From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: Tue Nov 25 2003 - 12:52:00 PST
On 2003.11.25 11:30 jcm3_at_cec.wustl.edu wrote: > 1+ Each sentence immediately preceded by a number and a minus sign is > considered to be a "modification," as specified in 219:1.1, of all > restrictions in all rules with the same number preceded by a plus sign. > 7+ A "modification" as specified in 219:2.1 *replaces* the modified rules. > 2+ At some point, the world will be consumed by nanobots. > 31+ I, Jae at jcm3_at_cec.wustl.edu, am not a nanobot. [R:Charlotte] > 2- When this round started there was just 1 nanobot, but the number > doubles (and has been doubling) every time the word nanobot is used in a > rule. > 11+ This restriction contains the word "nanobot." Note the exact wording at the end of 1+. 2- does not modify 2+. It would modify +2, if there were a +2. Note the exact wording at the end of 7+. If a 219:2.1 style modification modifies any part of a rule, then it replaces *that entire rule*. However, since 2- has no +2 to modify, it does not modify any part of 219:2 (and so it does not replace 219:2). 2- is still effective as an ordinary English sentence, and implies that there were 32 nanobots after 219:1 was posted, and 512 nanobots after 219:2 was posted. (The word "nanobots" does not trigger 2-.) VALID. +1.0 Follows theme +0.5 Builds on previous rule +0.5 Newbie bonus +0.1 Abandoning uniform-increasing restriction numbers +0.1 Abandoning strict-increasing restriction numbers -0.1 Glitch in 219:1.1 makes this rule's would-be modification less powerful +0.2 Glitch in 219:1.2 makes future modifications more powerful +2.3 Total
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST