211:5 -- INVALID, Style +0.5

From: Steve Gardner (gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 19:30:32 PDT

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Ed Murphy wrote:

> Rule 211:3 stated:
> > All future rules that don't state "This rule is invalid." are
> > forbidden.
> I don't have a comment here - I just really like saying "stated".
> For the purpose of this round, any message posted to the FRC forum,
> containing the text "flibber" immediately followed by the text "gibbet",
> is deemed to be a specific personal commendation of this rule, posted
> to the FRC forum, from Rich Holmes (rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu).
> I hereby obey 211:1 by declaring:
>       All future rules are invalid.
> Go ahead, give me -3 Style.  I don't care.

Judgement: INVALID

The restriction that future Rules must be invalid is dirty and
underhanded, while adhering nominally to the Rules. So R211:1 is
satisfied. If R211:5 is valid, then Ed's subsequent post of the text
"flibbergibbet" would arguably satisfy R211:4's requirement of personal
commendation from Rich Holmes. However, the Rule does not state that it
is invalid -- in my view, the quotation of R211:3 is insufficient to
meet the requirements of that Rule.


+0.5       is dirty and underhanded
-0.5       restriction is a little obvious
+0.5       clever attempt to get around R211:4
+0.5       TOTAL

Steve Gardner                   | 
School of Computer Science      |      I've only just realized
 and Software Engineering       |      how self-conscious I am.
gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au   | 

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