what the unexpected consequence in 221:e was supposed to be

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