i don't see why you're sanctioning the challenger 1 strike when they make a successful challenge.
Oh never mind, the "proposed valid rule that would work" is a "possible next play" not an amendment to the challenged rule, which is how I misread it, which misreading persisted long enough to begin drafting this e-mail. On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 9:27 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > 6. For a fantasy rule to be valid, it must be possible for any remaining > contestant to publish a valid rule following it. A contestant or the > judge can publicly challenge that a particular rule makes it > impossible to continue. In that case, the publisher of that rule has > 24 hours to send the judge (privately or publicly) a proposed valid > rule that would work. If e does so, the challenger (if not the > judge) receives a strike, otherwise the rule is invalid. > > 7. If, after a challenge as above, the judge finds that continuation > from the contested rule is Nearly Impossible and not Completely > Impossible, e can declare the rule invalid but the proposer does not > receive a strike. > Without actually consulting and comparing, it seems like the differences between this contest and FRC immutables are (1) the shorter time limit and (2) appeals go to the Agoran CFJ process, rather than being subject to revision via a 2/3 majority of the participating (and voting) players confirming a resolution. -- "At this point, given the limited available data, certainty about only a very small number of things can be achieved." -- Plato, and others
