From: jcm3_at_cec.wustl.edu
Date: Fri Feb 06 2004 - 14:22:46 PST
This posting is indended as a "metagame post" as interpreted in "Re: This is not rule 221:f VALID, +2.5". In support of 221:d (2 of 2), I believe it is 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. A rule that finds unexpected consequences from 221:d (1 of 2) would cause 221:d (1 of 2) to stop having an effect on the game. Future rules could then disregard it and still be valid. I do not believe the mechanic of rules losing their effect on the game is against the ROs - is it? > Style: Invalid, not posted twice, and no new restriction. -2.0. The anecdote (and moral) contained in anecdote 221:d (2 of 2) was posted twice, word for word, as specified in anecdote 221:e (1 of 2). As indended, the first time it was posted just happened to occur before this rule was posted in rule 221:d (1 of 2). I agree with "no new restriction" as this actually proposes a new way to remove a restriction. My 2 cents. Jae
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST