On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote: > You could still do it. Have one contract be the mini-nomic, and have > another contract be the contest that awards points when the first > contract tells it to. Actually, this demonstrates that the regulation > I envisioned doesn't work anyway. Might as well go with Agoran > Consent, I guess.
Okay, I'm actually of two minds now. Instant by instant, even the "fairest" contest is "unfair" to everyone except the winner at the moment of award. More specifically, what's the difference (in Rules terms) between a "scam" in which a group of conspirators change the contest rules to award each other points versus a "mini-nomic" in which the players of the mini-nomic make a conspiracy to change the mini- nomic rules and thus win points? The latter is a reasonable part of a contest! I'm going to suggest allowing certification and de-certification of contests, but not worrying about regulating contest rules changes, and making sure that any given award in a single week isn't enough to win Agora outright. Therefore, a contest needs to "stay fair" week to week to have a significant impact in an Agoran round overall. If in the endgame (close to 100 points) someone tries to pull a scam to "cross the line", more power to em! -Goethe
