>Why would you have a contest if both sides knew what the truth was?
I did not stipulate that both sides knew what the truth was, just that one side is right. Thinking further about it, it doesn't in and of itself make any difference, what matters is the evidence, which may have a tendency to support the truth. Good evidence, ie. convincing evidence rather than merely accurate, should give bonuses. I think it should be in the form of a TN bonus rather than an edge or AP bonus, or an ability rating that the arguer can use to augment his ability. That way, if you try to push the evidence beyond plausability, you get no bonus. It's a bit complex, though, and non-intuitive in terms of deciding what ability rating a piece of evidence should have. Fixed bonuses are easier.
Philip Hibbs http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ Opinions expressed may not even be my own, let alone those of any organisations, nations, species, or schools of thought to which I may be affiliated.
Powered by hypermail