It seems like the game would better approximate the game of mutually assured destruction if the two sides had unaligned aims somehow, and destroying the page could impede “their” ability to get in “our” way.
Maybe the site that gets more new registrations on Petrov day has the right to demand that the loser advertise something of their choice for 1 month after Petrov day. Preferably, make the competition something that will be close to 50⁄50 beforehand.
The two communities could try to negotiate an outcome acceptable to everyone or nuke the other to try to avoid having to trust them or do what they want.
It seems like the game would better approximate the game of mutually assured destruction if the two sides had unaligned aims somehow, and destroying the page could impede “their” ability to get in “our” way.
Maybe the site that gets more new registrations on Petrov day has the right to demand that the loser advertise something of their choice for 1 month after Petrov day. Preferably, make the competition something that will be close to 50⁄50 beforehand.
The two communities could try to negotiate an outcome acceptable to everyone or nuke the other to try to avoid having to trust them or do what they want.
Like Sanjay’s answer, I think this is a correct diagnosis of a problem, but I think the advertising solution is worse than the problem.
A month of harm seems too long to me,
I can’t think of anything we’d want to advertise on LW that we wouldn’t already want to advertise on EAF, and we’ve chosen “no ads” in that case.