> From: "Timothy Hunt" <games@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > I suspect that the better way to approach this in future is to direct > the judging a bit more. Saying something like "THe purpose of this > contest is to come up with games that encourage customers who have a > single treehouse set to purchase a second, without requiring them to > purchase a third." and then leave it up to the judges to factor that > in. A game for which a single treehouse set is *clearly* sufficient > would get a low ranking from me in such a situation, as would one > where play was either impossible or impeded unless you had 3. ... > In other words, I hope this doesn't discourage you from taking on this > great task, but that you reconsider *how* to run it in the future. I suppose that is a better tack, though I'd still want to "vet" submissions, so that we don't end up with a game that only slightly acknowledge the restriction (if at all) and thereby waste judge's time reading it only to discover that it's a red herring, vis a vis the purpose of the competition restriction (product sales promotion). It's tantamount to spamming the competition, if one ignores a requirement just to get one's game noticed or read; I'd treat it as such (i.e. not pass it along to judges). Although this is largely sort of moot: the Summer 2008 will be unrestricted; and even if we restrict Winter 2009, I will probably be pushing *hard* (as in, "someone else run it, if not") for a thematic, word-association sort of restriction like in the Iron Game Chef Competitions. And so, if we continue that alternating pattern of "restricted - unrestricted" then the next opportunity for product-based restrictions is going to be Winter 2010. Unless, of course, a new Icehouse product should show up in need of love (*ahem*Loco/Eco sets*Ahem*).... ;) David