you feel glad, it might be that other people become more powerful than you, but you get a reward at their expense for working for their covenant.

By the way, we are in a relatively fresh environment, and will probably have quite some vis. I also am the Vim specialist and I am a Mercurian mage. Half of the vis saved goes into my pocket, the other half goes back to the covenant, this will also mean I will learn to heal quite soon...

As for non-vis censure, someone who does not contribute in covenantwork not only is punished for at least the amount of vis he could gather (I thought we had a penalty of 6 vis), it also is a reason to vote for suspension of membership, in which case the member is not allowed to vote and does not participate in the Aegis ritual (but can get a token). Suspension lasts for as long as there is reason or two years, after which the member can be expelled or

As for non-vis incentives, I plan to make clear that everything I make carries my sigil, so every visitor can see my mark on quite a portion of the covenant, I know it is little more advanced than a dog lifting its paw, but it is good to let people know you make efforts for others if you want them to do something for you.
As for the books I am copying, I make the list of books that are interesting, and well, the arts that interest me just stand out a little more. This will extrapolate to other projects as well, if you have a problem, you propose a solution that best settles your problems.

The other good part is that I reside in established covenants while our buildings are being build. I live in luxury, while the rest lives in a hovel in the swamp.

But this solves the vis extraction problem.

Vis ressources are given in another way. The only problem is vis extraction, and this is a way to solve this.
If you can't have one rule that works for everything, make more, and that's it

I also think you maybe value Vis Extraction too much. Due precisely to its availability, it may make vim vis less valued than any other kind of vis (see the mercere charter for this)
So, 4 vim vis pawns are probably not equivalent to 4 Ignem pawns, for exemple.
A terrae magus could thus prefer 1 pawn of terram vis for a service that'll moreso benefit his covenant (and thus him) than 4 "useless" vim pawns he'll have to trade through the redcaps.

Simply that a young covenant may have very harsh restriction upon its members, but no magus is likely to be above others.
While an older covenant may be more "cool", but with a difference between elder members and newbies.

Yes, totally agreed.

Hum... Well, maybe I'm an evil bastard, but I'd probably keep the same rule, relaxing it a bit when it's less needed (like 1 season/3 years), than trying to make work attractive