Kerim Aydin 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.
Should have "CAN ... by announcement" in both sentences.
I share root's concern about a good contest going bad, regarding the
decertification process.
> The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week
> is equal to 5 times the cardinality of the union of the bases
> of its members, calculated at the beginning of that week.
"MAY" should be "CAN", and "total" should be "maximum".
Is it the contest or members of the contest that award the points?
This and the next paragraph are contradictory on this point.
> Points CAN be awarded by a contest member to other members by
> public announcement, provided that no individual in the awarding
> member's basis has made any other such award for any contest in
> the same week.
This doesn't ensure disjointness. It allows (for example) a single
partnership to award points more than once per week, either in one
contest or more than one contest. How about this for all the point
awarding mechanism:
A member of a contest CAN award points to one or more other
members of that contest, by announcement that identifies the
contest, provided that
(a) the awarder's basis is disjoint from the bases of all
persons who have made any such award for any contest
previously in the same week, and
(b) no such award has been made for the same contest previously
in the same week, and
(c) the total number of points being awarded does not exceed 5
times the cardinality of the union of the bases of the
contest's members as calculated at the beginning of that
week.
(Hmm, I rather expected that to turn out shorter than your version, but
it's substantially longer.) However, with the objection aspect to contest
creation I'm not sure that the disjointness criterion is necessary.
I'm uncomfortable about giving all contestants the power to award points.
I suggest that it be limited to a contestmaster who is nominated
in the process of acquiring contesthood. That is, a member of the
proto-contest contract will announce "I intend to make the Frobozz
Magic Game Company a contest with Fookiemyartug as contestmaster.".
Changes to the contestmaster would happen Without 3 Objections, just
like setting up contesthood in the first place.
Also, the "beginning of the week" bit for calculating the point award
limit is worrying me. This allows a mass joining of a contest just
before the end of the week, and a massive point award ten minutes later.
I'd prefer "... bases of the persons who have been members of the contest
continuously for the past week". That gives a week for scam opponents
to decertify a contest that threatens to make unfair point awards.
> Awards MUST be made as explicitly described
> in the contract.
So it's specifically mandatory to award points if the contract describes
it? I think it would be better to make this "MUST NOT be made except
as ...". Though the whole thing is pretty redundant, since obeying
contracts is mandatory anyway.
The scorekeepor should be required to report the current roster of
contests (and their contestmasters, if that's a rule-defined status).
>Create the following rule, "Public Contracts":
Reasonable.
-zefram
