In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.1021102090542.1109A-100000@gentoo>,
Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Leaving this month aside, I'm wondering if we all still want a game every
> month.
>
> When TPR golf started, there were worries about player fatigue; but it seems
> as if there is now becoming a problem finding enough referees every month.
>
> I'm sure there are lots of people like me who would like to referee but
> can't spare the time -- but that's not really helpful! Have we still got
> enough willing referees to run a monthly competition. What do people think?
>
The main load in being referee is being available to quickly judge
entries so they can be accepted or rejected. To get 24/7 avaiability,
you need several people preferrably spread over the globe, which is
relatively hard.
But, this model is I think unnecesary.
Consider that the mingolfs have been running for months in an
essentially referee-less mode without any real problems. I think a lot
is to be learned from them, since they are basically an attempt to run
golfs with minimum overhead.
Especially mtve's attempt at a referee-less golf system is relevant
here. This system can fully automatically receive, run and accept or
reject entries (see https://www.frox25.no-ip.org/fcgi-bin/index.pl).
I think that with this system basically only one referee is needed
who goes into the system at least and possibly no more than once a
day and checks entries for too heavy rule-abuse. He can then amend
the rules, and add extra testcases (then the bad boys will be
automatically rejected). He is also the one you can mail the difficult
rule questions and if you disagree with what the automated system did,
but you should not expect an answer before a day has elapsed then.
With certain kinds of challenges (where you can write an exhaustive
testprogram), you can even run 100% unmanned.
Would people be willing to referee and play under such a system ?
