Re: 216:04 VALID +1.00

From: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) (
Date: Wed Oct 01 2003 - 09:01:55 PDT

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Richard S. Holmes wrote:

> "Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)" <> writes:
> > Style: Still building on the theme. Still not adding anything unique
> > as far as restrictions go. +1.00
> I would never presume to Judge the Judge's awarding of style points. But
> I can't resist commenting that, were I the judge, I would be charmed by
> the idea of having this be the only restriction in the round, with rules
> becoming more and more difficult not because of added restrictions but
> because of added difficulty in meeting the restriction.  Not that
> there's anything unusual about restrictions that become increasingly
> difficult to meet, nor would I want every round to evolve that way.  I
> just think this particular restriction alone could have produced an
> interestingly quirky, "Can you top this" round.

True, true. A "Can you top this" Round would certainly be an acceptable
Round. I was just hoping that more of the theme would be used in the
restrictions. We are of course locked into the "Can you top this" form of
a Round due to 216:05. However, there are now additional layers of
complexity layered on top of it. By discouraging people to repeat the
restriction in each Rule, it prevents a bigger problem that I see coming
up. It seems easy enough to top the previous Rule, but if you have to
simultaneously top ALL previous Rules, that may bring the Round to a
premature end.

I am heartened by the fact that the amount of activity in the Round
indicates I must be doing something right... :)

Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)

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