On Sep 24, 2017 7:19 PM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
I actually think that we should continue to allow scammed wins because it is one of the most interesting parts qqwerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr of the game./ Are you qwert alright there? ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: >> 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. > > Fair enough. Here's an attempt at the simple method: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > A Checkered Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for > violations of the rules that directly and substantially result > in a Win. When a Checkered Card has been issued and not been > the subject of an open CFJ for seven days, [the win is revoked] > > > [how is the win "revoked"? this means a win could be invalidated 14+ > days after it occurred (i.e. after a CFJ is called and settled). > What's the minimal method of taking away the win - does ratifying that > it didn't happen 14 days ago perturb the game too much? Make us > question the speaker identity for too long? Etc. Or do we let em > have the win, and strip em of the titles later?] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [Of course, it could be possible that none of this is necessary and > I'm solving a problem that's not a big deal...] > > >
