On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > Proto: "losing conditions" > > [Right now, it's probably worth it to break the rules to win, because wins > are far more tangible and lasting than cards. Let's change the equation...] > > > Amend Rule 2449 (Winning the Game) by replacing: > When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game, > those persons win the game; > with: > When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game, > and those persons are not Disqualified from winning as > described by the Rules, those persons win the game; > > > Amend the Rule titled "Such is Karma" by appending: > Etas are disqualified from winning. > > > Amend Rule 2427 (Yellow Cards) by replacing: > Until e publishes such an apology, as a penalty, the bad sport's > voting strength > with: > Until e publishes such an apology, as a penalty, the bad sport > is disqualified from winning, and the bad sport's voting strength > > > Amend Rule 2475 (Red Cards) by replacing: > of the Card is reduced by 2. > with: > of the Card is reduced by 2, and e is disqualified from winning > for 30 days. > > > Amend Rule 2476 (Pink Slips) by appending the following sentence to > the last paragraph: > The bad sport is disqualified from winning for 30 days from the > issuance of the card. > > [Was trying to decide what the right length of time was for Red and > Pink, something between 14-30 I think]. > > [Any other losing conditions?]
The problem is that most scams happen in one message, meaning there isn't time to card the violator before e scams a win. I might suggest some rule that makes winning via a deliberate rule violation automatically invalidate the win, but I don't know how I'd word that. -Aris
