Re: 196:5 Invalid +2.0

From: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) (jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com)
Date: Mon Nov 11 2002 - 23:58:39 PST


On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Tieka wrote:

> Remember the Hypocrisy round?  "Yes, Sincerity shall be our theme..."
>
> Each future eulogy shall say something nice about a previous eulogy.
>
> 196:4 would have been better if it hadn't duplicated 196:2's
> requirement.
>
>
> --
> Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com>        "I'm not sure I can go through
> http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/    with it.  Leave, I mean."
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-11-10 22:25:18 GMT
> -------------------
>
> We seem to be losing the eulogy theme but with each rule getting
> shorter, I suppose it is necessary for the theme to get smaller as well.
> In fact, I can't seem to find any hint of eulogy except for the word
> 'remember.' Because of this I must find this rule invalid but since it
> does follow _most_ of the suggestions I will give it +2.0.
>
> Tieka,
> who is looking for writing extolling the virtues and services of FRC.

Still new here, so same disclaimer as before...

Shouldn't this rule be valid? I believe it follows all of the requirements
set forth in all previous rules. The regular ordinances don't specify a
lack of following the theme as grounds for declaring a rule invalid.
Although I'm perhaps referencing an out of date copy of the regular
ordinances. Does the following URL have the current regular ordinances?

http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/frc/regular.txt

--
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)

--
Rule Date: 2002-11-12 08:05:17 GMT


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