Only a 2/5 chance of it not improving the accused’s status.

 
Better than no chance.

No, I mean there’s only a one-fifth chance of it hurting them, and another 1/5 chance of doing nothing. 60% of the time it’ll better the accused and kinda makes Tabloids useless.

Huh? They can earn -3, 0, 0, +3 or +5. So by defending themselves they’ll on average earn +1, so the tabloid still averages -2.

I like the option of defending oneself, but I’d rather have the Speaker arbitrate these.

I prefer that the players arbitrate these, ideally through CfJs.

There’s little reason to use a Tabloid if this is enacted.  It’s an average of -2 for the accused, and -1 for the accuser.

@Purplebeard

How does it make any thematic sense for the speaker to respond to tabloids and verify them as “correct” or not?

@Josh

Dynastic rules that except CfJs to be used with regularity seems like a poor mechanic to me.

@Spitemaster

Well then don’t post crappy tabloid headlines where there is room for the accused to “prove” their innocence.

Dynastic rules that except CfJs to be used with regularity seems like a poor mechanic to me.

Why?

@Clucky’s Third Point: If the “proof” of innocence is random, it doesn’t matter how good your argument against them is.

@Clucky’s First Point: Thematically his verdict represents public opinion. Gameplay-wise, its to keep one from posting anything and claiming TABLOID!

@Clucky’s Second Point: I’m fine with CfJ’s, but wouldn’t these be Points of Order anyways?

The “proof” is just as random as the proof that you actually did anything wrong in the first place.

I feel like CfJs are designed to be this level above the ruleset for when the ruleset gets itself into knots.

Points of Order can’t change gamestate, so there is no way to reverse anything with them. Just get some vague ruling.

But the proof one did something ISN’T random; it has to be based on a contradiction they’ve made.

You can’t change anything with a Point of Order, but you can cause an incorrectly-resolved thing to be changed. If a Tabloid Headline is made without proof, then a Point of Order can decide this to be the case and then the Tabloid Headline was illegal all along, so its effects are reversed.

Clucky: it doesn’t, but we needn’t let that stand in the way of a good mechanic.

I feel like CfJs are designed to be this level above the ruleset for when the ruleset gets itself into knots.

That’s how it tends to be used, sure, but there seems to be no reason not to use it for other purposes when appropriate.

(no time to admin right now)