Maybe fractions-of-wins is the wrong answer, but I feel like a win, by its very 
nature, should be bad for everyone else, so that we have an incentive to stop 
them. That’s just me, however. Given that we rarely have more that one win per 
month anyway, CB’s solution doesn’t do much. Not sure what the best way to do 
this is. 


> On Feb 13, 2018, at 1:59 PM, Cuddle Beam <> wrote:
> 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 <> 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 <> 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