Re: anecdote 221:d VALID, +2.5

From: Richard S. Holmes (
Date: Tue Feb 03 2004 - 11:24:28 PST writes:

> Um - I don't think Joshua expected to be docked 1.5 style pointes just for
> reposting the same rule.  Its not clear, but he might not have intended to
> post that rule twice.  The anecdote of Joshua's is a sad one.  But
> hopefully this rule will fare better, because I understand that for this
> rule to have an effect on the game it must be totally unambiguous:
> Future rules must point out an unexpected consequence involving at least
> one previous rule.
> I think the unexpected consequences of Joshua's double posting
> demonstrates a real moral for FRC: Inspired but literal judging can result
> in new interesting rules.
> Jae

Validity: Has an anecdote of unexpected consequences, and a moral as
required by the second 221:b (though not the first).

Style: On the good side, mines the game itself for its unexpected
consequences.  Obeys its own restriction.  Flatters the judge.  On the
minus side, the restriction may be too severe for this early in the
round.  (Or not, we'll see.)  +2.5.

- Rich Holmes
  Parish, NY

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