187:7 INVALID +2

From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Fri Jun 28 2002 - 07:42:40 PDT

• Next message: Jesse Welton: "187:7 INVALID +2"
• Previous message: Jesse Welton: "187:6 INVALID +1.5"
• In reply to: Richard S. Holmes: "187:7"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

187:7   Richard S. Holmes   2002-06-26 20:21:38 INVALID     +2
>
> I never would have figured Mark for a heroine addict.  Still, I
> declare; with age, I add and divide; with tea, I turn aside.  What am
> I?
>
> I have reason to believe this rule hides the answer to its own
> question, as future rules should.

Validity: This fails to answer the question of the preceding VALID
rule, 187:5.  INVALID.  (Now we see the weakness of direct dependence
of each rule on the preceding VALID rule.  One INVALID rule can lead
to an unfortunate cascade of such.  This is exacerbated by a slowpoke
Judge.  Another -1 style for Judge Jesse.)

Style: The riddle is good, and I very much like the restriction
because it would test the ingenuity of players to hide their answers
in plain sight.  +2

-Judge Jesse

--
Rule Date: 2002-06-28 14:43:04 GMT

• Next message: Jesse Welton: "187:7 INVALID +2"
• Previous message: Jesse Welton: "187:6 INVALID +1.5"
• In reply to: Richard S. Holmes: "187:7"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

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