Re: 169:6 - INVALID +1.75

From: Gallivanting Tripper (
Date: Thu Sep 27 2001 - 02:25:23 PDT

Dear FRCers, and with a tip of the had to the new Judge (I had this happen
to me once, too....)

I disagree with the INVALID ruling but for different reasons to Anton.  I
would also interpret "missing a turn" to mean not being able to "roll the
dice" as required by claim 1, and that would mean that under certain
circumstances a player required to miss a turn could not post a valid rule.

However, this doesn't contradict the RO's at all.  Rules that specifically
exclude certain players from posting valid rules are not illegal, they are
merely rude and unstylish.  See, for example, some nasty rules in the
archived "limericks round" and, IIRC, the "win at any cost round".

Such rules do not affect a player's _eligibility_ per se, they just severely
hamper that player's chance of posting a rule that is consistent with the
previously posted valid rules!

In any case, this rule leaves the door open for such players to have
multiple turns later when the leader has taken more turns than them.

In light of the aforesaid, I beg of the Judge to reconsider the judgements
on 169:6 and 7, because 169;7 was only invalid becuase 169:6 was invalid, a
situation Aron probably couldn't have properly anticipated. (I can see an OT
thread coming on here)

Otherwise, I will be forced to file an overrule motion.



Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

Rule Date: 2001-09-27 09:25:44 GMT

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