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