> If we don't agree on the 50% point, fine. Make it 25%. Make it getting past the fast start.
I'm not sure that ANY point other than the start is fair to most players. The issue you're looking at has to do with a "set" game with lots of droppers, and the remaining players taking advantage of the situation (a small percentage of games). The issue I'm looking at is a player who enters into a game, expecting it to be real, and sees half the players drop in the first 10 turns. That player's investment (if they stick with the game) and reputation (should they drop when the end-of-game bonuses are removed?) should not be impacted. In my opinion, the second situation, since it occurs much more frequently, and has an honest player at the core of it, should be respected over the first situation. Any error here should be on the side of the honest player.
In any case, I believe you're attacking this issue from the wrong end. I think it should be more "expensive" for the dropper.
Perhaps it would be useful to have a minimum starting rank of Lt. for public player-created games and most Classic games. This would significantly increase the investment for this sort of farming. There are plenty of system-created beginner games.
As for farming, why should this matter to you? You've stated several times that the entire points/rank system is FUBAR, and you've implied (I don't recall whether or not you've ever actually stated it) that you don't care what rank a player is - you look at a player's history. Again, why should any of this matter to you, who has already abandoned all hope for the current points/rank system?