On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
A Checkered Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for
violations of the rules that directly and substantially result
in a Win. When a Checkered Card has been issued and not been
the subject of an open CFJ for seven days, [the win
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
It may be valuable to have some actions (voting on a Decision, for
example) be automatically disqualifying for some short amount of time (2
hours or so) to help prevent timing scams.
Won't work because of the time gap between end of voting and resolut
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Proto: "losing conditions"
Seems this isn't really popular, but I'll point out a couple bugs anyhow:
When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game,
and those persons are not Disqualified from winning as
described by the Rul
>You can have a scam that uses a hidden, unintended loophole that is perfectly
legal when pointed out/CFJd, and you can have a scam that comes from, say,
an Officer violating a SHALL NOT.
Well, yeah. But then we can get into if it was a violation of their officer
SHALL NOTs or some other kind of c
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> What constitutes a scam or not is also at times very subjective.
>
> The point is not what constitutes a scam. The point is what constitutes
> breaking the rules.
>
> You can have a scam that uses
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> What constitutes a scam or not is also at times very subjective.
The point is not what constitutes a scam. The point is what constitutes
breaking the rules.
You can have a scam that uses a hidden, unintended loophole that is
perfectly legal when point
What constitutes a scam or not is also at times very subjective.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, yeah, I am fine. I don't know what happened there. Maybe I dropped
> something on a key and didn't notice,
Sorry, yeah, I am fine. I don't know what happened there. Maybe I dropped
something on a key and didn't notice, but sorry.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:19 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
>
> I actually think tha
On Sep 24, 2017 7:19 PM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
I actually think that we should continue to allow scammed wins because it
is one of the most interesting parts qqwerr of the
game./
Are you qwert alright there?
I actually think that we should continue to allow scammed wins because it is
one of the most interesting parts qqwerr of the game./
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On S
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> The problem is that most scams happen in one message, meaning there
> isn't time to card the violator before e scams a win. I might suggest
> some rule that makes winning via a deliberate rule violation
> automatically invalidate the win, but I don't kn
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Proto: "losing conditions"
>
> [Right now, it's probably worth it to break the rules to win, because wins
> are far more tangible and lasting than cards. Let's change the equation...]
>
>
> Amend Rule 2449 (Winning the Game) by replacing:
I’m generally against mechanisms that are in theory based on violations of the
rules but have no actual connection to the “actual” gamestate; In my opinion it
should be IMPOSSIBLE to card someone who has not violated a SHALL. If we did
that, CFJ judgement would simply happen via CFJ (and there’s
I don't think i feel as strongly as CB but I do feel similarly. Both issues
would be fixed with a) decentralizing (my prefered format is similar to a
CFJ: separate the finger pointer, referee, and judge) cards and b) allowing
forgiveness without apology (perhaps as Agoran Consent). To make up for t
Would make tactical card-flinging (tactically exaggerating other people's
wrong-doings for example) a thing and I feel very queasy about giving our
subjective things that kind of power.
>Until e publishes such an apology, as a penalty, the bad sport is
disqualified from winning,
I'm also very aga
It may be valuable to have some actions (voting on a Decision, for example) be
automatically disqualifying for some short amount of time (2 hours or so) to
help prevent timing scams.
Gaelan
> On Sep 24, 2017, at 3:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> Proto: "losing conditions"
>
> [Right now
Proto: "losing conditions"
[Right now, it's probably worth it to break the rules to win, because wins
are far more tangible and lasting than cards. Let's change the equation...]
Amend Rule 2449 (Winning the Game) by replacing:
When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game,
17 matches
Mail list logo
