Re: Round 186

From: Anton Cox (A.G.Cox_at_city.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:21:50 PDT


On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Jesse Welton wrote:

> Yes, we work by FRC time, and that includes the time associated with
> when a player posts a rule.  Everywhere the ROs mention the time of a
> post, we associate that with the Rule Date.

What the judge posted was not a rule, and hence does not need to be
interpreted using the conventions adopted in the ROs. Surely that is
obvious!!! (sigh) There is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of
the judges post, so why the big fuss about it?

I only made my point because Richard was nitpicking over the judge's
post. (Pedantry deserves closer scrutiny than usual, in my book!)

I guess what I am saying is that when I feel that someone is being
unduly pedantic, and what they are pointing to can in fact be given a
reasonable interpretation, then I am all the more likely to jump in
and say so. Unless of course, I am the pedant in question...

This committee is most fun when academic pedantry is confined to the
action *within* a round.

Best Wishes,

Anton

--
Rule Date: 2002-06-13 15:22:30 GMT


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