From: Alan Riddell (peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sat Feb 22 2003 - 02:02:44 PST
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Riddell" <peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk> To: "Alan Riddell" <peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 9:55 AM Subject: Re: 203:1 +1.0 INVALID > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan Riddell" <peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk> > To: "frc" <frc_at_trolltech.com> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:33 PM > Subject: Re: 203:1 +1.0 > > > > Rule is a picture in which there is a sign saying "NO DOGS, no not even > > little ones" but there is also a dog in the background. I will assume the > > Rule is trying to restrict the content of rules as is common, in this case > > the "words" on the sign would say there should be no dogs in (any?) rules, > > in which case the rule is inconsistent with itself as it contains a dog. > > However, the theme of this round is "Pictures not words", so should I > > ingnore the words in the picture and concentrate on the non-word content > of > > the picture? If I do not ignore the words in the picture then this round > > will simply turn into a normal round with some added pictures, if I ignore > > all word-content in rules then making reasonable resctrictions could be > very > > difficult. > > > > As such I will wait for further rules and debate before I make my > judgement > > on this rule's validity, however I will award it +1.0 style. > > > > Judge Alan > > Thinking about this for a while, I do not think I can ignore text/word > portions of the rules. However, there will be an obvious style bonus for not > using any words. So, 203:1 is INVALID. > > Judge Alan > -- Rule Date: 2003-02-22 10:02:54 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST