168:10 - INVALID +0.75

From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Tue Sep 11 2001 - 18:15:21 PDT

168:10  Andre Engels        2001-09-11 19:31:45     INVALID +0.75
> Well, Alan, I see that you do not have a front door yet. What do you think
> of this one? I'll place it in the north wall immediately. What? You don't
> like it? It's bad quality? Ah well, too bad...
> For your collection of shiny things, I have something really useful: A
> magpie. You know, those birds like to collect shiny things. Like this very
> shiny ring that... Help! No, kitty, don't! Too bad, your cat ate the magpie...
> Well, one advantage - it shows that the magpie was of bad quality, which is
> a good thing, since you could not have afforded it otherwise - a full
> 100,000 frocloos - no way you ever get that much money. And the cat puts the
> ring around her front paw.
> I think it's risky to have bad quality stuff laying around, it would be
> better if they just broke directly. Therefore, in every rule where there is
> bad quality stuff that has not broken, tarnished or malfunctioned yet, at
> least one such thing should do so.

Validity: 168:5 introduced a low-quality spoon which was not destroyed
(nor was anything else) in 168:6.  INVALID.  (Watch out for previous
rules when you refer to "every rule", folks!)

Style: I like the idea of the restriction, as well as the monetary
limit.  You've apparently duplicated the door, though.  +0.75


Rule Date: 2001-09-12 01:15:38 GMT

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