On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 15:05 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: >> I'm currently working on that unified contracts/orgs/agencies >> implementation I was talking about. I want non-player persons to be >> able to join contracts, which necessitates some penalty for breaches. >> This would also incidentally also fix that thing where G. couldn't be >> punished for publishing a false report because e wasn't a player. To >> understand what is meant by "persons who play the game" see CFJ 1709. >> Of course, most existing punishments are meaningless for non-players, >> so I had to come up with something. This proposal adds a new card, >> called a Black Card, which, upon activation, prevents the bad sport >> from registering or taking any game actions for 30 days. > > You need to be very very careful with this sort of mechanic, because if > there's any way to award such a card via scam, it can lead to one > player locking out all the others and gaining a dictatorship over time > (it'd just take four days in this case; attempt to Ratify Without > Objection a blatantly false statement that gives you an advantage, and > use Black Cards to lock everyone else out of objecting). > > I'd rather the mechanic were designed in such a way that even if > scammed, other players could still overcome the restrictions it imposes > somehow.
There are already some fairly strong restrictions on how many cards the referee can issue per week. Still, this could be a problem. How's this addition: "A Black Card CANNOT be issued to current players, and no more than 3 Black Cards CAN be issued per week. Any attempt to issue a Black Card in violation of these limitations is INEFFECTIVE." -Aris P.S. Can someone come up with a better name for Levying a Fine? -Aris
