From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.syr.edu)
Date: Wed Feb 04 2004 - 05:47:25 PST
david nicol <whatever_at_davidnicol.com> writes: > So I haven't played this game for like, a decade, and here I am in the > thick of it. The judge we've got this round appears to be taking his > duties with less than the solemnity I naively remember. In specific, > he has made a big deal out of one of the players double-posting a play, > and then later he referred to the second of the two identical postings > as if they weren't identical. So here's the deal: from here on in, > anecdotes submitted for round 221, starting with this one, have to be > posted twice. The moral is, don't taunt the mentally ill: they have > more free time than you. > > > > -- > david nicol > shift back the cost. www.pay2send.com VALIDITY: The unexpected consequences are rather de-emphasized and, unless I'm missing something, recycled from earlier rules, but they're there and refer to a previous rule. There's a moral. No problems. STYLE: Weak consequences, but (in combination with the next submission) obeys its own interesting (though un-difficult) restriction (as indeed it must, since the restriction explicitly is imposed on rules beginning with this). Good moral. +2.0. -- - Rich Holmes Parish, NY
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST