On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 09:58 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>>> ais523 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Also, I have a much better idea. Get the PNP to join the contest and
>>>>> make a guess that's the amount it's distributing, immediately before the
>>>>> distribution (maybe in the same message?)
>>>> Anyone tries any funny stuff gets slapped with an equity case, hard.
>>> Hmm... manipulating the count struck me as being the entire intent of
>>> the contest. At least, it looked that way to me. Maybe the contract
>>> should make the intent of how the contest should work clearer, to save
>>> much grief down the line?
>>
>> I agree; my own assumption was that the contract foresaw and expected
>> what anyone familiar to Agora should understand: that manipulating the
>> result was fundamental to contest play.
>
> "Funny stuff" is hereby defined as "anything that appears to have no
> purpose except to manipulate the counts". If you can manipulate the
> counts via otherwise-useful actions, then you only need to worry about
> all the other contestants attempting to do the same.
1. That there is an extra-legal definition of "funny stuff" that current
members haven't had the opportunity to review.
2. There's nothing to suggest in the contract that "funny stuff" is
forbidden.
3. Were I to join, my natural reading of the contract is that "funny
stuff" is permitted. Manipulation of Proposals, for example, has
classically been used as instruments of points scoring independent
of the proposals' contents, so it's a "natural" way to play nomic.
-G.
