Philosophy
==========

Some scattered thoughts by the architect, Neale.

Hardening
-----------

People are going to try to break this thing.
It needs to be bulletproof.
This pretty much set the entire design:

* As much as possible is done client-side
  * Participants can attack their own web browsers as much as they feel like
  * Also reduces server load
  * We even made a puzzle category to walk people through creating brute-force attacks!
    * Your laptop is faster than our server
    * We give you the carrot of hashed answers and the hashing function
    * This removes one incentive to DoS the server
* Generate static content whenever possible
  * Puzzles must be statically compiled before the event even starts
  * As much content as possible is generated by a maintenance loop
* Minimize dynamic handling
  * There are only three (3) dynamic handlers
    * team registration
    * answer validation
    * server state (open puzzles + event log)
  * You can disable team registration if you want, just remove `teamids.txt`
  * I even removed token handling once I realized we replicate the user experience with the `answer` handler and some client-side JavaScript
* As much as possible is read-only
  * The only read-write directory is `state`
  * This plays very well with Docker, which didn't exist when we designed MOTH
* Server code should be as tiny as possible
  * Server should provide highly limited functionality
  * It should be easy to remember in your head everything it does
* Server is also compiled
  * Static type-checking helps assure no run-time errors
* Server only tracks who scored how many points at what time
  * This means the scoreboard program determines rankings
  * Want to provide a time bonus for quick answers? I don't, but if you do, you can just modify the scoreboard to do so.
  * Maybe you want to show a graph of team rankings over time: just replay the event log.
  * Want to do some analysis of what puzzles take the longest to answer? It's all there.

Fairness
---------

We spend a lot of time thinking about whether new content is going to feel fair.
Or, more importantly, if there's a possibility for it to be viewed as unfair.

It's possible to run fun events that don't focus so much on fairness,
but those aren't the type of events we run.

* People generally don't mind discovering that they could improve
* People can get furious if they feel like some system is unfairly targeting them
* Every team that does the same amount of work should have the same score
  * No time bonuses / decaying points
  * No penalties for trying things that don't work out
* No one should ever feel like it's impossible to catch up
  * Achievements ("cheevos") work well here
  * Time-based awards (flags) don't mesh with this idea