Re: Proposal 180:A

From: Tieka (cmhuston_at_mts.net)
Date: Tue Apr 02 2002 - 06:09:47 PST


on 4/1/02 9:27 PM, Karl Low at gurugreat_at_hotmail.com wrote:

> Having taken a much deeper look at my rule, I suddenly realized what was
> wrong..  I specified "fyaphics" when what I meant to specify was "rules
> containing fyaphics".  This kind of mistake (especially for an FRC member,
> where we're supposedly paying attention to the syntax) is.. well.. horrible.
>
> To that end, I hereby propose that 180:4b be declared INVALID, regardless of
> the Timeout rule.

Unfortunetly, I am forced to agree with the interpetation of the Judge and
with Karl. I vote FOR this proposal.

I must note that playing this game is a lot harder than watching. I shall
endeavor to be more precise in my rules and to look a good deal harder at
_all_ submitted rules. With any luck at all, I will be able to further
confuse the judge with another rule.

Tieka


--"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less
than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Bilbo Baggins

--
Rule Date: 2002-04-02 14:10:58 GMT


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