From: Mary K. Kuhner (mkkuhner_at_eskimo.com)
Date: Tue Mar 26 2002 - 06:49:56 PST
rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu (Richard S. Holmes) writes: >So it would be possible, then, to >nullify any inconvenient restriction imposed by a previous rule. If >that's not contrary to the letter of the ROs, it's certainly contrary >to the spirit. Hence, if the ROs really permit rules like 179:2, then >the ROs probably ought to be fixed. I think rules like this may (in other rounds, not necessarily this one!) be considered the same way as blatantly round-ending rules such as "All future rules are invalid." They are legal, but so unstylish that people won't tend to do them unless they can find a clever and appealing excuse. (FRC as Mornington Crescent.) Fixing the ROs to stop this will probably complicate them inordinately. Storm (Mary K. Kuhner mkkuhner_at_eskimo.com) -- Rule Date: 2002-03-26 14:50:37 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST