On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Yeah, but that's how the Rest penalty is more or less balanced; to do > a massive win manipulation that resets everyone's caste earns the rests > to get you a ways (or without mitigating circumstances) all the way out > the door. Maybe add to that removal from one office but all of them... > about as classy as throwing a fit of pique and abandoning a case..er.. > Anyway, (1) I'm surprised officeholding hasn't been made secured-2, > seems like it should be and (2) if this went through would it count as > a r101 penalty and block rests? (or vice versa).
fwiw, when I submitted the proposal it seemed plausible to me that the SHALL NOT in the cards rule really was broken, and also that the scam generally worked, leaving all of us Savages and coppro with a win from a clear breach of trust. A massive rest penalty would be preferable.
