Judgement 180:3 VALID -1

From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Thu Mar 28 2002 - 12:11:05 PST


Ed Murphy wrote:

> Having encountered fyaphic words and splitsplotsplinksplonks, it is only
> natural that we should next run across [words containing the letter "z"]
> zwammerbunds, whose proposed descriptions [the bracketed ones] shall always
> precede them.
>
> The next rule shall re-interpret at least one fyaphic word.
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-03-28 08:05:31 GMT

VALID.  I wonder what it means for a non-fyaphic word to be required to have
its proposed description preceding it?

Copies the last rule too much for no good reason.  Is the location of brackets
that clever of a restriction? (-2)
But at least this rule forces the next one to actually do some
reinterpretation.  (+1) Still, two out of the three words will not do anything
exciting at all if reinterpreted.
Total: -1

P.S. If the next rule says that all puingwitters must have their brackets
located three words to the left of them or anything even remotely like that,
it shall recieve -3 style on the spot.  Do something else.

The Judge

--
Rule Date: 2002-03-28 20:10:44 GMT


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