> 4. Hole Difficulty I agree that in general you want "easy" holes, although it might be interesting to throw one or two more difficult ones in there.
> 8. Fairness > > I think the key to a fair game is a really tight test program > on day one (tsanta.pl had too many holes). It is ideal if you > can just say "if it passes the test program, it is ok"; > that also eliminates ambiguity about the game's semantics > and spares you from having to describe the semantics. I guess ideally that's what you'd want, but I think it is a lot to ask. We have a lot of wily characters in this group, and some will inevitably figure out a way to "outsmart" the test program. I think the better way to do it is the way you did it: provide a reasonable test program to makes everyone's lives much easier, but clearly state the intent of each program. > 9. Submission Format > .... > gzipped tarball or zip file. It wouldn't be too hard to > write a little Perl server program that scanned your inbox, > extracted the entrant's files, ran the test program on them, > then automatically posted an updated leaderboard to fwp if > it passed or a reject mail message to the entrant if it failed. Or why not have a web page to which golfers would post their programs (just paste them in to a text field). The test program could run right then and update the scores. The arbiter would have admin access to go in and muck around (post a new test program, edit entries, etc.) -b
