From: dallas368_at_comcast.net
Date: Fri Jul 11 2003 - 05:50:06 PDT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Gardner" <gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au> To: "The Fantasy Rules Committee" <frc_at_oryx.com> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 10:48 PM Subject: 211:6 -- INVALID, Style -1.0 > 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 | > > Clearly, the whole rule depends on weather or not the retroactivity was sucessful. If it was sucessful, the rule would be before 211:1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Thus, it would not be bound by their restrictions, and it would only be bound by the restrictions of the ROs. This might make a good theme for the next round.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST