From: David nicol (whatever_at_davidnicol.com)
Date: Wed Feb 04 2004 - 12:45:08 PST
Wow. The intention of the player posting 221:e was to redefine "posting" from "single posting" to "double posting" and 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 were together intended to be construed as a single, double-posted rule. That I went and did that was supposed to be an unexpected consequence of The Judge deciding to interpret the two postings of 221:b as separate submissions rather than one submission: he (unexpectedly) triggered a protesting-response against his literalist iron fist which would then mean More Work (the consequence.) It appears that His Honor Rich Holmes is persisting in seeing a strict one-to-one relationship between messages posted to the list and plays. I do not agree with this but I am a new player and not familiar with established custom. Anyway we don't appear to be completely solid with our division between game play and meta-play -- which is certainly no problem here, but is merely curious, and this posting attempts to clarify the situation, for certain definitions of "clarify." JAE's later posting titled "anecdote 221:d" seems to explicitly make the same point -- Having The Same Subject Line is no longer meaningful -- it is not clear to this player if that posting was intended as a play or not Here's a proposal: during round 221, ALL list traffic except that originating with His Honor and that with subject lines clearly identifying it as responses to posts from His Honor (that is, prefixing the subject of a Richard Holmes post with /Re: /) are to be construed as game play; only the ones deemed VALID will restrict play. The required moral, applicable to many situations, is, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Wow. The intention of the player posting 221:e was to redefine "posting" from "single posting" to "double posting" and 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 were together intended to be construed as a single, double-posted rule. That I went and did that was supposed to be an unexpected consequence of The Judge deciding to interpret the two postings of 221:b as separate submissions rather than one submission: he (unexpectedly) triggered a protesting-response against his literalist iron fist which would then mean More Work (the consequence.) It appears that His Honor Rich Holmes is persisting in seeing a strict one-to-one relationship between messages posted to the list and plays. I do not agree with this but I am a new player and not familiar with established custom. Anyway we don't appear to be completely solid with our division between game play and meta-play -- which is certainly no problem here, but is merely curious, and this posting attempts to clarify the situation, for certain definitions of "clarify." JAE's later posting titled "anecdote 221:d" seems to explicitly make the same point -- Having The Same Subject Line is no longer meaningful -- it is not clear to this player if that posting was intended as a play or not Here's a proposal: during round 221, ALL list traffic except that originating with His Honor and that with subject lines clearly identifying it as responses to posts from His Honor (that is, prefixing the subject of a Richard Holmes post with /Re: /) are to be construed as game play; only the ones deemed VALID will restrict play. The required moral, applicable to many situations, is, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. David Nicol invalid and careless since 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST