The D.A.S.H. Protocol

The D.A.S.H. Protocol (Defeating Authoritarian Sportswashing and Handling) is a structured risk-scoring instrument for measuring the risk of authoritarian or monopolistic actors gaining illegitimate influence through sport. It was developed by Waydell D. Carvalho at Cinderpoint and is built into SwipeManager as a live, in-career tracker.

Two papers, one framework

D.A.S.H. I: Entry Risk

Five dimensions, each scored 0 to 3, sum 0 to 15. Measures the risk taken at the moment of accepting or refusing an arrangement (sponsorship, hosting, ownership).

1. External Actor Profile. Who is the actor? State-level or monopoly-scale involvement scores higher.
2. Influence Gain. What reputational or political benefit do they receive from the association?
3. Reversibility. Can the arrangement be undone? Long contracts and structural integration score higher.
4. Community Impact. Are local communities, athletes, or staff directly affected?
5. Transparency. Is the arrangement openly disclosed and publicly accountable?

Tiers: Low (0-3), Monitor (4-6), At Risk (7-10), High Risk (11-13), Extreme Risk (14-15).

D.A.S.H. II: Post-Capture Risk (P.C.R.)

The second paper extends the framework beyond entry to examine sportshandling: what happens once influence is established. Five additional dimensions, scored 0 to 3, sum 0 to 15.

1. Narrative Dominance. Who controls the storytelling? State media, sponsored content, restricted accreditation.
2. Governance Dependence. Are oversight bodies financially or structurally captive?
3. Market Closure. Do licensing rules block new entry or accountability?
4. Data and Revenue Leverage. Is information or capital used to entrench dependencies?
5. Rights and Remedies. Do athletes, clubs, and fans have meaningful redress?

Combined: D.A.S.H. Governance Index (DGI) = Entry + PCR. A 0-30 lifecycle measure from ingress to institutional entrenchment.

The framework is non-moralizing

A high DGI score means caution is warranted. It does not mean the arrangement should be refused. The codex-canonical framing: "the right response to a high score is presence with conditions: advocacy, transparency, and actively ensuring the engagement opens access rather than simply lending credibility to a closed system." When professional wrestling toured Saudi Arabia, women were permitted to attend events for the first time in decades. Sporting presence created an opening. The framework measures structural exposure to capture, not the moral weight of any single decision.

How SwipeManager uses it

Each card outcome carries dimensional impact metadata. Player choices visibly shift the team's running DGI, displayed on the pause-menu badge. Career-end retrospective shows the trajectory across the full career. Players can compare their team's score to case-study scores in the in-game codex (Qatar 27/30, IFA 28/30, IOC plus pro-formula 21/30, Bundesliga 50+1 at 2/30, and others).

Citations

Related

• Time to Automaticity (sister framework also built into the game)
• Community Review (Rusthorn studio policy)
• Modding guide (DASH tagging for community card creators)