You may view archives of proposals that were approved or overruled.
Promote 8 articles to featured status and purge Wikipedia of its vandalism before your opponents can and also before Wikipedia becomes hopelessly vandalized.
Each player prepares two decks-- a "good" deck and a "bad" deck. The good deck contains cards which could benefit Wikipedia in one fashion or another. The bad deck contains cards which are detrimental to Wikipedia. The good decks are used to build the player's hand of cards. The bad decks are used to generate random bad events by flipping over the top card. Both the good card deck and bad card deck are expandable so long as the deck meets regulatory standards.
Players remove an article card without special text from their own good deck and place it in play. Each player should shuffle both decks of the player to their right and return them once finished. Players then draw six cards from their good card deck to form a hand.
Additionally, players should put into play a user card to represent themselves. This card does not count toward the deck totals. The user card contains special text that gives the player some expertise in one or more areas or may give the player some other virtue. It is a good idea to build good and bad decks which complement the user card you play with.
The playing space is set up as follows: Each player will have his "GOOD" deck to his left and his "BAD" deck to his right, with the respective discards for each pile adjacent to them. Each player's "in play" space is divided into the Wikipedia space (for policy cards), the User space (for vandals, bots, and miscellaneous cards relating to the player). The Main space (for article cards) is a common area in the center of the playing space (also considered "in play"). Article cards in the Main space may be played on by any player. When an action card is played, it is usually discarded immediately, though there may be exceptions.
Decide who will go first. Play passes to the left.
The turn has several phases:
When an event or action card is used, it is discarded and is placed into its respective (good or bad) discard pile. Once the draw pile corresponding to that pile runs out, the pile is turned over and reshuffled as the new draw pile. If a special instruction calls for a player to "remove a card from play" or place a card "out of play", the card should be set aside, not to be used again during the current game.
If you are restrained from further edits, you may not play any cards (including instants) on any player's turn, including your own. An exception to this rule would be a "block appeal"-type card. For the purposes of blocking and editing restraints of any sort, a full round makes up the duration from whenever the restraint goes into effect until just prior to your next turn.
If at the end of your turn there are five or more bad cards in play, the game has reached a serious state of vandalism. The serious state of vandalism ends if a player is able to finish a turn with four or fewer bad cards in play. If the serious state of vandalism continues until the beginning of next turn of the player who left it in that condition originally, the game is over and all players lose the game.
If at any time during the game a drawpile is depleted, the appropriate discard pile should be turned over and reshuffled. Alternatively, if players agree in advance to do so, a deckout rule may be added for a faster and more challenging game. With the deckout rule, the game is lost by all players if any drawpile in the game is empty at the beginning of any player's turn. If the deckout rule is not agreed upon in advance, players should assume the former rule.
The first player to promote a personal total of 8 articles to featured status and clean up all vandalism on all featured articles wins.
Good cards (good deck, these are played from the player's hand):
Bad cards (disaster deck, these are played as soon as they are turned over)
On your turn, you may play an edit card from your hand if you have the appropriate user access level to do so and only if that article has no vandalism. Edit cards can take many forms, and it would be impossible to list all types here. Here are a few types:
As soon as the card is played, follow any instructions on the card.
Just like in real life, you may sacrifice valuable resources that could otherwise have been spent performing a constructive edit by performing anti-vandalism measures.
In order to sacrifice an edit card, you must have the appropriate access level normally required for the card you wish to sacrifice. Play the edit card on the bad card you are addressing. Special text on the edit card is ignored during a sacrifice. Also, unlike other actions, sacrificial edits do not require you to turn over any bad cards.
Here is a list of sacrifices you may make:
Any player:
Rollbacker:
Administrator:
Jimbo:
An instant card may be played at any time during the game, even interrupting another player's actions. The instant functions the same as an edit card except that it can be played at any time. Following the instant effect, the card is instantly discarded.
At the beginning of each turn, perform the following:
Following each edit card you play (with the exception of sacrifices), turn over a new bad card and put it into play.
Vandals are placed into your userspace. Vandals sport a special text instruction that comes into play immediately. Some vandals may cause more bad cards to be turned over; some may require extra sacrifices; the possibilities are endless. Many vandals will require vandalism phase maintenance at the beginning of each turn or certain turns. If during the vandalism phase a vandal causes a card to be turned over from the bad card deck, the new card's text is followed immediately, except for any requests for more bad cards to be drawn.
Vandalism works like the opposite of an Edit card. Unless otherwise specified, distribute a vandalism counter to the appropriate article. The method for determining which article to vandalize has not been finalized yet. Follow any special text on the card, and then discard it.
Vandalism on an article prevents it from receiving any positive edits until all vandalism is cleared from that article.
Occasionally, bad things happen that were not of vandalous origin. Things like the servers experiencing an outage can happen. When a discord card is played, follow its text, and discard it when finished.
A bot is a supervandal. Bots are capable of producing massive amounts of edits in a short period of time. As such, a poorly programmed bot can wreak havoc quickly on an array of articles. Most bad bots will require one or more vandalism counters to be distributed at the beginning of each turn to articles.
A bad policy functions much like a discord card, except that it remains in play until deleted.
A bad article is one that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. These cards go into the article space and stay there until they are deleted. These articles may not receive vandal counters.
In order to earn higher user access levels, you must collect centijimbos (cJ). You earn cJ each time you play a constructive edit card (including instants) on a good article. This is the only way to earn cJ, and it is impossible to lose them. Centijimbos should be tracked using a scorepad.
This chart will help determine how many cJ are earned for each edit. The number corresponds to the level of the article, kept track of with edit counters (bot edit counters should be divided by five before adding to normal edit counters):
The following is a list of user access levels, in the order that you can get them, with the amount of centijimbos needed. You do not spend the cJ to get the rank; instead, you get the correct amount of cJ, which then gives you the ability to play a card that upgrades your user card.
It is possible to win as an anonymous user, but it is extremely difficult.
Certain rules apply when adding or removing cards from your playing decks. In order to play in tournaments, decks must meet the following conditions (recommended for normal gameplay as well):
![]() | Below, you may propose amendments to the ruleset listed above. Before making a proposal,
see if it has already been overruled.
Amendments which the community agrees upon will be adopted. Please remember that the amendments proposed below are not official until they are approved by the committee and adopted into the ruleset above. Keep in mind that if you word your proposal poorly or don't communicate it effectively, fewer people will see the importance of it and may not voice an opinion. |
Click here to propose an amendment.
Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs)
Rule: So far, no rule has been established as to what article should be targeted by a vandalism. Here is one of several possible proposals.
Vandalism is targeted at the highest-profile article; that is, the article with the highest class rating. The second vandalism on a player's turn goes to the second-highest, third to the third-highest, and so forth, looping back to the highest if vandalisms outnumber the articles.
If a vandalism card specifies what to vandalize, then break the loop, and the next article to be vandalized is whichever one would have been next. This may be the same article that was specified, meaning that an article could be vandalized twice in a row.
Dependencies: None.
Comments
Do we need to place vandalism cards on specific articles? That would only be necessary if articles cannot be upgraded while vandalised. I didn't see that anywhere in the rules; I'll propose it. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I am fine with this proposal; I can't see any better option. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
That rule change might actually serve to balance the game, since the player winning (i.e., with high-class articles) would be targeted more. Joshualouie711 ( talk) 23:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs)
Dependencies: None.
When building a deck and during play, cards are identical if ALL of the following are true:
The following parts of a card should be ignored when comparing cards to see if they are identical:
This provides a loophole by which multiple instances of the "same" Wikipedia card or instant card may appear in the deck without breaking any rules, provided the card has been released in multiple versions.
Comments
So... Does this mean we can't use identical cards at all (other than your loophole)? That is what your last sentence seems to indicate. I don't like that idea, as I somewhat said above. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 06:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't really agree with this. If a card changes design, then that would make two cards different. This would also cause problems with things like manufacturing errors or typos. I think the only thing that should decide if two cards are identical is the title. RteeeeKed ( talk) 00:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Comments We've all gotten into the predicament where we've got the most worthless hand in the world. This additional rule permits the user to escape a little less-than-gracefully from that situation. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I porpose that all cards that can be used as instants, and contain interaction with the opponent be collab
Comments
I'm not sure we need to adopt a new class of cards, but I do agree that we need some cards that have abilities which apply to all players. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
ithoght they were different wikimedia projects-- Canvas Hat 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi-- it's as you thought-- articles get put into a general pool where everyone may edit them; credit goes directly to any editor who operates on it (and, if the WikiProject thing that's currently up goes through, WikiProject-induced edits will generate no credit for any players yet advance the article forward with no particular player being the "one who earned it", since technically the edit would have been performed by someone other than the players). As far as which players are affected by different cards, some cards refer to "at the beginning of your turn" and others "on each player's turn", and there are other variations as well. Rather than a rule proposal, this looks like a callout for more cards of the second variety I just mentioned-- cards that recognize there are more than one player. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to introduce a new class of cards; we can just have cards in other classes that involve multiple players. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
A scale that goes up to eleven, Articles with higher priorities get vandalized most. Sophisticated vandals may attack low priority pages, or others, but the 'common' vandal will attack a 7 over a 3.
Comments That's an interesting idea. Rather than a ten point scale, perhaps low, medium, and high are appropriate. I'd like to hear what others have to say on this idea since I have mixed feelings about whether this is a good idea. Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments
Only issue I see with this is that it's often difficult to categorize an article, but this can definitely be done. Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I DO NOT want centijimbos to be messed with. Period. Since that seems to be the only thing giving this proposal a point, and I am against it, I don't think that this is worth doing. In addition, there are no color-coded tabs in Wikipedia articles; we want these to look like actual articles, as much as we can, so adding in colored tabs would seriously take away from that. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC) wait a minute, where will the psychedelic frogfish go? Leomk0403 ( talk) 23:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC) how about Catergories?
Problems I see with the names:
I don’t necessarily assert that I have good ideas for better names; however:
That’s my 2 edits, anyway. Timwi ( talk) 17:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
In real life, editors sometimes lose their enthusiasm for keeping articles up-to-date and correct. Sometimes other elements of life (job, family, etc.) get in the way. Demotivation would cover this kind of things. A player who has been demotivated will not edit articles, but may perform other activities that are normal for their turn. Might this be considered related to WikiDeath?
Good cards:
barnstars: Give a barnstar to another player to remove one demotivation from that player. If all demotivations are removed, then the player can edit again. Image: There are several possibilities, but I like:
. Other barnstars could work here as well.
WikiLove: Show your WikiLove to another player to remove one demotivation from that player. If all demotivations are removed, then the player can edit again. Image:
Free Time: You have managed to free up some time and energy to work on articles. Remove one demotivation markers from your player card. If all demotivations are removed, then the player can edit again. Image: An analogue clock showing 10 o'clock.
Bad cards:
Instant:
Demotivate: Play this card on any player to demotivate that player. A player who has been demotivated will not upgrade any articles. Quote: "Why bother?" Image is a man sitting at a desk beside a computer with his head in his hands.
Family Gets in the Way: Sometimes other things get in the way of getting articles edited. Play this card on the player on your right to demotivate that player. Image: A frazzled-looking woman standing with a crying baby in one arm, trying to use a vacuum cleaner with the other, with a little boy tugging on her skirt on the side away from the vacuum cleaner and a dog barking at the vacuum. Her facial-expression is a step away from breaking down to cry. Quote: "Why me?"
Work Get in the Way: So much for doing a little edit while at work. Your boss has just dropped a ton of work on you. Play this card on the player on your left to demotivate that player. Image: A person sitting at a desk in a cubicle, with a computer to the side and the desk absolutely covered in stacks of papers.
Honey-Do List: You have to get some chores done before you can get back to working on Wikipedia articles. Play this card on your player card as a demotivator.
Comments
Perhaps as the "Honey-Do List" quote, put an image of a dusty rug, a pile of dirty laundry, the trash can overflowing... etc. Joshualouie711 ( talk) 23:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why you would have any reason to play cards to motivate your opponent. That seems like it just harms you! RteeeeKed ( talk) 00:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
If a player is playing cards from his/her deck in other players' userspaces, it will become important to determine whose card is being removed from play, so it can go to that player's graveyard. By having different colours or designs on the backs of the cards, the players should be able to easily and without argument determine whose card this is.
Comments We can make card sleeves to solve this problem. Billythekid314 19:06, October 15, 2016 (UTC-4)
Comments I know this changes a lot, but I hope this will still be considered. RteeeeKed ( talk) 00:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Comments
Comments
You may view archives of proposals that were approved or overruled.
Promote 8 articles to featured status and purge Wikipedia of its vandalism before your opponents can and also before Wikipedia becomes hopelessly vandalized.
Each player prepares two decks-- a "good" deck and a "bad" deck. The good deck contains cards which could benefit Wikipedia in one fashion or another. The bad deck contains cards which are detrimental to Wikipedia. The good decks are used to build the player's hand of cards. The bad decks are used to generate random bad events by flipping over the top card. Both the good card deck and bad card deck are expandable so long as the deck meets regulatory standards.
Players remove an article card without special text from their own good deck and place it in play. Each player should shuffle both decks of the player to their right and return them once finished. Players then draw six cards from their good card deck to form a hand.
Additionally, players should put into play a user card to represent themselves. This card does not count toward the deck totals. The user card contains special text that gives the player some expertise in one or more areas or may give the player some other virtue. It is a good idea to build good and bad decks which complement the user card you play with.
The playing space is set up as follows: Each player will have his "GOOD" deck to his left and his "BAD" deck to his right, with the respective discards for each pile adjacent to them. Each player's "in play" space is divided into the Wikipedia space (for policy cards), the User space (for vandals, bots, and miscellaneous cards relating to the player). The Main space (for article cards) is a common area in the center of the playing space (also considered "in play"). Article cards in the Main space may be played on by any player. When an action card is played, it is usually discarded immediately, though there may be exceptions.
Decide who will go first. Play passes to the left.
The turn has several phases:
When an event or action card is used, it is discarded and is placed into its respective (good or bad) discard pile. Once the draw pile corresponding to that pile runs out, the pile is turned over and reshuffled as the new draw pile. If a special instruction calls for a player to "remove a card from play" or place a card "out of play", the card should be set aside, not to be used again during the current game.
If you are restrained from further edits, you may not play any cards (including instants) on any player's turn, including your own. An exception to this rule would be a "block appeal"-type card. For the purposes of blocking and editing restraints of any sort, a full round makes up the duration from whenever the restraint goes into effect until just prior to your next turn.
If at the end of your turn there are five or more bad cards in play, the game has reached a serious state of vandalism. The serious state of vandalism ends if a player is able to finish a turn with four or fewer bad cards in play. If the serious state of vandalism continues until the beginning of next turn of the player who left it in that condition originally, the game is over and all players lose the game.
If at any time during the game a drawpile is depleted, the appropriate discard pile should be turned over and reshuffled. Alternatively, if players agree in advance to do so, a deckout rule may be added for a faster and more challenging game. With the deckout rule, the game is lost by all players if any drawpile in the game is empty at the beginning of any player's turn. If the deckout rule is not agreed upon in advance, players should assume the former rule.
The first player to promote a personal total of 8 articles to featured status and clean up all vandalism on all featured articles wins.
Good cards (good deck, these are played from the player's hand):
Bad cards (disaster deck, these are played as soon as they are turned over)
On your turn, you may play an edit card from your hand if you have the appropriate user access level to do so and only if that article has no vandalism. Edit cards can take many forms, and it would be impossible to list all types here. Here are a few types:
As soon as the card is played, follow any instructions on the card.
Just like in real life, you may sacrifice valuable resources that could otherwise have been spent performing a constructive edit by performing anti-vandalism measures.
In order to sacrifice an edit card, you must have the appropriate access level normally required for the card you wish to sacrifice. Play the edit card on the bad card you are addressing. Special text on the edit card is ignored during a sacrifice. Also, unlike other actions, sacrificial edits do not require you to turn over any bad cards.
Here is a list of sacrifices you may make:
Any player:
Rollbacker:
Administrator:
Jimbo:
An instant card may be played at any time during the game, even interrupting another player's actions. The instant functions the same as an edit card except that it can be played at any time. Following the instant effect, the card is instantly discarded.
At the beginning of each turn, perform the following:
Following each edit card you play (with the exception of sacrifices), turn over a new bad card and put it into play.
Vandals are placed into your userspace. Vandals sport a special text instruction that comes into play immediately. Some vandals may cause more bad cards to be turned over; some may require extra sacrifices; the possibilities are endless. Many vandals will require vandalism phase maintenance at the beginning of each turn or certain turns. If during the vandalism phase a vandal causes a card to be turned over from the bad card deck, the new card's text is followed immediately, except for any requests for more bad cards to be drawn.
Vandalism works like the opposite of an Edit card. Unless otherwise specified, distribute a vandalism counter to the appropriate article. The method for determining which article to vandalize has not been finalized yet. Follow any special text on the card, and then discard it.
Vandalism on an article prevents it from receiving any positive edits until all vandalism is cleared from that article.
Occasionally, bad things happen that were not of vandalous origin. Things like the servers experiencing an outage can happen. When a discord card is played, follow its text, and discard it when finished.
A bot is a supervandal. Bots are capable of producing massive amounts of edits in a short period of time. As such, a poorly programmed bot can wreak havoc quickly on an array of articles. Most bad bots will require one or more vandalism counters to be distributed at the beginning of each turn to articles.
A bad policy functions much like a discord card, except that it remains in play until deleted.
A bad article is one that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. These cards go into the article space and stay there until they are deleted. These articles may not receive vandal counters.
In order to earn higher user access levels, you must collect centijimbos (cJ). You earn cJ each time you play a constructive edit card (including instants) on a good article. This is the only way to earn cJ, and it is impossible to lose them. Centijimbos should be tracked using a scorepad.
This chart will help determine how many cJ are earned for each edit. The number corresponds to the level of the article, kept track of with edit counters (bot edit counters should be divided by five before adding to normal edit counters):
The following is a list of user access levels, in the order that you can get them, with the amount of centijimbos needed. You do not spend the cJ to get the rank; instead, you get the correct amount of cJ, which then gives you the ability to play a card that upgrades your user card.
It is possible to win as an anonymous user, but it is extremely difficult.
Certain rules apply when adding or removing cards from your playing decks. In order to play in tournaments, decks must meet the following conditions (recommended for normal gameplay as well):
![]() | Below, you may propose amendments to the ruleset listed above. Before making a proposal,
see if it has already been overruled.
Amendments which the community agrees upon will be adopted. Please remember that the amendments proposed below are not official until they are approved by the committee and adopted into the ruleset above. Keep in mind that if you word your proposal poorly or don't communicate it effectively, fewer people will see the importance of it and may not voice an opinion. |
Click here to propose an amendment.
Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs)
Rule: So far, no rule has been established as to what article should be targeted by a vandalism. Here is one of several possible proposals.
Vandalism is targeted at the highest-profile article; that is, the article with the highest class rating. The second vandalism on a player's turn goes to the second-highest, third to the third-highest, and so forth, looping back to the highest if vandalisms outnumber the articles.
If a vandalism card specifies what to vandalize, then break the loop, and the next article to be vandalized is whichever one would have been next. This may be the same article that was specified, meaning that an article could be vandalized twice in a row.
Dependencies: None.
Comments
Do we need to place vandalism cards on specific articles? That would only be necessary if articles cannot be upgraded while vandalised. I didn't see that anywhere in the rules; I'll propose it. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I am fine with this proposal; I can't see any better option. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
That rule change might actually serve to balance the game, since the player winning (i.e., with high-class articles) would be targeted more. Joshualouie711 ( talk) 23:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs)
Dependencies: None.
When building a deck and during play, cards are identical if ALL of the following are true:
The following parts of a card should be ignored when comparing cards to see if they are identical:
This provides a loophole by which multiple instances of the "same" Wikipedia card or instant card may appear in the deck without breaking any rules, provided the card has been released in multiple versions.
Comments
So... Does this mean we can't use identical cards at all (other than your loophole)? That is what your last sentence seems to indicate. I don't like that idea, as I somewhat said above. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 06:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't really agree with this. If a card changes design, then that would make two cards different. This would also cause problems with things like manufacturing errors or typos. I think the only thing that should decide if two cards are identical is the title. RteeeeKed ( talk) 00:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Comments We've all gotten into the predicament where we've got the most worthless hand in the world. This additional rule permits the user to escape a little less-than-gracefully from that situation. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I porpose that all cards that can be used as instants, and contain interaction with the opponent be collab
Comments
I'm not sure we need to adopt a new class of cards, but I do agree that we need some cards that have abilities which apply to all players. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
ithoght they were different wikimedia projects-- Canvas Hat 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi-- it's as you thought-- articles get put into a general pool where everyone may edit them; credit goes directly to any editor who operates on it (and, if the WikiProject thing that's currently up goes through, WikiProject-induced edits will generate no credit for any players yet advance the article forward with no particular player being the "one who earned it", since technically the edit would have been performed by someone other than the players). As far as which players are affected by different cards, some cards refer to "at the beginning of your turn" and others "on each player's turn", and there are other variations as well. Rather than a rule proposal, this looks like a callout for more cards of the second variety I just mentioned-- cards that recognize there are more than one player. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to introduce a new class of cards; we can just have cards in other classes that involve multiple players. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
A scale that goes up to eleven, Articles with higher priorities get vandalized most. Sophisticated vandals may attack low priority pages, or others, but the 'common' vandal will attack a 7 over a 3.
Comments That's an interesting idea. Rather than a ten point scale, perhaps low, medium, and high are appropriate. I'd like to hear what others have to say on this idea since I have mixed feelings about whether this is a good idea. Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments
Only issue I see with this is that it's often difficult to categorize an article, but this can definitely be done. Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I DO NOT want centijimbos to be messed with. Period. Since that seems to be the only thing giving this proposal a point, and I am against it, I don't think that this is worth doing. In addition, there are no color-coded tabs in Wikipedia articles; we want these to look like actual articles, as much as we can, so adding in colored tabs would seriously take away from that. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC) wait a minute, where will the psychedelic frogfish go? Leomk0403 ( talk) 23:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC) how about Catergories?
Problems I see with the names:
I don’t necessarily assert that I have good ideas for better names; however:
That’s my 2 edits, anyway. Timwi ( talk) 17:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
In real life, editors sometimes lose their enthusiasm for keeping articles up-to-date and correct. Sometimes other elements of life (job, family, etc.) get in the way. Demotivation would cover this kind of things. A player who has been demotivated will not edit articles, but may perform other activities that are normal for their turn. Might this be considered related to WikiDeath?
Good cards:
barnstars: Give a barnstar to another player to remove one demotivation from that player. If all demotivations are removed, then the player can edit again. Image: There are several possibilities, but I like:
. Other barnstars could work here as well.
WikiLove: Show your WikiLove to another player to remove one demotivation from that player. If all demotivations are removed, then the player can edit again. Image:
Free Time: You have managed to free up some time and energy to work on articles. Remove one demotivation markers from your player card. If all demotivations are removed, then the player can edit again. Image: An analogue clock showing 10 o'clock.
Bad cards:
Instant:
Demotivate: Play this card on any player to demotivate that player. A player who has been demotivated will not upgrade any articles. Quote: "Why bother?" Image is a man sitting at a desk beside a computer with his head in his hands.
Family Gets in the Way: Sometimes other things get in the way of getting articles edited. Play this card on the player on your right to demotivate that player. Image: A frazzled-looking woman standing with a crying baby in one arm, trying to use a vacuum cleaner with the other, with a little boy tugging on her skirt on the side away from the vacuum cleaner and a dog barking at the vacuum. Her facial-expression is a step away from breaking down to cry. Quote: "Why me?"
Work Get in the Way: So much for doing a little edit while at work. Your boss has just dropped a ton of work on you. Play this card on the player on your left to demotivate that player. Image: A person sitting at a desk in a cubicle, with a computer to the side and the desk absolutely covered in stacks of papers.
Honey-Do List: You have to get some chores done before you can get back to working on Wikipedia articles. Play this card on your player card as a demotivator.
Comments
Perhaps as the "Honey-Do List" quote, put an image of a dusty rug, a pile of dirty laundry, the trash can overflowing... etc. Joshualouie711 ( talk) 23:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why you would have any reason to play cards to motivate your opponent. That seems like it just harms you! RteeeeKed ( talk) 00:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
If a player is playing cards from his/her deck in other players' userspaces, it will become important to determine whose card is being removed from play, so it can go to that player's graveyard. By having different colours or designs on the backs of the cards, the players should be able to easily and without argument determine whose card this is.
Comments We can make card sleeves to solve this problem. Billythekid314 19:06, October 15, 2016 (UTC-4)
Comments I know this changes a lot, but I hope this will still be considered. RteeeeKed ( talk) 00:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Comments
Comments