What constitutes a scam or not is also at times very subjective. On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, yeah, I am fine. I don't know what happened there. Maybe I dropped > something on a key and didn't notice, but sorry. > ---- > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:19 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./ > > ---- > > 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...] > >> > >> > >> > > > >
