I'd rather not have wins destroy other fractions-of-wins because it
snowballs. If you win, you're in a better position to win again because
your fractions-of-wins aren't harmed.

An easier solution imo is that only one person can win per month, max. It
becomes a bit of a "dynastic" game though lol.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Historically, I think we've tended to have a mix. Some of the economic wins
> have resulted in complete economy resets.
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 16:40, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that each
> > official method of winning can only be done by one person? Once
> > someone's done it first the method's gone.
> > Ribbons seem like a sensible exception to that given how long-term they
> > are and that you "can't" get them as your first win.
> >
> > On 2018-02-14 08:33, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > > Append to 2449 “winning the game”:
> > >
> > > When one or more players win the game:
> > > * Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are
> cancelled.
> > > * Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not win
> > are destroyed.
> > > * The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove two
> > ribbons at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not
> win,
> > excluding the White ribbon.
> > > * [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real
> > recordkeeping]
> > > * [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]
> > >
> > > —
> > >
> > > Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an
> > incentive to stop it
> > >
> > > Gaelan
> >
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to