From: Steve Gardner (gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 18:23:21 PDT
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Richard S. Holmes wrote:
> "This rule is invalid." The previous statement is false.
>
> All future rules shall be of sufficiently high quality to receive
> specific personal commendation, posted to the FRC forum, from Rich
> Holmes (rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu) within 72 hours of their posting.
> Naturally, any rule that is so low in quality that it does not receive
> such commendation shall be inconsistent with this rule.
>
> And of course, I commend this rule.
Judgement: VALID
Consistent with both R211:1 and R211:3.
Style:
+ 0.5 Is consistent with letter but not spirit not only of the ROs,
but also previous rules in this Round.
+ 0.5 Cleverly gets around R211:3.
+ 0.5 Restriction on theme.
+ 0.5 Restriction is quite imaginative.
=====
+ 2.0 TOTAL
--
Steve Gardner |
School of Computer Science | I've only just realized
and Software Engineering | how self-conscious I am.
gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST