On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:10 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 07:44 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: >> > Parties are encouraged to suggest new categories and/or remove >> > categories no longer in use by amending the category list in this >> > contract using the mechanism specified in section 2. > What does the contract look like now? The version I have on file seems > to be different from the version you're apparently modifying. > -- > ais523 >
I believe the last APA report shows the correct current version. Here it is for simplicity: TEXT OF CONTRACT ---------------- 1. The name of this contract is "The Agoran Proposal Awards". The Host for this contract is BobTHJ. This is a Public Contract. 2. Any player may become party to this contract by announcement. Any person may cease to be party to this contract by announcement. This contract may be amended by any party without three objections 3. Once after each publication of the Agoran Proposal Awards report, each player may submit a single ballot by announcement containing their votes for the eligible proposal which in their opinion is the best fit for each of the following categories (the eligible proposals are the proposals whose voting results have been published since the last Agoran Proposal Awards report): a. Dry - appropriate for proposals that display paticular aridity and/or blandness. Proposals nominated for this category should be good bedtime reading. b. Sticky - appropriate for proposals that commingle two distinct and separate game concepts together into one proposal. c. Useless - appropriate for proposals that display a high level of floccinaucinihilipilificatiousness. Proposals nominated for this category should have little or no true function. d. Rejuvenating - appropriate for proposals that add life and excitement to the game. Proposals nominated for this category should cultivate interesting concepts in the same way as a gardener who tends his field. e. Silly - appropriate for proposals that dispaly jejune behavior. Proposals nominated in this category typically will not be taken seriously. f. Befuddling - appropriate for proposals which could be submitted by a womble. Proposals nominated in this category will be excessively complex, far beyond what is required to convey the concept. g. Other <cateogry name> - Votes of this type do not count towards making a ballot valid unless the proposed category name becomes a category before the end of the week. <category name> may be a new or existing category name. 4. A valid ballot is defined as a ballot that indicates at least 1 proposal that is a best fit for a given category, and does not vote for any proposal as best fit to more than 1 category. 5. Parties are encouraged to suggest new categories and/or remove categories no longer in use by amending the category list in this contract using the mechanism specified in section 2. 6. With the publication of the APA report each eligible proposal that received more votes for a specific category than any other proposal shall be the winner of that category for that report. If two or more proposals are tied for the most nominations in a category, or if there were no nominations for a category then there shall be no winner of that category for that report. 7. With the publication of each APA report, the Host shall attempt to award 5 points to each winning proposal and distribute them to the author of said proposal. Then the Host shall attempt to award each party who submitted a valid ballot during that week a 1 point participation bonus. 8. The Host shall keep a record of all winning proposals and their authors, and shall publish regularly a list of past winners and current eligible proposals.
