FAL, you fail once again in the art of rulemaking
To have such a rule you then must monitor the current score all the time. And envision the quarrel that occurs when one player claims: hey no, 18 months ago I succeded in getting it to only -98 for one day after I won a battle in province X, don't you remember that...
FAL, remember, there are certain basic criterias for rules that must be fulfilled if the rule will work well in practice. I will now generously give them to you (and everyone else who reads) for free!
1. The rule shall be clear
2. The rule shall be enforceable; that is you shall be able without much trouble (how much depends on the circumstances) to make sure everyone follows it
Those two criteria are mandatory.
Now the rest where it is merely favourable if they are met (to a varying degree)
3. The rule shall cover what it intends to cover (e.g.: if you have to choose between a rule that is less clear but covers the intended area better then choose the clear rule)
4. The rule shall be regarded as fair by those who are to follow the rule
5. The rule shall be easy to remember (this is more important the more cases exists where the player may have to make a hasty decision in a situation covered by the rule)
A good example of no 5 is the pirate spamming to inhibit landing loading. It can have grave consequences (a leader may die e.g.) and the player must know at the time that he cannot do it. On the other hand a rule like max 2 nations in an alliance can be easily attended to during the game (or a stab hit rule for that matter). In the former case you simply order one to leave the alliance and that will normally as well be a good punishment for the one breakling the rule, in the 2nd case just pause the game and ask.
---------
Now in the future I suggest you let me decide all these questions until you have graduated with high marks in Daniel's law school.
We can start this practice immediately in the DU campaign
