On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Proto: Contests Yet Again - Very Simple, in one rule. > > A player CAN make a document into a Contest without 3 objections. > The player doing so becomes the Contestmaster. The Contest SHOULD > be a list of instructions for playing a type of game. The
Capitalization of Contest shouldn't change here; also, "the contestmaster of that contest" perhaps. > contest SHOULD be fair and generally allow all players to join > and participate on an equal footing as governed by the instructions > of the contest. A player CAN join a contest by announcement; this > is the only way a player CAN join a contest. > > The contest SHOULD include instructions for determining winner(s) > of the contest. When a player fulfills said conditions, the > contestmaster SHALL announce the winners asap; such an announcement, > if factually correct, causes the names players to fulfill the > Winning Condition of Game Club. No need for the contestmaster here. Alternative: "The contest CAN and SHOULD define a Winning Condition as if it were a rule, except that the Cleanup Procedure occurs with the authority of the contest." ...I think I like yours better, actually. > The contestmaster is the recordkeepor of all matters containing > to the contest, and SHALL publish a weekly report of the contest > listing all members and relevant activities and other records for > the contest. "pertaining"; alt. "The contestmaster's weekly report contains all matters defined by the instructions to be part of eir weekly report, as well as the instructions." > The contestmaster is, prima facie, the adjudicator of contest > instructions and disputes. Disputes SHOULD, in general, be resolved > with the spirit of the instructions in mind. The contestmaster CAN > change the instructions without 3 objections, but SHOULD only do so > to improve gameplay or resolve disputes within the spirit of the > original contest. +1 for bringing back "equity". > If a court case arises with respect to the conduct of the contest > or the application and interpretation of its instructions, the > courts SHOULD give primacy of interpretation to the contestmaster's > interpretations, SHOULD judge UNDETERMINED if the contestmaster > has not been given a fair chance to suggest a resolution, and > SHOULD only find against the contestmaster if e is found to be > acting with arbitrary and capricious disregard for the Contest's > instructions and/or spirit. I bet ais523 will complain that this only affects how judges SHOULD judge and not the interpretation of the rules under normal circumstances. > Anyone CAN cause a contest to cease to be a contest provided > e does so both with Notice and with 3 supporters. [is this the > right phrasology for a combined with Notice/support requirement?] "With 3 Support and With Notice" is sufficient.
