On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:00 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement:
> * The hypothetical contract in the evidence section, if made a
> contest, would be effective, because neither Rule 101 (vi.) nor Rule
> 478 would prevent its operation.
>
> Evidence:
>
> {{
> At the end of each week, the contestmaster of this contest SHALL award
> 5 points to each party to this contest that did not initiate any CFJs
> that week.
> }}
>
> Arguments:
>
> The contest egregiously attempts to bribe its parties to not
> participate in the fora, by awarding points only if they don't.
> However, it's just a bribe. The contest is not actually prohibiting
> participation, i.e. you could not initiate an equity or criminal case
> against a party who initiated CFJs.
>
> You see, I'm thinking (with ais523) about starting a sort of contest
> based on secret rules... I think it might be quite fun. But if one
> such secret rule was that, say, every CFJ submitted had to be in a
> message with subject "CFJ", or else you lose points, then we might run
> headfirst into Rule 101, because a lot of the contest's parties
> wouldn't know about the rule.
>
The idea sounds fun. Would the players find out that they lost/gained
points per message or per week? If they learned per message would
they learn publicly or privately? (my hope would be privately per
message, but that might make it too easy to determine the rules)
