RE: Discussion topic

From: Jonathan Van Matre (JVanMatre_at_oslp.com)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 12:24:18 PDT


Certainly, that makes good sense.  Any penalties and any bonuses have
already been givcen to the first rule, so I would be inclined to
consider a resubmission as an "adjustment" of the original score.  i.e.
If I had deducted 0.6 for invalidity, then the resubmission wouldn't be
able to earn any more than +0.6 if it turned out to be valid.

And per Anton's argument, I would agree there should be at least a
minimal penalty for "copping out" by resubmitting, meaning if I were the
judge in that situation, I wouldn't give the resubmission any more than
+0.3 tops, and breaking even at 0 would be a more likely scnario.

Anyway, this is all proving to be an interesting illumination of the
philosophy behind some of the FRC traditions and ROs.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse Welton [mailto:jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 1:11 PM
> To: Fantasy Rules Committee
> Subject: Re: Discussion topic
>
>
> Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> >
> > I'm curious about the traditional un-stylishness of re-submitting
> > rules.
>
> To the very good reason Anton gave, I'd add that it
> encourages creativity to find new and different directions to
> take the round.
>
> When a rule contains important fixes to holes in the round,
> I'm generally inclined not to penalize a resubmission much.
> But certainly, a resubmission should not receive again
> whatever bonuses were given the first rule for whatever its
> good qualities may be.  Its author already received those.
>
> -Jesse
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-05-30 18:11:21 GMT
>
>

--
Rule Date: 2002-05-30 19:25:42 GMT


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST