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 > > > > > > >