From: Steve Gardner (gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 19:48:45 PDT
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 dallas368_at_comcast.net wrote: > Rule 211:5, in its annoying restriction, has failed to realize a > loophole. I state the following: > > This rule occurs on Feb. 18th, 1998. > > For the purposes of this round, any post to the FRC fourm whatsoever > is considered to be a commendation of this rule. > > I also impose the following restriction: No other restrictions, > besides any one (if any) in 211:1, 211:2, 211:3, 211:4, 211:5, and > 211:6 are allowed in this round. Judgement: INVALID I doubt that the attempt to make 211:6 occur in the past is successful. However, since 211:5 is invalid, it doesn't matter either way. The provision that that any posts to the FRC forum count as "commendations" of 211:6 does not mean that any post to the FRC forum (e.g. my previous post Judging 211:5) will satisfy the requirements of 211:4. 211:4 requires that Rules receive the personal commendation of Rich Holmes, not just any commendation whatever. However, since 72 hours have not passed since 211:6 was submitted, it is still possible that Rich might grant this Rule his personal commendation. So we cannot say the Rule is invalid on that score. It is questionable that the proposed restriction is really dirty and underhanded, since it merely forbids any further restrictions. That might make the rest of the Round rather dull, but it wouldn't make it especially difficult. However, the failure of 211:6 to state "This Rule is invalid." is clear-cut. Style: +0.5 retroactivity is an interesting idea, if not a successful one. -0.5 botched attempt to get around 211:4. -0.5 restriction a bit dull and not sufficiently evil. -0.5 poor spelling; 'fourm' should read 'forum'. ===== -1.0 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