On Nov 15, 2007 4:10 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/15/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > Perhaps, CANNOT?
Too platonic. > I would avoid using basis, and just keep it at > distinct-contestmasters. The without-3-objections bit (or an Agoran > Consent, if necessary) suffices for avoiding scams. It does absolutely nothing to stop a conspiracy of three from creating a contest, getting it approved, and then changing it to be whatever they want. I'm starting to think that the without-objections approval and disintegration processes are just overkill. We've never required it for contests before, and there haven't been any problems that couldn't be avoided by better-written rules. Besides, it only stops a scam if somebody outside the conspiracy notices the loophole before it's too late, which is unlikely. The rest of the changes the proto would make are generally sufficient, so let's just use those. > This makes it > possible (through a partnership) for someone with two really good > contests to run them both at the same time, or for a partnership (such > as the AFO) with multiple participating members to hold a contest at > the same time as one of its members. If somebody has two really good contests and wants them to be going on simultaneously, e should hand one of them to somebody else to run. > Speaking of which, this is going on the "honor system", since bases > are secret. If basis requirements get too complicated, then people > might make mistakes. Yet another reason why secret bases suck. Making them public would be a much better solution than just not using them. -root
