From: Karl Low (kwil_at_gmx.net)
Date: Mon Jan 13 2003 - 19:15:37 PST
To be honest, the numbering was just my mistake. I was aware of 200:3. So if not VALID, this is INVALID. I was also of the opinion that 200:3 is valid through one interpretation of 200:2, while 200:4 would be valid through another interpretation, both of which could be maintained at the same time as 200:2 does not specify any interpretation over another - nor for that matter does 200:4 specify that its interpretation supercedes that taken by 200:3. That is, you could have a rule exactly 200 characters long, have a rule that contains the phrase Leonard specifies, and if 200:4 was judged VALID you could also have a rule that contained an official FRC celebratory balloon; and any of these would be valid. (And should anybody manage to do all three at once, give'em a super-style bonus :-) ) Karl On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 19:06:33 -0800 (PST), Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) <jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com> wrote: > Renumbered from 200:3 to 200:4. > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Karl Low wrote: > >> It seems Leonhard forgot to mention that the phrase "precisely 200 >> characters or symbols, no more, no less, including punctuation, but not >> including spaces or other whitespace." is actually the long name of the >> official FRC celebratory balloons. Perhaps if e had, it would have been >> more understandable why e wanted everybody to have one in eir rule. > > Validity: This gets a little tricky now... The firework from 200:1 is > still in the sky. It is still possible for subsequent Rules to be > fashioned. It does not attempt to commence earlier than one second after > the previous Rule. The Rule is NOT 200 characters (excluding whitespace) > long, it is 293 characters (excluding whitespace) long, and so > potentially > runs afoul of 200:2. The Rule does not fire off any additional fireworks, > so it is safe from 200:3's restriction. > > The tricky part is that it attempts to further clarify the restriction of > 200:2. Since I am not terribly fond of the restriction in 200:2, I am > certainly open to alternative interpretations of it. This would be a > great > idea if it occurred immediately after 200:2. However, Rule 200:3 has been > posted in the meantime, and it has been declared Valid according to my > original interpretation of the restriction in 200:2. The new > interpretation would be inconsistent with Rule 200:3, as Rule 200:3 does > not contain the phrase "precisely 200 characters or symbols, no more, no > less, including punctuation, but not including spaces or other > whitespace." Unfortunately, 200:4 doesn't appear to leave room for using > either determination as needed for affected Rules. > > Since the author sent the Rule as 200:3, I assume that e was unaware that > 200:3 had already been posted. Therefore, I declare this rule > UNSUCCESSFUL. > > Style: +0.25 for advancing the theme. +0.25 for being short. -0.25 for > not > having a restriction of its own. +1.00 for taming the restriction in > 200:2. Total style: +1.25 > -- Karl Low - Student Research Assistant CCIS Virtual Helpdesk - Athabasca University Direct e-mail: kwil_at_gmx.net -- Rule Date: 2003-01-14 03:15:40 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST