On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Nov 15, 2007 11:31 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> A member of an existing public contract may make the contract >> into a Contest without 3 objections. Any player may make a >> contest cease to be a contest without 3 objections. > > As the latter is the inverse operation, it should be "with 3 (or 2) support".
I thought about that, but let's say there are 6 members in a good and fair contest, and 3 more people who choose not to play (or who choose to play, and are sore losers). Those 3 shouldn't arbitrarily (e.g. with each others' support) be able to turn off the contest that isn't going their way. This way, non-contestants can defend the game against bad contests forming, and contestants can defend good contests from being destroyed once they've been certified as "good." Also, the objection mechanism builds in the 4-day delay no matter what, while support doesn't. The only loophole is if a good contest changes its rules to become a bad contest, and then the contestants defend the bad contest. I suppose we could put in something that limits contract changes while the contract is in progress, do you think that's necessary? (Given the inherent points limit as well). -Goethe
