From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.syr.edu)
Date: Thu Feb 05 2004 - 18:56:52 PST
jcm3_at_cec.wustl.edu writes: > I did not expect that, as a consequence of posting 221:d, it could overly > restrict future rules: > > > Um - I don't think Joshua expected to be docked 1.5 style pointes just for > > reposting the same rule. Its not clear, but he might not have intended to > > post that rule twice. The anecdote of Joshua's is a sad one. But > > hopefully this rule will fare better, because I understand that for this > > rule to have an effect on the game it must be totally unambiguous: > > > > Future rules must point out an unexpected consequence involving at least > > one previous rule. > > > > I think the unexpected consequences of Joshua's double posting > > demonstrates a real moral for FRC: Inspired but literal judging can result > > in new interesting rules. > > So, to resolve this, I'd like to add that rule 221:d will have no effect > on the game if one and only one future rule should point out yet another > unexpected consequence of 221:d. > > Jae Validity: Contains no moral, but we've already had a moral, so that's OK. Has unexected consequences relating to a previous rule. Has not been posted twice, so cannot at this time be found valid. Unfortunately, it can be found invalid: The last sentence implies a rule that is inconsistent with 221:d can still be judged valid, an assertion not consistent with the R.O.'s. Style: Invalid, not posted twice, and no new restriction. -2.0. -- - Rich Holmes Parish, NY
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST