On Nov 16, 2007 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I looked back at old Points Contest rules while drafting this. Before,
> we basically limited scams by saying basing points awards on # of players,
> and making incremental awards small enough that a pure "I award points
> to you"
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> 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.
I looked b
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 w
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 p
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.
Pe
On Nov 15, 2007 9:15 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/15/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Our past versions of contests worked best when they depended solely on a
> > contestmaster for continuity. But also, this is a philosophical difference
> > between us, I suspect. Wh
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Requiring Agoran Consent to disband a contest is far simpler. The
> above is biased against any rapidly changing contest.
It's not in the best interests of the game to allow for rapidly
changing rules in contests (this is differentiated from contests
whic
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> A member of an existing public contract may make the contract
> into a Contest without 3 objections. Any player may make a
> contest cease to be a contest without 3 objections.
Should have "CAN ... by announcement" in both sentences.
I share root's concern ab
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Because the judge of CFJ 1682 chose to interpret Rule 1742 that way in
> order to avoid the possibility of single-party partnerships, and the
> rule text was subsequently amended to make that explicit.
In other words, for contests to work without requiring
On Nov 15, 2007 3:26 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 2007 2:53 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > > Requiring Agoran Consent to disband a contest is far simpler. The
> > > above is biased against any rapidly chang
On Nov 15, 2007 2:53 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > Requiring Agoran Consent to disband a contest is far simpler. The
> > above is biased against any rapidly changing contest.
>
> It's not in the best interests of the game to allow for rap
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> But they could have simply objected to the contest creation in the first
> place.
You neglect non-contestant scams. E.g., it seems like a good fair contest
so no-one protests, then a month later "hey, e's about to win with the
next [fairly won] points awa
On Nov 15, 2007 2:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > But they could have simply objected to the contest creation in the first
> > place.
>
> You neglect non-contestant scams. E.g., it seems like a good fair contest
> so no-one protests, the
On Nov 15, 2007 10:47 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > Because the judge of CFJ 1682 chose to interpret Rule 1742 that way in
> > order to avoid the possibility of single-party partnerships, and the
> > rule text was subsequently amended to
On Nov 15, 2007 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 2007 11:31 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> A member of an existing public contract may make the contract
> >> into a Contest without 3 objections.
--
Draft 2: Simple contests
[Let's go for the simple, and see if the objection mechanism pretty
much avoids scams. It depends on sportsmanship a bit in using the
objection mechanism].
Amend Rule 2136 (Contests) to read:
On Nov 15, 2007 11:31 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A member of an existing public contract may make the contract
> into a Contest without 3 objections. Any player may make a
> contest cease to be a contest without 3 objections.
As the latter is the inverse operat
On Nov 15, 2007 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 2007 11:31 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> A member of an existing public contract may make the contract
> >> into a Contest without 3 objections.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2007 11:31 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A member of an existing public contract may make the contract
>> into a Contest without 3 objections. Any player may make a
>> contest cease to be a contest without 3 obje
On Nov 15, 2007 9:37 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I concur. It makes sense for a partnership to have a minimum of two
> parties, but why do contracts in general require a second party?
Because the judge of CFJ 1682 chose to interpret Rule 1742 that way in
order to avoid the possibi
On 11/15/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our past versions of contests worked best when they depended solely on a
> contestmaster for continuity. But also, this is a philosophical difference
> between us, I suspect. While we needed non-Agoran contract definitions to
> bootstrap partn
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>It's a different mechanism.
But you still define contests to be a subclass of contracts. I don't
think this will work.
>root proposed a rule that would fix that,
No, root's proposal would define "basis" for first-class persons.
It's currently defined only for partnerships.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> A contest is a public contract that an originator (hereafter
>> the contestmaster) may create without 3 objections...
> How does this fit together with the general contract formation rule?
> I suggest a better way may be to le
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> A contest is a public contract that an originator (hereafter
> the contestmaster) may create without 3 objections, provided
> e is not the contestmaster of another contest. Members other
> than the contestmaster are known as contestants.
How does this f
On Nov 14, 2007 12:01 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are "basis" and "disjoint" suitably
> > and clearly defined in "primarily mathematical contexts" when we're
> > so we don't have to define it further? (I think so, just double-checking).
>
> Assuming that "Generalized basis sets"
On Nov 14, 2007 10:48 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A contestmaster may, each week, award to its contestants a
> number of points equal to 5 times its basis...
Should be "5 times the size of its basis"
> Create the following rule, "Public Contracts":
>
>A public con
On Nov 14, 2007 11:54 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > How about requiring the basis of the contestmaster to be disjoint from
> > the bases of the contestmasters of all other contests?
>
> Works for me. Side question: "basis" is defined for
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> How about requiring the basis of the contestmaster to be disjoint from
> the bases of the contestmasters of all other contests?
Works for me. Side question: "basis" is defined for partnerships only
but not agreements in general. Are "basis" and "disjoint
On Nov 14, 2007 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > Why first-class? This prevents contests run by a partnership (thus
> > sharing the responsibilities of running the contest). The rest of it I
> > like.
>
> Using the "basis" for membersh
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Why first-class? This prevents contests run by a partnership (thus
> sharing the responsibilities of running the contest). The rest of it I
> like.
Using the "basis" for membership points calculations prevents scammers
from raising the points available to
On Nov 14, 2007 10:48 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A public contract is created by the publication of its text by
>its Originator. The originator must be a first-class player.
Why first-class? This prevents contests run by a partnership (thus
sharing the responsibilities of
All these bugs mirror fixes made in the old contests which were pretty
bulleted against scams. Also, the joining issue. In fact, the old
Organization rules covered a lot of this well. Let's try again.
--
Proto: Public games,
32 matches
Mail list logo
