Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) VALID, +2.0

From: Richard S. Holmes (
Date: Wed Feb 04 2004 - 05:47:25 PST

david nicol <> writes:

> So I haven't played this game for like, a decade, and here I am in the
> thick of it.  The judge we've got this round appears to be taking his
> duties with less than the solemnity I naively remember.  In specific,
> he has made a big deal out of one of the players double-posting a play,
> and then later he referred to the second of the two identical postings
> as if they weren't identical.  So here's the deal: from here on in,
> anecdotes submitted for round 221, starting with this one, have to be
> posted twice.  The moral is, don't taunt the mentally ill: they have
> more free time than you.
> -- 
> david nicol
>                                          shift back the cost.

VALIDITY: The unexpected consequences are rather de-emphasized and,
unless I'm missing something, recycled from earlier rules, but they're
there and refer to a previous rule.  There's a moral.  No problems.

STYLE: Weak consequences, but (in combination with the next
submission) obeys its own interesting (though un-difficult)
restriction (as indeed it must, since the restriction explicitly is
imposed on rules beginning with this).  Good moral.  +2.0.

- Rich Holmes
  Parish, NY

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