Re: 204:10 VALID +1.5

From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 19:49:18 PST


Steve Gardner <gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au> wrote:

> > VALID.  I'm okay with a rule using a new form of change, so long as it
> > explicitly requires or allows that form of change.
> 
> Can you confirm that the Rules was submitted within the available time?
> It looked to be 2-3 hours late to me...

You're right, it was late, after accounting for Joshua losing a day of
eligibility for the invalid 204:9.  Does this mean that the so-called
204:10 is actually not a rule at all?

In any case, Steve is the Judge and Wizard of Round 205.  I'll post a
full report of Round 204 later when I'm not quite so busy.


-- 
Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

-- 
Rule Date: 2003-03-19 03:50:01 GMT


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST