anecdote 221:d

Date: Wed Feb 04 2004 - 10:51:33 PST

I did not expect that, as a consequence of posting 221:d, it could overly
restrict future rules:

> 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.

So, to resolve this, I'd like to add that rule 221:d will have no effect
on the game if one and only one future rule should point out yet another
unexpected consequence of 221:d.


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