Re: 196:4 Valid 1.5

From: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) (jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com)
Date: Mon Nov 11 2002 - 23:56:35 PST


On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Tieka wrote:

> Ah, remember the good old days when we could look back on the dirt and
> filth of previous rounds without the rose tinited sepcticals of
> nostalga. From now on Rules shall make reference to a previous round,
> such as the unforgettable round with the board, which sadly I cant
> remeber the number of... What is it again?
>
> Alan "Peekee" Riddell
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-11-10 13:13:07 GMT
> ------------
> Let's see here, we have nostaglia which is good for eulogies, but we
> seem to be lacking any way to improve FRC before it's untimley death.
> Nor does it follow the suggestion of deciphering the F'rcyeh Tablets. It
> is shorter than previous suggestions, so it has followed one of the
> suggestions. It does contain a much stronger restriction on future
> rules, so I won't be forced to interpet another suggestion. Since Alan
> has already publicly admitted his spelling problem I don't feel it
> necessary to further penalize him. I am very pleased with the reference
> to things nobody understands. Over all I give this rule +1.5
>
> Tieka,
> Wizard, Judge, and a lot more stuff
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-11-12 01:30:45 GMT

Please forgive me if I'm wrong here, as I'm still a relative newcomer to
FRC. Shouldn't 196:4 be declared invalid since it doesn't follow the
requirement of 196:1?

--
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)

--
Rule Date: 2002-11-12 08:03:15 GMT


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