Re: anecdote 221:e (2 of 2) INVALID, -1.0

From: Richard S. Holmes (
Date: Wed Feb 04 2004 - 10:19:14 PST

Karl Low <> writes:

> Oddly, I believe both rules must be invalid. The reason being is this line:
> > 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.
> At the time he posted 221 e(1 of 2), please tell me where, exactly, is the 
> second posting?
> My reasoning is that at the time of posting 1 of 2, the second posting 
> does not yet exist, hence posting 1 is invalid.

I don't buy this.

221:e (1 of 2) doesn't require all future anecdotes to have been
posted twice *at the time the one under judgement is posted* -- only
that they be posted twice *at some time in the round.*

I take the viewpoint that rules are valid or invalid, but their
validity may not always be determinable immediately.  At the time of
posting 221:e (1 of 2), it had not been posted twice, and at that
moment it could not have been judged valid; but it could not have been
judged invalid, either, until the end of the round, and then only if
it had not been posted again.  Of course, after 3 days, it would be
designated valid by default.  In actuality it *was* posted again, at
which point it could be judged valid.

> But if 1 is invalid, perhaps 2 can then be valid, as 2 would be starting 
> it, and there would be a second posting already in existance.
> However, by R.O. 6:
>      If a fantasy rule is
>      inconsistent with itself, previously posted valid fantasy rules, or
>      the regular ordinances, then the Judge shall declare that rule invalid
>      or unsuccesful, otherwise e shall declare it valid.
> 221 e(2 of 2) is inconsistent with itself and previously posted VALID 
> fantasy rules, since 1 of 2 is invalid, so does not count. Hence, 2 of 2 
> is also invalid.

I am not sure what you're arguing here: 221:e (2 of 2) is invalid
because it's identical to a previous invalid rule?  Surely not; their
contexts differ.  Analogously:

   Rule 1: This rule is even numbered.

   Rule 2: This rule is even numbered.

Rule 1 is invalid, rule 2 is not.  Likewise, 221:e (2 of 2) was posted
in a context in which an identical anecdote had already been posted;
221:e (1 of 2) was not.

Or are you arguing 221:e (2 of 2) is invalid because it fails to meet
its own restriction (the first posting being invalid)?  I disagree.
221:e does not require anecdotes to be *judged valid* twice -- only
that they be *posted* twice.  So even if we grant that 221:e (1 of 2)
is invalid, 221:e (2 of 2) can be valid since the anecdote has indeed
been posted twice.  (I might buy the argument if the word "rule" had
been used, since by tradition a posting is not a rule unless it is
valid, though this tradition is not upheld in the ROs.  But 221:e (1
of 2) certainly is an anecdote, whether it's a rule or not.)

So if 221:e (1 of 2) is invalid, I believe 221:e (2 of 2) is valid --
with nearly identical consequences, except for a slight change in the
duration of david's elegibility.  However, as stated, I believe your
argument for invalidating 221:e (1 of 2) is flawed.

- Rich Holmes
  Parish, NY

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