Re: 169:A

From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2001 - 07:10:31 PDT


Gallivanting Tripper wrote:
>
> I vote against 165:A, because what went on 4 rounds ago is nobody's
> business.

Furthermore, there was no such rule, as round 165 consisted of two
rules labeled 165:1 and 165:2.  As this isn't a valid overrule
proposal, I won't vote on it.

> Nevertheless, I propose 169:A as follows:
>
> -----169:A-------
> That the rule which the Judge has re-labeled 169:15 but whose author labeled
> it 169:14 be declared VALID.
> ----------------

I think Aron's point is quite valid.  I refer you to round 132,
"Numerology", in which the rules were numbered, in order: 1, 3, 2, 4,
17, 567845, 142857, and 123.  The Judge used a different system to
number the rules (which, incidentally, didn't make things any less
confusing).  If this round isn't archived on the web, I can repost the
final summary.  The important point is this: for the purpose of
validity, the numbers designated by the rules themselves took
precedence over the numbers designated by the Judge.[1]

I would go ahead and vote for this proposal, but Anton raises a very
good point about the number of turns taken being listed on the side of
the board.  If there is no good answer to this, then the rule should
actually be INVALID rather than UNSUCCESSFUL, but an overrule to that
effect is clearly irrelevant at this point.

-Jesse


[1] By the way, this illustrates one good reason why restrictions
refering in any way to rule numbers send up red flags in my head.  If
I feel the need to refer to particular rules, I prefer to stick with
something like "the Nth VALID rule".  Maybe I should write up a list
of such red flags, and how I try to avoid them.  (The next that comes
to mind is "from now on", which has caused heated debate in the past.
I try to stick with "future rules must".)

--
Rule Date: 2001-10-03 14:10:50 GMT


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