On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > The winner of this tournament shall be the person who is able to gain > the most karma, described below, over the course of the 4 week game.
What if there's a tie? If you want ties to have multiple winners, typical is to use "person(s) who are able". The way it's written, if there's a tie, then no person gains the most thus there is no winner (which is fine - if that's what you intend!) How you deal with a tie is important, as it's possible for a large-enough coalition to trade karma to all come up with a tie. Again, either way is fine, but it should be clear. > no participant shall state in any publicly visible manner and actions that > they have taken in regards to the game. If this SHALL is intended to be enforced by Cards, it gives non-players an advantage :). Maybe put in a karma-penalty for breaking regulations? (though that has enforcement difficulties if you're required to adjudicate, especially as your wording leaves several loopholes). One loophole has already been pointed out by CuddleBeam. When does one become a participant? All participants get a Badge. You're not going to extend it to all persons everywhere. So what makes someone a participant? Not just receiving an offer - no consent there, and it opens up spam possibilities. Probably sending the code words to the Herald (that seems most logical). So that means that you can talk about your actions freely up until you send a code word to the Herald, because you're not a participant until then? Personally I'd fix this by taking out the Shall, just too many cans of worms with punishments. Just say "actual exchanges (code words) are ineffective if done publicly." You can talk about it all you want that way, but there's never any public proof of what trades were made. -G.
