On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, ais523 wrote: >> On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 13:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > Any person who wins the game while knowingly breaking a Rule, >> > or while knowingly being a party to a Rules breach, where the >> > breach is directly and substantially responsible for the win, >> > commits the Class-4 Crime of Ungamesmanship. If any party is >> > found GUILTY of this crime, then, once the judgement has been >> > in effect for one week, the Herald SHALL, as part of the >> > punishment, revoke any Champion title awarded to the guilty >> > parties, and award them the patent tile Cheater. >> >> I don't like the patent title here, as it'll just encourage people to >> attempt to get it (in a perverse way). Everything else looks fine. > > Wondered about that. I really want to mark "cheaters" with something > thatis a true and beyond-immediate-criminal-penalty badge of shame, and > make it clear that it's not part of the tradeoff - someone who wins this > way is truly breaking the rules. No honor, just: "X is a cheater." Is > it even possible to make one that doesn't have a perverse incentive? >
Make it a separate class of thing from a patent title, maybe? For example, add a clause to the rule simply defining a "cheater" as somebody who has committed Ungamesmanship, with no title or list of cheaters. That would make it possible to entirely factually refer to somebody as one, with a rule-defined meaning behind the accusation, while also keeping there from being any kind of report it is perversely desirable to get o. Ideally, it shouldn't be like a hall of infamy to aspire to, merely a fact of the universe that a certain person is known to cheat. (I also do like stripping cheaters of *all* Champion titles, much as the Olympics strip them of medals even from before the cheating.) - teucer
