On Nov 15, 2007 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
But they could have simply objected to the contest creation in the first place. > 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." It means little to certify a contest as "good" when the contract can be changed afterward. > Also, the objection mechanism builds in the 4-day delay no matter what, > while support doesn't. Do we need a 4-day delay for decontestation? > 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). This is what I was concerned about, so it would be worthwhile to block it from happening. Perhaps if the contract changes, the contest should cease to be a contest until it has been through the objection mechanism once again. Then I think that using "without 3 objections" in both directions would be fine. -root
